VOLUME VI SLICE IV Cincinnatus to Cleruchy (continued 11)

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

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

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

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

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

Eusebius and Jerome give us lists of the works which Clement left behind him. Photius has also described some of them. They are as follows:—(1) Πρὸς Έλληνας λόγος ὁ προτρεπτικος, A Hortatory Address to the Greeks. (2) Ό Παιδαγωγός, The Tutor, in three books. (3) Στρωματεῖς, or Patch-work, in eight books. (4) Τἰς ὸ σωξὀμενος πλούσιος; Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? (5) Eight books of Ύποτυπώσεις, Adumbrations or Outlines. (6) On the Passover. (7) Discourses on Fasting. (8) On Slander. (9) Exhortation to Patience, or to the Newly Baptized. (10) The Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός, the Rule of the Church, or to those who Judaize, a work dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem.

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

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

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

The Hypotyposes1 in eight books, have not come down to us. Cassiodorus translated them into Latin, freely altering to suit his own ideas of orthodoxy. Both Eusebius and Photius describe the work. It was a short commentary on all the books of Scripture, including some of the apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation of Peter. Photius speaks in strong language of the impiety of some opinions in the book (Bibl. cod. 109, p. 89 a Bekker), but his statements are such as to prove conclusively that he must have had a corrupt copy, or read very carelessly, or grossly misunderstood Clement. Notes in Latin on the first epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the first two of John have come down to us; but whether they are the translation of Cassiodorus, or indeed a translation of Clement’s work at all, is a matter of dispute.

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

We know nothing of the work called The Ecclesiastical Canon from any external testimony. Clement himself often mentions the ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανών, and defines it as the agreement and harmony of the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered at the appearance of Christ (Strom. vi. cap. xv. 125, p. 803, P.). No doubt this was the subject of the treatise. Jerome and Photius call the work Ecclesiastical Canons, but this seems to be a mistake.

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

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

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

Two works are incorporated in the editions of Clement which are not mentioned by himself or any ancient writer. They are Έκ τῶν Θεοδότου καί τἦς ἀνατολικἦς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί, and Έκ τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαἰ. The first, if it is the work of Clement, must be a book merely of excerpts, for it contains many opinions which Clement opposed. Mention is made of Pantaenus in the second, and some have thought it more worthy of him than the first. Others have regarded it as a work similar to the first, and derived from Theodorus.

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

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

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

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

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

Editions.—The standard edition of the collected works will be that of O. Stählin (first vol. containing Protrepticus and Paedagogus, Leipzig, 1905). Separate editions of Strom. vii., Hort and Major (1902); Q.D.S., Barnard in Texts and Studies, v. 2 (1897); W. Dindorf’s edition in 4 vols. (Oxford, 1869) is little more than a reprint of the text of Bishop Potter, 1715. For the Fragments see Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des neut. Kanons, part iii., or Harnack and Preuschen, Gesch. der altch. Litt., vol. i.

Literature.—A copious bibliography will be found in Harnack, Chronologie, vol. ii., or in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altk. Lit. Either of these will supply the names of works upon Clement’s biblical text, his use of Stoic writers, his quotations from heathen writers, and his relation to heathen philosophy. A valuable book is de Faye, Clém. d’Alex. (1898). For his theological position see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte; Hort, Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers; Westcott, “Clem, of Alex.” in Dict. Christ. Biog.; Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alex. (1886). A book on Clement’s relation to Mysticism is wanted.

(C. Bi.; J. D.)

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

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

See E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, tome vi. (Paris, 1904).

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

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

Of Clementi’s playing in his youth, Moscheles wrote that it was “marked by a most beautiful legato, a supple touch in lively passages, and a most unfailing technique.” Mozart may be said to have closed the old and Clementi to have founded the newer school of technique on the piano. Amongst Clementi’s compositions the most remarkable are sixty sonatas for pianoforte, and the great collection of Études called Gradus ad Parnassum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines arose in Syria, perhaps c. 265,2 had it also a written source or sources which we can trace? Though Hort doubts it, most recent scholars (e.g. Waitz, Harnack) infer the existence of at least one source, “Preachings (Kerygmata) of Peter,” containing no reference at all to Clement. Such a work seems implied by the epistle of Peter to James and its appended adjuration, prefixed in our MSS. to the Homilies along with the epistle of Clement to James. Thus the later work aimed at superseding the earlier, much as Photius suggests (see above). It was, then, to these “Preachings of Peter” that the most Ebionite features, and especially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still inhering in the Periodoi (as implied by Homilies in particular), originally belonged. The fact, however, that these were not more completely suppressed in the later work, proves that it, too, arose in circles of kindred, though largely modified, Judaeo-Christian sentiment (cf. Homilies, vii., e.g. ch. 8). The differences of standpoint may be due not only to lapse of time, and the emergence of new problems on the horizon of Syrian Christianity generally, but also to change in locality and in the degree of Greek culture represented by the two works. A probable date for the “Preachings” used in the Periodoi is c. 200.3

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

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

(b) That the Periodoi was a longer work than either our Homilies or Recognitions is practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form. Yet Homilies and Recognitions are abridgments made on different principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers. “The Homilies care most for doctrine,” especially philosophical doctrine, “and seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposes” (e.g. matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx. 1-10 gives additional emphasis to the Homilies’ theory of evil, perhaps over against Manichaeism). “The Recognitions care most for the story,” