VOLUME VI SLICE IV Cincinnatus to Cleruchy (continued 10)

Cleanthes produced very little that was original, though he wrote some fifty works, of which fragments have come down to us. The principal is the large portion of the Hymn to Zeus which has been preserved in Stobaeus. He regarded the sun as the abode of God, the intelligent providence, or (in accordance with Stoical materialism) the vivifying fire or aether of the universe. Virtue, he taught, is life according to nature; but pleasure is not according to nature. He originated a new theory as to the individual existence of the human soul; he held that the degree of its vitality after death depends upon the degree of its vitality in this life. The principal fragments of Cleanthes’s works are contained in Diogenes Laertius and Stobaeus; some may be found in Cicero and Seneca.

See G.C. Mohinke, Kleanthes der Stoiker (Greifswald, 1814); C. Wachsmuth, Commentationes de Zenone Citiensi et Cleanthe Assio (Göttingen, 1874-1875); A.C. Pearson, Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes (Camb., 1891); article by E. Wellmann in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie; R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften, ii. (1882), containing a vindication of the originality of Cleanthes; A.B. Krische, Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der alten Philosophie (1840); also works quoted under STOICS.

CLEARCHUS, the son of Rhamphias, a Spartan general and condottiere. Born about the middle of the 5th century B.C., Clearchus was sent with a fleet to the Hellespont in 411 and became governor (ἁρμοστής) of Byzantium, of which town he was proxenus. His severity, however, made him unpopular, and in his absence the gates were opened to the Athenian besieging army under Alcibiades (409). Subsequently appointed by the ephors to settle the political dissensions then rife at Byzantium and to protect the city and the neighbouring Greek colonies from Thracian attacks, he made himself tyrant of Byzantium, and, when declared an outlaw and driven thence by a Spartan force, he fled to Cyrus. In the “expedition of the ten thousand” undertaken by Cyrus to dethrone his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, Clearchus led the Peloponnesians, who formed the right wing of Cyrus’s army at the battle of Cunaxa (401). On Cyrus’s death Clearchus assumed the chief command and conducted the retreat, until, being treacherously seized with his fellow-generals by Tissaphernes, he was handed over to Artaxerxes and executed (Thuc. viii. 8. 39, 80; Xen. Hellenica, i. 3. 15-19; Anabasis, i. ii.; Diodorus xiv. 12. 19-26). In character he was a typical product of the Spartan educational system. He was a warrior to the finger-tips (πολεμικὸς καὶ φιλοπόλεμος ἐσχάτως. Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 1), and his tireless energy, unfaltering courage and strategic ability made him an officer of no mean order. But he seems to have had no redeeming touch of refinement or humanity.

CLEARFIELD, a borough and the county-seat of Clearfield county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the W. branch of the Susquehanna river, in the W. central part of the state. Pop. (1890) 2248; (1900) 5081 (310 foreign-born); (1910) 6851. It is served by the New York Central & Hudson River, the Pennsylvania, and the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg railways. The borough is about 1105 ft. above sea-level, in a rather limited space between the hills, which command picturesque views of the narrow valley. The river runs through the borough. Coal and fireclay abound in the vicinity, and these, with leather, iron, timber and the products of the fertile soil, are the bases of its leading industries. Before the arrival of the whites the place had been cleared of timber (whence its name), and in 1805 it was chosen as a site for the county-seat of the newly erected county and laid out as a town; in 1840 it was incorporated as a borough.

CLEARING-HOUSE, the general term for a central institution employed in connexion with large and interrelated businesses for the purpose of facilitating the settlement of accounts.

Banking.—The London Clearing-House was established between 1750 and 1770 as a place where the clerks of the bankers of the city of London could assemble daily to exchange with one another the cheques drawn upon and bills payable at their respective houses. Before the clearing-house existed, each banker had to send a clerk to the places of business of all the other bankers in London to collect the sums payable by them in respect of cheques and bills; and it is obvious that much time was consumed by this process, which involved the use of an unnecessary quantity of money and corresponding risks of safe carriage. In 1775 a room in Change Alley was settled upon as a common centre of exchange; this was afterwards removed to Post Office Court, Lombard Street. This clearing centre was at first confined to the bankers—at that time and long afterwards exclusively private bankers—doing business within the city, and the bankers in the west end of the metropolis used some one or other of the city banks as their agent in clearing. When the joint-stock banks were first established, the jealousy of the existing banks was powerful enough to exclude them altogether from the use of the Clearing-House; and it was not until 1854 that this feeling was removed so as to allow them to be admitted.

At first the Clearing-House was simply a place of meeting, but it came to be perceived that the sorting and distribution of cheques, bills, &c, could be more expeditiously conducted by the appointment of two or three common clerks to whom each banker’s clerk could give all the instruments of exchange he wished to collect, and from whom he could receive all those payable at his own house. The payment of the balance settled the transaction, but the arrangements were afterwards so perfected that the balance is now settled by means of transfers made at the Bank of England between the Clearing-House account and those of the various banks, the Clearing-House, as well as each banker using it, having an account at the Bank of England. The use of the Clearing-House was still further extended in 1858, so as to include the settlement of exchanges between the country bankers of England. Before that time each country banker receiving cheques on other country bankers sent them to those other bankers by post (supposing they were not carrying on business in the same place), and requested that the amount should be paid by the London agent of the banker on whom the cheques were drawn to the London agent of the banker remitting them. Cheques were thus collected by correspondence, and each remittance involved a separate payment in London. Since 1858, accordingly, a country banker sends cheques on other country banks to his London correspondent, who exchanges them at the Clearing-House with the correspondents of the bankers on whom they are drawn.

The Clearing-House consists of one long room, lighted from the roof. Around the walls and down the centre are placed desks, allotted to the various banks, according to the amount of their business. The desks are arranged alphabetically, so that the clerks may lose no time in passing round the room and delivering their “charges” or batches of cheques to the representatives of the various banks. There are three clearings in London each day. The first is at 10.30 A.M., the second at noon, and the third at 2.30 P.M. It is the busiest of all, and continues until five minutes past four, when the last delivery must be made. The three clearings were, in 1907, divided into town, metropolitan and country clearings, each with a definite area. All the clearing banks have their cheques marked with the letters “T,” “M” and “C,” according to the district in which the issuing bank is situated. Every cheque issued by the clearing banks, even though drawn in the head office of a bank, goes through the Clearing-House.

The amount of business transacted at the Clearing-House varies very much with the seasons of the year, the busiest time being when dividends are paid and stock exchange settlements are made, but the volume of transactions averages roughly from 200 to 300 millions sterling a week, and the yearly clearances amount to something like £12,000,000,000. There are provincial clearing-houses at Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Leeds, Sheffield, Leicester and Bristol. There are also clearing-houses in most of the large towns of Scotland and Ireland. In New York and the other large cities of the United States there are clearing-houses providing accommodation for the various banking institutions (see Banks and Banking).

The progress of banking on the continent of Europe has been slow in comparison with that of the United Kingdom, and the use of cheques is not so general, consequently the need for clearing-houses is not so great. In France, too, the greater proportion of the banking business is carried on through three banks only, the Banque de France, the Société Générale and the Crédit Lyonnais, and a great part of their transactions are settled at their own head offices. But at the same time large sums pass through the Paris Chambre de Compensation (the clearing-house), established in 1872.

There are clearing-houses also in Berlin, Hamburg and many other European cities.

Railways.—The British Railway Clearing-House was established in 1842, its purpose, as defined by the Railway Clearing-House Act of 1850, being “to settle and adjust the receipts arising from railway traffic within, or partly within, the United Kingdom, and passing over more than one railway within the United Kingdom, booked or invoiced at throughout rates or fares.” It is an independent body, governed by a committee which is composed of delegates (usually the chairman or one of the directors) from each of the railways that belong to it. Any railway company may be admitted a party to the clearing-system with the assent of the committee, may cease to be a member at a month’s notice, and may be expelled if such expulsion be voted for by two-thirds of the delegates present at a specially convened meeting. The cost of maintaining it is defrayed by contributions from the companies proportional to the volume of business passed through it by each. It has two main functions. (1) When passengers or goods are booked through between stations belonging to different railway companies at an inclusive charge for the whole journey, it distributes the money received in due proportions between the companies concerned in rendering the service. To this end it receives, in the case of passenger traffic, a monthly return of the tickets issued at each station to stations on other lines, and, in the case of goods traffic, it is supplied by both the sending and receiving stations (when these are on different companies’ systems) with abstracts showing the character, weight, &c., of the goods that have travelled between them. By the aid of these particulars it allocates the proper share of the receipts to each company, having due regard to the distance over which the traffic has been carried on each line, to the terminal services rendered by each company, to any incidental expenses to which it may have been put, and to the existence of any special agreements for the division of traffic. (2) To avoid the inconvenience of a change of train at points where the lines of different companies meet, passengers are often, and goods and minerals generally, carried in through vehicles from their starting-point to their destination. In consequence, vehicles belonging to one company are constantly forming part of trains that belong to, and run over the lines of, other companies, which thus have the temporary use of rolling stock that does not belong to them. By the aid of a large staff of “number takers” who are stationed at junctions all over the country, and whose business is to record particulars of the vehicles which pass through those junctions, the Clearing-House follows the movements of vehicles which have left their owners’ line, ascertains how far they have run on the lines of other companies, and debits each of the latter with the amount it has to pay for their use. This charge is known as “mileage”; another charge which is also determined by the Clearing-House is “demurrage,” that is, the amount exacted from the detaining company if a vehicle is not returned to its owners within a prescribed time. By the exercise of these functions the Clearing-House accumulates a long series of credits to, and debits against, each company; these are periodically added up and set against each other, with the result that the accounts between it and the companies are finally settled by the transfer of comparatively small balances. It also distributes the money paid by the post-office to the railways on account of the conveyance of parcel-post traffic, and through its lost luggage department many thousands of articles left in railway carriages are every year returned to their owners. Its situation in London further renders it a convenient meeting-place for several “Clearing-House Conferences” of railway officials, as of the general managers, the goods managers, and the superintendents of the line, held four times a year for the consideration of questions in which all the companies are interested. The Irish Railway Clearing-House, established in 1848, has its headquarters in Dublin, and was incorporated by act of parliament in 1860.

General.—The principle of clearing adopted by banks and railways has been applied with considerable success in other businesses.

In 1874 the London Stock Exchange Clearing-House was established for the purpose of settling transactions in stock, the clearing being effected by balance-sheets and tickets; the balance of stock to be received or delivered is shown on a balance-sheet sent in by each member, and the items are then cancelled against one another and tickets issued for the balances outstanding. The New York Stock Exchange Clearing-House was established in 1892. The settlements on the Paris Bourse are cleared within the Bourse itself, through the Compagnie des Agents de Change de Paris.

In 1888 a society was formed in London called the Beetroot Sugar Association for clearing bargains in beetroot sugar. For every 500 bags of sugar of a definite weight which a broker sells, he issues a filière (a form something like a dock-warrant), giving particulars as to the ship, the warehouse, trade-marks, &c. The filière contains also a series of transfer forms which are filled up and signed by each successive holder, so transferring the property to a new purchaser. The new purchaser also fills up a coupon attached to the transfer, quoting the date and hour of sale. This coupon is detached by the seller and retained by him as evidence to determine any liability through subsequent delay in the delivery of the sugar. Any purchaser requiring delivery of the sugar forwards the filière to the clearing-house, and the officials then send on his name to the first seller who tenders him the warrant direct. These filières pass from hand to hand within a limit of six days, a stamp being affixed on each transfer as a clearing-house fee. The difference between each of the successive transactions is adjusted by the clearing-house to the profit or loss of the seller.

The London Produce Clearing-House was established in 1888 for regulating and adjusting bargains in foreign and colonial produce. The object of the association is to guarantee both to the buyer and the seller the fulfilment of bargains for future delivery. The transactions on either side are allowed to accumulate during a month and an adjustment made at the end by a settlement of the final balance owing. On the same lines are the Caisse de Liquidation at Havre and the Waaren Liquidations Casse at Hamburg. The Cotton Association also has a clearing-house at Liverpool for clearing the transactions which arise from dealings in cotton.

Authorities.—W. Howarth, Our Clearing System and Clearing Houses (1897), The Banks in the Clearing House (1905); J.G. Cannon, Clearing-houses, their History, Methods and Administration (1901); H.T. Easton, Money, Exchange and Banking (1905); and the various volumes of the Journal of the Institute of Bankers.

(T. A. I.)

CLEAT (a word common in various forms to many Teutonic languages, in the sense of a wedge or lump, cf. “clod” and “clot”), a wedge-shaped piece of wood fastened to ships’ masts and elsewhere to prevent a rope, collar or the like from slipping, or to act as a step; more particularly a piece of wood or metal with double or single horns used for belaying ropes. A “cleat” is also a wedge fastened to a ship’s side to catch the shores in a launching cradle or dry dock. “Cleat” is also used in mining for the vertical cleavage-planes of coal.

CLEATOR MOOR, an urban district in the Egremont parliamentary division of Cumberland, England, 4 m. S.E. of White-haven, served by the Furness, London & North-Western and Cleator & Workington Junction railways. Pop. (1901) 8120. The town lies between the valleys of the Ehen and its tributary the Dub Beck, in a district rich in coal and iron ore. The mining of these, together with blast furnaces and engineering works, occupies the large industrial population.

CLEAVERS, or Goose-grass, Galium Aparine (natural order Rubiaceae), a common plant in hedges and waste places, with a long, weak, straggling, four-sided, green stem, bearing whorls of 6 to 8 narrow leaves, ½ to 2 in. long, and, like the angles of the stem, rough from the presence of short, stiff, downwardly-pointing, hooked hairs. The small, white, regular flowers are borne, a few together, in axillary clusters, and are followed by the large, hispid, two-celled fruit, which, like the rest of the plant, readily clings to a rough surface, whence the common name. The plant has a wide distribution throughout the north temperate zone, and is also found in temperate South America.

CLEBURNE, a town and the county-seat of Johnson county, Texas, U.S.A., 25 m. S. of Fort Worth. Pop. (1890) 3278; (1900) 7493, including 611 negroes; (1910) 10,364. It is served by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, and the Trinity & Brazos Valley railways. It is the centre of a prosperous farming, fruit and stock-raising region, has large railway repair shops, flour-mills, cotton gins and foundries, a canning factory and machine shops. It has a Carnegie library, and St Joseph’s Academy (Roman Catholic; for girls). The town was named in honour of Patrick Ronayne Cleburne (1828-1864), a major-general of the Confederate army, who was of Irish birth, practised law in Helena, Arkansas, served at Shiloh, Perryville, Stone River, Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, Ring-gold Gap, Jonesboro and Franklin, and was killed in the last-named battle; he was called the “Stonewall of the West.”

CLECKHEATON, an urban district in the Spen Valley parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 5½ m. S. by E. of Bradford, on the Lancashire & Yorkshire, Great Northern and London & North-Western railways. Pop. (1901) 12,524. A chamber of commerce has held meetings here since 1878. The industries comprise the manufacture of woollens, blankets, flannel, wire-card and machinery.

CLEETHORPES, a watering-place of Lincolnshire, England; within the parliamentary borough of Great Grimsby, 3 m. S.E. of that town by a branch of the Great Central railway. Pop. of urban district of Cleethorpe with Thrunscoe (1901) 12,578. Cleethorpes faces eastward to the North Sea, but its shore of fine sand, affording good bathing, actually belongs to the estuary of the Humber. There is a pier, and the sea-wall extends for about a mile, forming a pleasant promenade. The suburb of New Clee connects Cleethorpes with Grimsby. The church of the Holy Trinity and St Mary is principally Norman of various dates, but work of a date apparently previous to the Conquest appears in the tower. Cleethorpes is greatly favoured by visitors from the midland counties, Lancashire and Yorkshire.

CLEFT PALATE and HARE-LIP, in surgery. Cleft Palate is a congenital cleavage, or incomplete development in the roof of the mouth, and is frequently associated with hare-lip. The infant is prevented from sucking, and an operation is necessary. Cleft-palate is often a hereditary defect. The most favourable time for operating is between the age of two weeks and three months, and if the cleft is closed at this early date, not only are the nutrition and general development of the child greatly improved, but the voice is probably saved from much of the unpleasant tone which is usually associated with a defective roof to the mouth and is apt to persist even if a cleft has been successfully operated on later in childhood. The greatest advance which has been made in the operative treatment of cleft palate is due to the teaching of Dr Truman W. Brophy, who adopted the ingenious plan of thrusting together to the middle line of the mouth the halves of the palate which nature had unfortunately left apart. But, as noted above, this operation must, to give the best results, be undertaken in the earliest months of infancy. After the cleft in the palate has been effectually dealt with, the hare-lip can be repaired with ease and success.

Hare-lip.—In the hare the splitting of the lip is in the middle line, but in the human subject it is on one side, or on both sides of the middle line. This is accounted for on developmental grounds: a cleft in the exact middle line is of extremely rare occurrence. Hare-lip is often associated with cleft palate. Though we are at present unable to explain why development should so frequently miss the mark in connexion with the formation of the lip and palate, it is unlikely that maternal impressions have anything to do with it. As a rule, the supposed “fright” comes long after the lips are developed. They are completely formed by the ninth week. Heredity has a powerful influence in many cases. The best time for operating on a hare-lip depends upon various circumstances. Thus, if it is associated with cleft palate, the palatine cleft has first to be closed, in which case the child will probably be several months old before the lip is operated on. If the infant is in so poor a state of nutrition that it appears unsuitable for surgical treatment, the operation must be postponed until his condition is sufficiently improved. But, assuming that the infant is in fair health, that he is taking his food well and thriving on it, that he is not troubled by vomiting or diarrhoea, and that the hare-lip is not associated with a defective palate, the sooner it is operated on the better. It may be successfully done even within a few hours of birth. When a hare-lip is unassociated with cleft palate, the infant may possibly be enabled to take the breast within a short time of the gap being closed. In such a case the operation may be advisably undertaken within the first few days of birth. The case being suitable, the operation may be conveniently undertaken at any time after the tenth day.

(E. O.*)

CLEISTHENES, the name of two Greek statesmen, (1) of Athens, (2) of Sicyon, of whom the first is far the more important.

1. Cleisthenes, the Athenian statesman, was the son of Megacles and Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes of Sicyon. He thus belonged, through his father, to the noble family of the Alcmaeonidae (q.v.), who bore upon them the curse of the Cylonian massacre, and had been in exile during the rule of the Peisistratids. In the hope of washing out the stigma, which damaged their prestige, they spent the latter part of their exile in carrying out with great splendour the contract given out by the Amphictyons for the rebuilding of the temple at Delphi (destroyed by fire in 548 B.C.). By building the pronaos of Parian marble instead of limestone as specified in the contract, they acquired a high reputation for piety; the curse was consigned to oblivion, and their reinstatement was imposed by the oracle itself upon the Spartan king, Cleomenes (q.v.). Cleisthenes, to whom this far-seeing atonement must probably be attributed, had also on his side (1) the malcontents in Athens who were disgusted with the growing severity of Hippias, and (2) the oligarchs of Sparta, partly on religious grounds, and partly owing to their hatred of tyranny. Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens, however, treats the alliance of the Peisistratids with Argos, the rival of Sparta in the Peloponnese, as the chief ground for the action of Sparta (c. 19). In c. 513 B.C. Cleisthenes invaded Attica, but was defeated by the tyrant’s mercenaries at Leipsydrium (S. of Mt. Parnes). Sparta then, in tardy obedience to the oracle, threw off her alliance with the Peisistratids, and, after one failure, expelled Hippias in 511-510 B.C., leaving Athens once again at the mercy of the powerful families.

Cleisthenes, on his return, was in a difficulty; he realized that Athens would not tolerate a new tyranny, nor were the other nobles willing to accept him as leader of a constitutional oligarchy. It was left for him to “take Home and foreign policy. the people into partnership” as Peisistratus had in a different way done before him. Solon’s reforms had failed, primarily because they left unimpaired the power of the great landed nobles, who, in their several districts, doubled the rôles of landlord, priest and patriarch. This evil of local influence Peisistratus had concealed by satisfying the nominally sovereign people that in him they had a sufficient representative. It was left to Cleisthenes to adopt the remaining remedy of giving substance to the form of the Solonian constitution. His first attempts roused the aristocrats to a last effort; Isagoras appealed to the Spartans (who, though they disliked tyranny, had no love for democracy) to come to his aid. Cleisthenes retired on the arrival of a herald from Cleomenes, reviving the old question of the curse; Isagoras thus became all-powerful1 and expelled seven hundred families. The democrats, however, rose, and after besieging Cleomenes and Isagoras in the Acropolis, let them go under a safe-conduct, and brought back the exiles.

Apart from the reforms which Cleisthenes was now able to establish, the period of his ascendancy is a blank, nor are we told when and how it came to an end. It is clear, however—and it is impossible in connexion with the Pan-hellenic patriotism to which Athens laid claim, to overrate the importance of the fact—that Cleisthenes, hard pressed in the war with Boeotia, Euboea and Sparta (Herod, v. 73 and foll.), sent ambassadors to ask the help of Persia. The story, as told by Herodotus, that the ambassadors of their own accord agreed to give “earth and water” (i.e. submission) in return for Persian assistance, and that the Ecclesia subsequently disavowed their action as unauthorized, is scarcely credible. Cleisthenes (1) was in full control and must have instructed the ambassadors; (2) he knew that any help from Persia meant submission. It is practically certain, therefore, that he (cf. the Alcmaeonids and the story of the shield at Marathon) was the first to “medize” (see Curtius, History of Greece). Probably he had hoped to persuade the Ecclesia that the agreement was a mere form. Aelian says that he himself was a victim to his own device of ostracism (q.v.); this, though apparently inconsistent with the Constitution of Athens (c. 22), may perhaps indicate that his political career ended in disgrace, a hypothesis which is explicable on the ground of this act of treachery in respect of the attempted Persian alliance. Whether to Cleisthenes are due the final success over Boeotia and Euboea, the planting of the 4000 cleruchs on the Lelantine Plain, and the policy of the Aeginetan War (see Aegina), in which Athens borrowed ships from Corinth, it is impossible to determine. The eclipse of Cleisthenes in all records is one of the most curious facts in Greek history. It is also curious that we do not know in what official capacity Cleisthenes carried his reforms. Perhaps he was given extraordinary ad hoc powers for a specified time; conceivably he used the ordinary mechanism. It seems clear that he had fully considered his scheme in advance, that he broached it before the last attack of Isagoras, and that it was only after the final expulsion of Isagoras and his Spartan allies that it became possible for him to put it into execution.

Cleisthenes aimed at being the leader of a self-governing people; in other words he aimed at making the democracy actual. He realized that the dead-weight which held the democracy down was the influence on politics Analysis of his reforms of the local religious unit. Therefore his prime object was to dissociate the clans and the phratries from politics, and to give the democracy a totally new electoral basis in which old associations and vested interests would be split up and become ineffective. It was necessary that no man should govern a pocket-constituency merely by virtue of his religious, financial or ancestral prestige, and that there should be created a new local unit with administrative powers of a democratic character which would galvanize the lethargic voters into a new sense of responsibility and independence. His first step was to abolish the four Solonian tribes and create ten new ones.2 Each of the new tribes was subdivided into “demes’” The ten tribes (roughly “townships”); this organization did not, except politically, supersede the system of clans and phratries whose old religious signification remained untouched. The new tribes, however, though geographically arranged, did not represent local interests. Further, the tribe names were taken from legendary heroes (Cecropis, Pandionis, Aegeis recalled the storied kings of Attica), and, therefore, contributed to the idea of a national unity; even Ajax, the eponym of the tribe Aeantis, though not Attic, was famous as an ally (Herod, v. 66) and ranked as a national hero. Each tribe had its shrine and its particular hero-cult, which, however, was free from local association and the dominance of particular families. This national idea Cleisthenes further emphasized by setting up in the market-place at Athens a statue of each tribal hero.

The next step was the organization of the deme. Within each tribe he grouped ten demes (see below), each of which had (1) its hero and its chapel, and (2) its census-list kept by the demarch. The demarch (local governor), who Demes. was elected popularly and held office for one year, presided over meetings affecting local administration and the provision of crews for the state-navy, and was probably under a system of scrutiny like the dokimasia of the state-magistrates. According to the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens, Cleisthenes further divided Attica into three districts, Urban and Suburban, Inland (Mesogaios), and Maritime (Paralia), each of which was subdivided into ten trittyes; each tribe had three trittyes in each of these districts. The problem of establishing this decimal system in connexion with the demes and trittyes is insoluble. Herodotus says that there were ten3 demes to each tribe (δέκα εἰς τὰς φυλάς); but each tribe was composed of three trittyes, one in each of the three districts. Since the deme was, as will be seen, the electoral unit, it is clear that in tribal voting the object of ending the old threefold schism of the Plain, the Hill and the Shore was attained, but the relation of deme and trittys is obviously of an unsymmetrical kind. The Constitution of Athens says nothing of the ten-deme-to-each-tribe arrangement, and there is no sufficient reason for supposing that the demes originally were exactly a hundred in number. We know the names of 168 demes, and Polemon (3rd century B.C.) enumerated 173. It has been suggested that the demes did originally number exactly a hundred, and that new demes were added as the population increased. This theory, however, presupposes that the demes were originally equal in numbers. In the 5th and 4th centuries this was certainly not the case; the number of demesmen in some cases was only one hundred or two hundred, whereas the deme Acharnae is referred to as a “great part” of the whole state, and is known to have furnished three thousand hoplites. The theory is fundamentally at fault, inasmuch as it regards the deme as consisting of all those resident within its borders. In point of fact membership was hereditary, not residential; Demosthenes “of the Paeanian deme” might live where he would without severing his deme connexion. Thus the increase of population could be no reason for creating new demes. This distinction in a deme between demesmen and residents belonging to another deme (the ἐγκεκτημένοι), who paid a deme-tax for their privilege, is an important one. It should further be noted that the demes belonging to a particular tribe do not, as a fact, appear always in three separate groups; the tribe Aeantis consisted of Phalerum and eleven demes in the district of Marathon; other tribes had demes in five or six groups. It must, therefore, be admitted that the problem is insoluble for want of data. Nor are we better equipped to settle the relation between the Cleisthenean division into Urban, Maritime and Inland, and the old divisions of the Plain, the Shore and the Upland or Hill. The “Maritime” of Cleisthenes and the old “Shore” are certainly not coincident, nor is the “Inland” identical with the “Upland.”

Lastly, it has been asked whether we are to believe that Cleisthenes invented the demes. To this the answer is in the negative. The demes were undoubtedly primitive divisions of Attica; Herodotus (ix. 73) speaks of the Dioscuri as ravaging the demes of Decelea (see R.W. Macan ad loc.) and we hear of opposition between the city and the demes. The most logical conclusion perhaps is that Cleisthenes, while he did create the demes which Athens itself comprised, did not create the country demes, but merely gave them definition as political divisions. Thus the city itself had six demes in five different tribes, and the other five tribes were represented in the suburbs and the Peiraeus. It is clear that in the Cleisthenean system there was one great source of danger, namely that the residents in and about Athens must always have had more weight in elections than those in distant demes. There can be little doubt that the preponderating influence of the city was responsible for the unwisdom of the later imperial policy and the Peloponnesian war.

A second problem is the franchise reform of Cleisthenes. Aristotle in the Politics (iii. 2. 3 = 1275 b) says that Cleisthenes created new citizens by enrolling in the tribes “many resident aliens and emancipated slaves.”4 But the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens asserts that he gave “citizenship to the masses.” These two statements are not compatible. It is The diapsephismus. perfectly clear that Cleisthenes is to be regarded as a democrat, and it would have been no bribe to the people merely to confer a boon on aliens and slaves. Moreover, a revision of the citizen-roll (diapsephismus) had recently taken place (after the end of the tyranny) and a great many citizens had been struck off the roll as being of impure descent ( οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί). This class had existed from the time of Solon, and, through fear of political extinction by the oligarchs, had been favourable to Peisistratus. Cleisthenes may have enfranchised aliens and slaves, but it seems certain that he must have dealt with these free Athenians who had lost their rights. Now Isagoras presumably did not carry out this revision of the roll (diapsephismus); as “the friend of the tyrants” (so Ath. Pol. 20; by Meyer, Busolt and others contest this) he would not have struck a blow at a class which favoured his own views. A reasonable hypothesis is that Cleisthenes was the originator of the measure of expulsion, and that he now changed his policy, and strengthened his hold on the democracy by reinstating the disfranchised in much larger numbers. The new citizens, whoever they were, must, of course, have been enrolled also in the (hitherto exclusive) phratry lists and the deme-rolls.

The Boulē (q.v.) was reorganized to suit the new tribal arrangement, and was known henceforward as the Council of the Five Hundred, fifty from each tribe. Its exact constitution is unknown, but it was certainly more democratic The council and boards of ten. than the Solonian Four Hundred. Further, the system of ten tribes led in course of time to the construction of boards of ten to deal with military and civil affairs, e.g. the Strategi (see Strategus), the Apodectae, and others. Of these the former cannot be attributed to Cleisthenes, but on the evidence of Androtion it is certain that it was Cleisthenes who replaced the Colacretae5 by the Apodectae (“receivers”), who were controllers and auditors of the finance department, and, before the council in the council-chamber, received the revenues. The Colacretae, who had done this work before, remained in authority over the internal expenses of the Prytaneum. A further change which followed from the new tribal system was the reconstitution of the army; this, however, probably took place about 501 B.C., and cannot be attributed directly to Cleisthenes. It has been said that the deme became the local political unit, replacing the naucrary (q.v.). But the naucraries still supplied the fleet, and were increased in number from forty-eight to fifty; if each naucrary still supplied a ship and two mounted soldiers as before, it is interesting to learn that, only seventy years before the Peloponnesian War, Athens had but fifty ships and a hundred horse.6

The device of ostracism is the final stone in the Cleisthenean structure. An admirable scheme in theory, and, at first, in practice, it deteriorated in the 5th century into a mere party weapon, and in the case of Hyperbolus (417) became an absurdity.

In conclusion it should be noticed that Cleisthenes was the founder of the Athens which we know. To him was due the spirit of nationality, the principle of liberty duly apportioned and controlled by centralized and decentralized Summary. administration, which prepared the ground for the rich developments of the Golden Age with its triumphs of art and literature, politics and philosophy. It was Cleisthenes who organized the structure which, for a long time, bore the heavy burden of the Empire against impossible odds, the structure which the very different genius of Pericles was able to beautify. He was the first to appreciate the unique power in politics, literature and society of an organized public opinion.

Authorities.—Ancient: Aristotle, Constitution of Athens (ed. J.E. Sandys), cc. 20-22, 41; Herodotus v, 63-73, vi. 131; Aristotle, Politics, iii. 2, 3 (= 1275 b, for franchise reforms). Modern: Histories of Greece in general, especially those of Grote and Curtius (which, of course, lack the information contained in the Constitution of Athens), and J.B. Bury. See also E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums (vol. ii.); G. Busolt, Griech. Gesch. (2nd ed., 1893 foll.); Milchhöfer, “Über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes” in appendix to Abhandlung d. Berl. Akad. (1892); R. Loeper in Athen. Mitteil. (1892), pp. 319-433; A.H.J. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (1896); Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities (Eng. trans., 1895); R.W. Macan, Herodotus iv.-vi., vol. ii. (1895), pp. 127-148; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Arist. und Athen. See also Bollē; Ecclesia; Ostracism; Naucrary; Solon.

2. Cleisthenes of Sicyon (c. 600-570), grandfather of the above, became tyrant of Sicyon as the representative of the conquered Ionian section of the inhabitants. He emphasized the destruction of Dorian predominance by giving ridiculous epithets to their tribal units, which from Hylleis, Dymanes and Pamphyli become Hyatae (“Swine-men”), Choireatae (“Pig-men”) and Oneatae (“Ass-men”). He also attacked Dorian Argos, and suppressed the Homeric “rhapsodists” who sang the exploits of Dorian heroes. He championed the cause of the Delphic oracle against the town of Crisa (Cirrha) in the Sacred War (c. 590). Crisa was destroyed, and Delphi became one of the meeting-places of the old amphictyony of Anthela, henceforward often called the Delphic amphictyony. The Pythian games, largely on the initiative of Cleisthenes, were re-established with new magnificence, and Cleisthenes won the first chariot race in 582. He founded Pythian games at Sicyon, and possibly built a new Sicyonian treasury at Delphi. His power was so great that when he offered his daughter Agariste in marriage, some of the most prominent Greeks sought the honour, which fell upon Megacles, the Alcmaeonid. The story of the rival wooers with the famous retort, “Hippocleides don’t care,” is told in Herod. vi. 125; see also Herod, v. 67 and Thuc. i. 18.

Cleisthenes is also the name of an Athenian, pilloried by Aristophanes (Clouds, 354; Thesm. 574) as a fop and a profligate.

(J. M. M.)

CLEITARCHUS, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, son of Deinon, also an historian, was possibly a native of Egypt, or at least spent a considerable time at the court of Ptolemy Lagus. Quintilian (Instit. x. i. 74) credits him with more ability than trustworthiness, and Cicero (Brutus, 11) accuses him of giving a fictitious account of the death of Themistocles. But there is no doubt that his history was very popular, and much used by Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Justin and Plutarch, and the authors of the Alexander romances. His unnatural and exaggerated style became proverbial.

The fragments, some thirty in number, chiefly preserved in Aelian and Strabo, will be found in C. Müller’s Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni (in the Didot Arrian, 1846); monographs by C. Raun, De Clitarcho Diodori, Curtii, Justini auctore (1868), and F. Reuss, “Hellenistische Beiträge” in Rhein. Mus. lxiii. (1908), pp. 58-78.

CLEITHRAL (Gr. κλεῖθρον, an enclosed or shut-up place), an architectural term applied to a covered Greek temple, in contradistinction to hypaethral, which designates one that is uncovered; the roof of a cleithral temple completely covers it.

CLEITOR, or Clitor, a town of ancient Greece, in that part of Arcadia which corresponds to the modern eparchy of Kalavryta in the nomos of Elis and Achaea. It stood in a fertile plain to the south of Mt Chelmos, the highest peak of the Aroanian Mountains, and not far from a stream of its own name, which joined the Aroanius, or Katzana. In the neighbourhood was a fountain, the waters of which were said to deprive those who drank them of the taste for wine. The town was a place of considerable importance in Arcadia, and its inhabitants were noted for their love of liberty. It extended its territory over several neighbouring towns, and in the Theban war fought against Orchomenus. It joined the other Arcadian cities in the foundation of Megalopolis. As a member of the Achaean league it was besieged by the Aetolians in 220 B.C., and was on several occasions the seat of the federal assemblies. It coined money up to the time of Septimius Severus. The ruins, which bear the common name of Paleopoli, or Old City, are still to be seen about 3 m. from a village that preserves the ancient designation. The greater part of the walls which enclose an area of about a mile and several of the semi-circular towers with which they were strengthened can be clearly made out; and there are also remains of three Doric temples and a small theatre.

CLELAND, WILLIAM (1661?-1689), Scottish poet and soldier, son of Thomas Cleland, gamekeeper to the marquis of Douglas, was born about 1661. He was probably brought up on the marquess of Douglas’s estate in Lanarkshire, and was educated at St Andrews University. Immediately on leaving college he joined the army of the Covenanters, and was present at Drumclog, where, says Robert Wodrow, some attributed to Cleland the manœuvre which led to the victory. He also fought at Bothwell Bridge. He and his brother James were described in a royal proclamation of the 16th of June 1679 among the leaders of the insurgents. He escaped to Holland, but in 1685 was again in Scotland in connexion with the abortive invasion of the earl of Argyll. He escaped once more, to return in 1688 as agent for William of Orange. He was appointed lieutenant-colonel of the Cameronian regiment raised from the minority of the western Covenanters who consented to serve under William III. The Cameronians were entrusted with the defence of Dunkeld, which they held against the fierce assault of the Highlanders on the 26th of August. The repulse of the Highlanders before Dunkeld ended the Jacobite rising, but Cleland fell in the struggle. He wrote A Collection of several Poems and Verses composed upon various occasions (published posthumously, 1697). Of “Hullo, my fancie, whither wilt thou go?” only the last nine stanzas are by Cleland. His poems have small literary merit, and are written, not in pure Lowland Scots, but in English with a large admixture of Scottish words. The longest and most important of them are the “mock poems” “On the Expedition of the Highland Host who came to destroy the western shires in winter 1678” and “On the clergie when they met to consult about taking the Test in the year 1681.”

An Exact Narrative of the Conflict of Dunkeld ... collected from several officers of the regiment ... appeared in 1689.

CLEMATIS, in botany, a genus of the natural order Ranunculaceae, containing nearly two hundred species, and widely distributed. It is represented in England by Clematis Vitalba, “old man’s beard” or “traveller’s joy,” a common plant on chalky or light soil. The plants are shrubby climbers with generally compound opposite leaves, the stalk of which is sensitive to contact like a tendril, becoming twisted round suitable objects and thereby giving support to the plant. The flowers are arranged in axillary or terminal clusters; they have no petals, but white or coloured, often very large sepals, and an indefinite number of stamens and carpels. They contain no honey, and are visited by insects for the sake of the pollen, which is plentiful. The fruit is a head of achenes, each bearing the long-bearded persistent style, suggesting the popular name. This feathery style is an important agent in the distribution of the seed by means of the wind. Several of the species, especially the large-flowered ones, are favourite garden plants, well adapted for covering trellises or walls, or trailing over the ground. Many garden forms have been produced by hybridization; among the best known is C. Jackmanni, due to Mr George Jackman of Woking.

Further information may be obtained from The Clematis as a Garden Flower, by Thos. Moore and George Jackman. See also G. Nicholson, Dictionary of Gardening, i. (1885) and Supplements.

CLEMENCEAU, GEORGES (1841- ), French statesman, was born at Mouilleron-en-Pareds, Vendée, on the 28th of September 1841. Having adopted medicine as his profession, he settled in 1869 in Montmartre; and after the revolution of 1870 he had become sufficiently well known to be nominated mayor of the 18th arrondissement of Paris (Montmartre)—an unruly district over which it was a difficult task to preside. On the 8th of February 1871 he was elected as a Radical to the National Assembly for the department of the Seine, and voted against the peace preliminaries. The execution, or rather murder, of Generals Lecomte and Clément Thomas by the communists on 18th March, which he vainly tried to prevent, brought him into collision with the central committee sitting at the hôtel de ville, and they ordered his arrest, but he escaped; he was accused, however, by various witnesses, at the subsequent trial of the murderers (November 29th), of not having intervened when he might have done, and though he was cleared of this charge it led to a duel, for his share in which he was prosecuted and sentenced to a fine and a fortnight’s imprisonment.

Meanwhile, on the 20th of March 1871, he had introduced in the National Assembly at Versailles, on behalf of his Radical colleagues, the bill establishing a Paris municipal council of eighty members; but he was not returned himself at the elections of the 26th of March. He tried with the other Paris mayors to mediate between Versailles and the hôtel de ville, but failed, and accordingly resigned his mayoralty and his seat in the Assembly, and temporarily gave up politics; but he was elected to the Paris municipal council on the 23rd of July 1871 for the Clignancourt quartier, and retained his seat till 1876, passing through the offices of secretary and vice-president, and becoming president in 1875. In 1876 he stood again for the Chamber of Deputies, and was elected for the 18th arrondissement. He joined the Extreme Left, and his energy and mordant eloquence speedily made him the leader of the Radical section. In 1877, after the Seize Mai (see France: History), he was one of the republican majority who denounced the Broglie ministry, and he took a leading part in resisting the anti-republican policy of which the Seize Mai incident was a symptom, his demand in 1879 for the indictment of the Broglie ministry bringing him into particular prominence. In 1880 he started his newspaper, La Justice, which became the principal organ of Parisian Radicalism; and from this time onwards throughout M. Grévy’s presidency his reputation as a political critic, and as a destroyer of ministries who yet would not take office himself, rapidly grew. He led the Extreme Left in the Chamber. He was an active opponent of M. Jules Ferry’s colonial policy and of the Opportunist party, and in 1885 it was his use of the Tongking disaster which principally determined the fall of the Ferry cabinet. At the elections of 1885 he advocated a strong Radical programme, and was returned both for his old seat in Paris and for the Var, selecting the latter. Refusing to form a ministry to replace the one he had overthrown, he supported the Right in keeping M. Freycinet in power in 1886, and was responsible for the inclusion of General Boulanger in the Freycinet cabinet as war minister. When Boulanger (q.v.) showed himself as an ambitious pretender, Clemenceau withdrew his support and became a vigorous combatant against the Boulangist movement, though the Radical press and a section of the party continued to patronize the general.

By his exposure of the Wilson scandal, and by his personal plain speaking, M. Clemenceau contributed largely to M. Grévy’s resignation of the presidency in 1887, having himself declined Grévy’s request to form a cabinet on the downfall of that of M. Rouvier; and he was primarily responsible, by advising his followers to vote neither for Floquet, Ferry nor Freycinet, for the election of an “outsider” as president in M. Carnot. He had arrived, however, at the height of his influence, and several factors now contributed to his decline. The split in the Radical party over Boulangism weakened his hands, and its collapse made his help unnecessary to the moderate republicans. A further misfortune occurred in the Panama affair, Clemenceau’s relations with Cornelius Herz leading to his being involved in the general suspicion; and, though he remained the leading spokesman of French Radicalism, his hostility to the Russian alliance so increased his unpopularity that in the election for 1893 he was defeated for the Chamber, after having sat in it continuously since 1876. After his defeat for the Chamber, M. Clemenceau confined his political activities to journalism, his career being further overclouded—so far as any immediate possibility of regaining his old ascendancy was concerned—by the long-drawn-out Dreyfus case, in which he took an active and honourable part as a supporter of M. Zola and an opponent of the anti-Semitic and Nationalist campaign. In 1900 he withdrew from La Justice to found a weekly review, Le Bloc, which lasted until March 1902. On the 6th of April 1902 he was elected senator for the Var, although he had previously continually demanded the suppression of the Senate. He sat with the Socialist Radicals, and vigorously supported the Combes ministry. In June 1903 he undertook the direction of the journal L’Aurore, which he had founded. In it he led the campaign for the revision of the Dreyfus affair, and for the separation of Church and State.

In March 1906 the fall of the Rouvier ministry, owing to the riots provoked by the inventories of church property, at last brought Clemenceau to power as minister of the interior in the Sarrien cabinet. The strike of miners in the Pas de Calais after the disaster at Courrières, leading to the threat of disorder on the 1st of May 1906, obliged him to employ the military; and his attitude in the matter alienated the Socialist party, from which he definitely broke in his notable reply in the Chamber to Jean Jaurès in June 1906. This speech marked him out as the strong man of the day in French politics; and when the Sarrien ministry resigned in October, he became premier. During 1907 and 1908 his premiership was notable for the way in which the new entente with England was cemented, and for the successful part which France played in European politics, in spite of difficulties with Germany and attacks by the Socialist party in connexion with Morocco (see France: History). But on July 20th, 1909, he was defeated in a discussion in the Chamber on the state of the navy, in which bitter words were exchanged between him and Delcassé; and he at once resigned, being succeeded as premier by M. Briand, with a reconstructed cabinet.

CLEMENCÍN, DIEGO (1765-1834), Spanish scholar and politician, was born on the 27th of September 1765, at Murcia, and was educated there at the Colegio de San Fulgencio. Abandoning his intention of taking orders, he found employment at Madrid in 1788 as tutor to the sons of the countess-duchess de Benavente, and devoted himself to the study of archaeology. In 1807 he became editor of the Gaceta de Madrid, and in the following year was condemned to death by Murat for publishing a patriotic article; he fled to Cadiz, and under the Junta Central held various posts from which he was dismissed by the reactionary government of 1814. During the liberal régime of 1820-1823 Clemencín took office as colonial minister, was exiled till 1827, and in 1833 published the first volume of his edition (1833-1839) of Don Quixote. Its merits were recognized by his appointment as royal librarian, but he did not long enjoy his triumph: he died on the 30th of July 1834. His commentary on Don Quixote owes something to John Bowle, and is disfigured by a patronizing, carping spirit; nevertheless it is the most valuable work of its kind, and is still unsuperseded. Clemencín is also the author of an interesting Elogio de la reina Isabel la Católica, published as the sixth volume of the Memorias of the Spanish Academy of History, to which body he was elected on the 12th of September 1800.

CLEMENT (Lat. Clemens, i.e. merciful; Gr. Κλήμης), the name of fourteen popes and two anti-popes.

Clement I., generally known as Clement of Rome, or Clemens Romanus (flor. c. A.D. 96), was one of the “Apostolic Fathers,” and in the lists of bishops of Rome is given the third or fourth place—Peter, Linus, (Anencletus), Clement. There is no ground for identifying him with the Clement of Phil. iv. 3. He may have been a freedman of T. Flavius Clemens, who was consul with his cousin, the Emperor Domitian, in A.D. 95. A 9th- century tradition says he was martyred in the Crimea in 102; earlier authorities say he died a natural death; he is commemorated on the 23rd of November.

In The Shepherd of Hermas (q.v.) (Vis. 11. iv. 3) mention is made of one Clement whose office it is to communicate with other churches, and this function agrees well with what we find in the letter to the church at Corinth by which Clement is best known. Whilst being on our guard against reading later ideas into the title “bishop” as applied to Clement, there is no reason to doubt that he was one of the chief personalities in the Christian community at Rome, where since the time of Paul the separate house congregations (Rom. xvi.) had been united into one church officered by presbyters and deacons (Clem. 40-42). The letter in question was occasioned by a dispute in the church of Corinth, which had led to the ejection of several presbyters from their office. It does not contain Clement’s name, but is addressed by “the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.” But there is no reason for doubting the universal tradition which ascribes it to Clement, or the generally accepted date, c. A.D. 96. No claim is made by the Roman Church to interfere on any ground of superior rank; yet it is noteworthy that in the earliest document outside the canon which we can securely date, the church in the imperial city comes forward as a peacemaker to compose the troubles of a church in Greece. Nothing is known of the cause of the discontent; no moral offence is charged against the presbyters, and their dismissal is regarded by Clement as high-handed and unjustifiable, and as a revolt of the younger members of the community against the elder. After a laudatory account of the past conduct of the Corinthian Church, he enters upon a denunciation of vices and a praise of virtues, and illustrates his various topics by copious citations from the Old Testament scriptures. Thus he paves the way for his tardy rebuke of present disorders, which he reserves until two-thirds of his epistle is completed. Clement is exceedingly discursive, and his letter reaches twice the length of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Many of his general exhortations are but very indirectly connected with the practical issue to which the epistle is directed, and it is very probable that he was drawing largely upon the homiletical material with which he was accustomed to edify his fellow-Christians at Rome.

This view receives some support from the long liturgical prayer at the close, which almost certainly represents the intercession used in the Roman eucharists. But we must not allow such a theory to blind us to the true wisdom with which the writer defers his censure. He knows that the roots of the quarrel lie in a wrong condition of the church’s life. His general exhortations, courteously expressed in the first person plural, are directed towards a wide reformation of manners. If the wrong spirit can be exorcised, there is hope that the quarrel will end in a general desire for reconciliation. The most permanent interest of the epistle lies in the conception of the grounds on which the Christian ministry rests according to the view of a prominent teacher before the 1st century has closed. The orderliness of nature is appealed to as expressing the mind of its Creator. The orderliness of Old Testament worship bears a like witness; everything is duly fixed by God; high priests, priests and Levites, and the people in the people’s place. Similarly in the Christian dispensation all is in order due. “The apostles preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the apostles from Christ. . . . They appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the Spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who should believe. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid, and afterwards gave a further injunction (ἐπινομήν] has now the further evidence of the Latin legem) that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. . . . It will be no small sin in us if we eject from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and holily” (cc. xlii. xliv.).

Clement’s familiarity with the Old Testament points to his being a Christian of long standing rather than a recent convert. We learn from his letter (i. 7) that the church at Rome, though suffering persecution, was firmly held together by faith and love, and was exhibiting its unity in an orderly worship. The epistle was publicly read from time to time at Corinth, and by the 4th century this usage had spread to other churches. We even find it attached to the famous Alexandrian MS. (Codex A) of the New Testament, but this does not imply that it ever reached canonical rank. For the mass of early Christian literature that was gradually attached to his name see Clementine Literature.

The epistle was published in 1633 by Patrick Young from Cod. Alexandrinus, in which a leaf near the end was missing, so that the great prayer (cc. lv.-lxiv.) remained unknown. In 1875 (six years after J.B. Lightfoot’s first edition) Bryennius (q.v.) published a complete text from the MS. in Constantinople (dated 1055), from which in 1883 he gave us the Didaché. In 1876 R.L. Bensly found a complete Syriac text in a MS. recently obtained by the University library at Cambridge. Lightfoot made use of these new materials in an Appendix (1877); his second edition, on which he had been at work at the time of his death, came out in 1890. This must remain the standard edition, notwithstanding Dom Morin’s most interesting discovery of a Latin version (1894), which was probably made in the 3rd century, and is a valuable addition to the authorities for the text. Its evidence is used in a small edition of the epistle by R. Knopf (Leipzig, 1899). See also W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Clemensbrief (1891), and the other literature cited in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, vol. iv.

(A. J. G.; J. A. R.)

Clement II. (Suidger) became pope on the 25th of December 1046. He belonged to a noble Saxon family, was bishop of Bamberg, and chancellor to the emperor Henry III., to whom he was indebted for his elevation to the papacy upon the abdication of Gregory VI. He was the first pope placed on the throne by the power of the German emperors, but his short pontificate was only signalized by the convocation of a council in which decrees were enacted against simony. He died on the 9th of October 1047, and was buried at Bamberg.

(L. D.*)

Clement III. (Paolo Scolari), pope from 1187 to 1191, a Roman, was made cardinal bishop of Palestrina by Alexander III. in 1180 or 1181. On the 19th of December 1187 he was chosen at Pisa to succeed Gregory VIII. On the 31st of May 1188 he concluded a treaty with the Romans which removed difficulties of long standing, and in April 1189 he made peace with the emperor Frederick I. Barbarossa. He settled a controversy with William of Scotland concerning the choice of the archbishop of St Andrews, and on the 13th of March 1188 removed the Scottish church from under the legatine jurisdiction of the archbishop of York, thus making it independent of all save Rome. In spite of his conciliatory policy, Clement angered Henry VI. of Germany by bestowing Sicily on Tancred. The crisis was acute when the pope died, probably in the latter part of March 1191.

See “Epistolae et Privilegia,” in J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completes, tom. 204 (Paris, 1853), 1253 ff.; additional material in Neues Archiv für die ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 2. 219; 6. 293; 14. 178-182; P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, tom. 2 (2nd edition, Leipzig, 1888), 535 ff.

(W. W. R.*)

Clement IV. (Gui Foulques), pope from 1265 to 1268, son of a successful lawyer and judge, was born at St Gilles-sur-Rhône. He studied law, and became a valued adviser of Louis IX. of France. He married, and was the father of two daughters, but after the death of his wife took orders. In 1257 he became bishop of Le Puy; in 1259 he was elected archbishop of Narbonne; and on the 24th of December 1261 Urban IV. created him cardinal bishop of Sabina. He was appointed legate in England on the 22nd of November 1263, and before his return was elected pope at Perugia on the 5th of February 1265. On the 26th of February he invested Charles of Anjou with the kingdom of Sicily; but subsequently he came into conflict with Charles, especially after the death of Manfred in February 1266. To the cruelty and avarice of Charles he opposed a generous humanity. When Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen, appeared in Italy the pope excommunicated him and his supporters, but it is improbable that he was in the remotest degree responsible for his execution. At Viterbo, where he spent most of his pontificate, Clement died on the 29th of November 1268, leaving a name unsullied by nepotism. As the benefactor and protector of Roger Bacon he has a special title to the gratitude of posterity.

See A. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, vol. ii. (Berlin, l875). 1542 ff.; E. Jordan, Les Régistres de Clement IV (Paris, 1893 ff.); Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie (3rd ed., vol. iv., Leipzig, 1898), 144 f.; J. Heidemann, Papst Clemens IV., I. Teil: Das Vorleben des Papstes und sein Legationsregister = Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, herausgegeben von Knöpfler, &c., 6. Band, 4. Heft (Münster, 1903), reprints Processus legationis in Angliam.

(W. W. R.*)

Clement V. (Bertrand de Gouth), pope from 1305 to 1314, was born of a noble Gascon family about 1264. After studying the arts at Toulouse and law at Orleans and Bologna, he became a canon at Bordeaux and then vicar-general to his brother the archbishop of Lyons, who in 1294 was created cardinal bishop of Albano. Bertrand was made a chaplain to Boniface VIII., who in 1295 nominated him bishop of Cominges (Haute Garonne), and in 1299 translated him to the archbishopric of Bordeaux. Because he attended the synod at Rome in 1302 in the controversy between France and the Pope, he was considered a supporter of Boniface VIII., yet was by no means unfavourably regarded at the French court. At Perugia on the 5th of June 1305 he was chosen to succeed Benedict XI; the cardinals by a vote of ten to five electing one neither an Italian nor a cardinal, in order to end a conclave which had lasted eleven months. The chronicler Villani relates that Bertrand owed his election to a secret agreement with Philip IV., made at St Jean d’Angély in Saintonge; this may be dismissed as gossip, but it is probable that the future pope had to accept certain conditions laid down by the cardinals. At Bordeaux Bertrand was formally notified of his election and urged to come to Italy; but he caused his coronation to take place at Lyons on the 14th of November 1305. From the beginning Clement V. was subservient to French interests. Among his first acts was the creation of nine French cardinals. Early in 1306 he modified or explained away those features of the bulls Clericis Laicos and Unam sanctam which were particularly offensive to the king. Most of the year 1306 he spent at Bordeaux because of ill-health; subsequently he resided at Poitiers and elsewhere, and in March 1309 the entire papal court settled at Avignon, an imperial fief held by the king of Sicily. Thus began the seventy years “Babylonian captivity of the Church.” On the 13th of October 1307 came the arrest of all the Knights Templar in France, the breaking of a storm conjured up by royal jealousy and greed. From the very day of Clement’s coronation the king had charged the Templars with heresy, immorality and abuses, and the scruples of the weak pope were at length overcome by apprehension lest the State should not wait for the Church, but should proceed independently against the alleged heretics, as well as by the royal threats of pressing the accusation of heresy against the late Boniface VIII. In pursuance of the king’s wishes Clement summoned the council of Vienne (see Vienne, Council of), which was unable to conclude that the Templars were guilty of heresy. The pope abolished the order, however, as it seemed to be in bad repute and had outlived its usefulness. Its French estates were granted to the Hospitallers, but actually Philip IV. held them until his death.

In his relations to the Empire Clement was an opportunist. He refused to use his full influence in favour of the candidacy of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip IV., lest France became too powerful; and recognized Henry of Luxemburg, whom his representatives crowned emperor at the Lateran in 1312. When Henry, however, came into conflict with Robert of Naples, Clement supported Robert and threatened the emperor with ban and interdict. But the crisis passed with the unexpected death of Henry, soon followed by that of the pope on the 20th of April 1314 at Roquemaure-sur-Rhône. Though the sale of offices and oppressive taxation which disgraced his pontificate may in part be explained by the desperate condition of the papal finances and by his saving up gold for a crusade, nevertheless he indulged in unbecoming pomp. Showing favouritism toward his family and his nation, he brought untold disaster on the Church.

Bibliography—See “Clementis V. . . . et aliorum epistolae,” in S. Baluzius, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, tom. ii. (Paris, 1693), 55 ff.; “Tractatus cum Henrico VII. imp. Germ. anno 1309,” in Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae historica, legum ii. I. 492-496; J.F. Rabanis, Clément V et Philippe le Bel. Suivie du journal de la visite pastorale de Bertrand de Got dans la province ecclésiastique de Bordeaux en 1304 et 1305 (Paris, 1858); “Clementis Papae V. Constitutiones,” in Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1881), 1125-1200; P.B. Gams, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Regensburg, 1873); Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon, vol. iii. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1884), 462-473; Regestum Clementis Papae V. ex Vaticanis archetypis cura et studio monachorum ord. Ben. (Rome, 1885-1892), 9 vols. and appendix; J. Gmelin, Schuld oder Unschuld des Templerordens (Stuttgart, 1893); Gachon, Pièces relatifs au débat du pape Clément V avec l’empéreur Henri VII (Montpellier 1894); Lacoste, Nouvelles Études sur Clément V (1896); Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, vol. iv. (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1898), 144 f.; J. Loserth, Geschichte des späteren Mittelalters (Munich, 1903); and A. Eitel, Der Kirchenstaat unter Klemens V. (Berlin, 1907).

(W. W. R.*)

Clement VI. (Pierre Roger), pope from the 7th of May 1342 to the 6th of December 1352, was born at Maumont in Limousin in 1291, the son of the wealthy lord of Rosières, entered the Benedictine order as a boy, studied at Paris, and became successively prior of St Baudil, abbot of Fécamp, bishop of Arras, chancellor of France, archbishop of Sens and archbishop of Rouen. He was made cardinal-priest of Sti Nereo ed Achilleo and administrator of the bishopric of Avignon by Benedict XII. in 1338, and four years later succeeded him as pope. He continued to reside at Avignon despite the arguments of envoys and the verses of Petrarch, but threw a sop to the Romans by reducing the Jubilee term from one hundred years to fifty. He appointed Cola di Rienzo to a civil position at Rome, and, although at first approving the establishment of the tribunate, he later sent a legate who excommunicated Rienzo and, with the help of the aristocratic faction, drove him from the city (December 1347). Clement continued the struggle of his predecessors with the emperor Louis the Bavarian, excommunicating him after protracted negotiations on the 13th of April 1346, and directing the election of Charles of Moravia, who received general recognition after the death of Louis in October 1347, and put an end to the schism which had long divided Germany. Clement proclaimed a crusade in 1343, but nothing was accomplished beyond a naval attack on Smyrna (29th of October 1344). He also carried on fruitless negotiations for church unity with the Armenians and with the Greek emperor, John Cantacuzenus. He tried to end the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, but secured only a temporary truce. He excommunicated Casimir of Poland for marital infidelity and forced him to do penance. He successfully resisted encroachments on ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the kings of England, Castile and Aragon. He made Prague an archbishopric in 1344, and three years later founded the university there. During the disastrous plague of 1347-1348 Clement did all he could to alleviate the distress, and condemned the Flagellants and Jew-baiters. He tried Queen Joanna of Naples for the murder of her husband and acquitted her. He secured full ownership of the county of Avignon through purchase from Queen Joanna (9th of June 1348) and renunciation of feudal claims by Charles IV. of France, and considerably enlarged the papal palace in that city. To supply money for his many undertakings Clement revived the practice of selling reservations and expectancies, which had been abolished by his predecessor. Oppressive taxation and unblushing nepotism were Clement’s great faults. On the other hand, he was famed for his engaging manners, eloquence and theological learning. He died on the 6th of December 1352, and was buried in the Benedictine abbey at Auvergne, but his tomb was destroyed by Calvinists in 1562. His successor was Innocent VI.

The chief sources for the life of Clement VI. are in Baluzius, Vitae Pap. Avenion., vol. i. (Paris, 1693); E. Werunsky, Excerpta ex registris Clementis VI. et Innocentii VI. (Innsbruck, 1885); and F. Cerasoli, Clemente VI. e Giovanni I. di Napoli—Documenti inedite dell’ Archivio Vaticano (1896, &c).

See L. Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. i., trans, by F.I. Antrobus (London, 1899); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. vi. trans. by Mrs G.W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); J.B. Christophe, Histoire de la papauté pendant le XIVe siècle, vol. ii. (Paris, 1853); also article by L. Küpper in the Kirchenlexikon (2nd ed.).

(C. H. HA.)

Clement VII. (Robert of Geneva), (d. 1394), antipope, brother of Peter, count of Genevois, was connected by blood or marriage with most of the sovereigns of Europe. After occupying the episcopal sees of Thérouanne and Cambrai, he attained to the cardinalate at an early age. In 1377, as legate of Pope Gregory XI. in the Romagna, he directed, or rather assisted in, the savage suppression of the revolt of the inhabitants of Cesena against the papal authority. In the following year he took part in the election of Pope Urban VI. at Rome, and was perhaps the first to express doubts as to the validity of that tumultuous election. After withdrawing to Fondi to reconsider the election, the cardinals finally resolved to regard Urban as an intruder and the Holy See as still vacant, and an almost unanimous vote was given in favour of Robert of Geneva (20th of September 1378), who took the name of Clement VII. Thus originated the Great Schism of the West.

To his high connexions and his adroitness, as well as to the gross mistakes of his rival, Clement owed the immediate support of Queen Joanna of Naples and of several of the Italian barons; and the king of France, Charles V., who seems to have been sounded beforehand on the choice of the Roman pontiff, soon became his warmest protector. Clement eventually succeeded in winning to his cause Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, a great part of the Latin East, and Flanders. He had adherents, besides, scattered through Germany, while Portugal on two occasions acknowledged him, but afterwards forsook him. From Avignon, however, where he had immediately fixed his residence, his eyes were always turned towards Italy, his purpose being to wrest Rome from his rival. To attain this end he lavished his gold—or rather the gold provided by the clergy in his obedience—without stint, and conceived a succession of the most adventurous projects, of which one at least was to leave a lasting mark on history.

By the bait of a kingdom to be carved expressly out of the States of the Church and to be called the kingdom of Adria, coupled with the expectation of succeeding to Queen Joanna, Clement incited Louis, duke of Anjou, the eldest of the brothers of Charles V., to take arms in his favour. These tempting offers gave rise to a series of expeditions into Italy carried out almost exclusively at Clement’s expense, in the first of which Louis lost his life. These enterprises on several occasions planted Angevin domination in the south of the Italian peninsula, and their most decisive result was the assuring of Provence to the dukes of Anjou and afterwards to the kings of France. After the death of Louis, Clement hoped to find equally brave and interested champions in Louis’ son and namesake; in Louis of Orleans, the brother of Charles VI.; in Charles VI. himself; and in John III., count of Armagnac. The prospect of his briliant progress to Rome was ever before his eyes; and in his thoughts force of arms, of French arms, was to be the instrument of his glorious triumph over his competitor.

There came a time, however, when Clement and more particularly his following had to acknowledge the vanity of these illusive dreams; and before his death, which took place on the 16th of September 1394, he realized the impossibility of overcoming by brute force an opposition which was founded on the convictions of the greater part of Catholic Europe, and discerned among his adherents the germs of disaffection. By his vast expenditure, ascribable not only to his wars in Italy, his incessant embassies, and the necessity of defending himself in the Comtat Venaissin against the incursions of the adventurous Raymond of Turenne, but also to his luxurious tastes and princely habits, as well as by his persistent refusal to refer the question of the schism to a council, he incurred general reproach. Unity was the crying need; and men began to fasten upon him the responsibility of the hateful schism, not on the score of insincerity—which would have been very unjust,—but by reason of his obstinate persistence in the course he had chosen.

See N. Valois, La France el le grand schisme d’occident (Paris, 1896).

(N. V.)

Clement VII. (Giulio de’ Medici), pope from 1523 to 1534, was the son of Giuliano de’ Medici, assassinated in the conspiracy of the Pazzi at Florence, and of a certain Fioretta, daughter of Antonia. Being left an orphan he was taken into his own house by Lorenzo the Magnificent and educated with his sons. In 1494 Giulio went with them into exile; but, on Giovanni’s restoration to power, returned to Florence, of which he was made archbishop by his cousin Pope Leo X., a special dispensation being granted on account of his illegitimate birth, followed by a formal declaration of the fact that his parents had been secretly married and that he was therefore legitimate. On the 23rd of September 1513 the pope conferred on him the title of cardinal and made him legate at Bologna. During the reign of the pleasure-loving Leo, Cardinal Giulio had practically the whole papal government in his hands and displayed all the qualities of a good administrator; and when, on the death of Adrian VI.—whose election he had done most to secure—he was chosen pope (Nov. 18, 1523), his accession was hailed as the dawn of a happier era. It soon became clear, however, that the qualities which had made Clement an excellent second in command were not equal to the exigencies of supreme power at a time of peculiar peril and difficulty.

Though free from the grosser vices of his predecessors, a man of taste, and economical without being avaricious, Clement VII. was essentially a man of narrow outlook and interests. He failed to understand the great spiritual movement which was convulsing the Church; and instead of bending his mind to the problem of the Reformation, he from the first subordinated the cause of Catholicism and of the world to his interests as an Italian prince and a Medici. Even in these purely secular affairs, moreover, his timidity and indecision prevented him from pursuing a consistent policy; and his ill fortune, or his lack of judgment, placed him, as long as he had the power of choice, ever on the losing side.

Clement’s accession at once brought about a political change in favour of France; yet he was unable to take a strong line, and wavered between the emperor and Francis I., concluding a treaty of alliance with the French king, and then, when the crushing defeat of Pavia had shown him his mistake, making his peace with Charles (April 1, 1525), only to break it again by countenancing Girolamo Morone’s League of Freedom, of which the aim was to assert the independence of Italy from foreign powers. On the betrayal of this conspiracy Clement made a fresh submission to the emperor, only to follow this, a year later, by the Holy League of Cognac with Francis I. (May 22, 1526). Then followed the imperial invasion of Italy and Bourbon’s sack of Rome (May 1527) which ended the Augustan age of the papal city in a horror of fire and blood. The pope himself was besieged in the castle of St Angelo, compelled on the 6th of June to ransom himself with a payment of 400,000 scudi, and kept in confinement until, on the 26th of November, he accepted the emperor’s terms, which besides money payments included the promise to convene a general council to deal with Lutheranism. On the 6th of December Clement escaped, before the day fixed for his liberation, to Orvieto, and at once set to work to establish peace. After the signature of the treaty of Cambrai on the 3rd of August 1529 Charles met Clement at Bologna and received from him the imperial crown and the iron crown of Lombardy. The pope was now restored to the greater part of his temporal power; but for some years it was exercised in subservience to the emperor. During this period Clement was mainly occupied in urging Charles to arrest the progress of the Reformation in Germany and in efforts to elude the emperor’s demand for a general council, which Clement feared lest the question of the mode of his election and his legitimacy should be raised. It was due to his dependence on Charles V., rather than to any conscientious scruples, that Clement evaded Henry VIII.’s demand for the nullification of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, and so brought about the breach between England and Rome. Some time before his death, however, the dynastic interests of his family led him once more to a rapprochement with France. On the 9th of June 1531 an agreement was signed for the marriage of Henry of Orleans with Catherine de’ Medici; but it was not till October 1533 that Clement met Francis at Marseilles, the wedding being celebrated on the 27th. Before, however, the new political alliance, thus cemented, could take effect, Clement died, on the 25th of September 1534.

See E. Casanova, Lettere di Carlo V. a Clemente VII. (Florence, 1893); Hugo Lämmer, Monumenta Vaticana, &c (Freiburg, 1861); P. Balan, Monumenta saeculi XVI. hist. illustr. (Innsbruck, 1885); ib. Mon. Reform. Luther (Regensburg, 1884); Stefan Ehses, Röm. Dokum. z. Gesch. der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. (Paderborn, 1893); Calendar of State Papers (London, 1869, &c.); J.J.I. von Döllinger, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte (3 vols., Vienna, 1882); F. Guicciardini, Istoria d’Italia; L. von Ranke, Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten, and Deutsche 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 l’ Italia de’ 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, Realencyklopädie, s. Clemens VII. See also Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. chap. i. and bibliography.

(W. A. P.)

Clement VIII. (Aegidius Muñoz), antipope from 1425 to the 26th of July 1429, was a canon at Barcelona until elected at Peñiscola 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 latter’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 king’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 on Martin V.

(C. H. HA.)

Clement VIII. (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 Philip’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 (see Molina, 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); Ranke’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.)

Clement IX. (Giulio Rospigliosi) was born in 1600, became successively auditor of the Rota, archbishop of Tarsus in 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.)

Clement X. (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 (see Innocent 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.)

Clement XI (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 of fact (1705), and, in 1713, issued the bull Unigenitus, condemning 101 Jansenistic propositions extracted from the Moral Reflections of Pasquier Quesnel. The rejection of this bull by certain bishops led to a new party division and a further prolonging of the controversy (see Jansenism and Quesnel, Pasquier). Clement also forbade the practice of the Jesuit missionaries in China of “accommodating” 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 also Clementis XI. Opera Omnia (Frankfort, 1729); the detailed “Studii sul pontificato di Clem. XI.,” by Pometti in the Archivio della R. Soc. romana di storia patria, vols. 21, 22, 23 (1898-1900), and the extended bibliography in Hergenröther, Allg. Kirchengesch. (1880), iii. 506.

(T. F. C.)

Clement XII. (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 Clement entertained 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 (see Assemani); 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.)

Clement XIII. (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 countries—France, Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma (1764-1768). The order turned to the pope as its natural protector; but his protests (cf. the bull Apostolicum pascendi munus, 7th of January 1765) were unheeded (see Jesuits). A clash with Parma occurred to aggravate his troubles. The Bourbon kings espoused their relative’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 Andrès y Sobiñas, ... el nacimiento, estudios y empleos de ... Clem. XIII. (Madrid, 1759). Ravignan’s Clement 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 Hergenröther, Allg. Kirchengesch. (1880), iii. 509.

(T. F. C.)

Clement XIV. (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 pope’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 bull In Coena Domini, so obnoxious to civil authority; resumed relations with Portugal; revoked the monitorium of 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 brief Dominus 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.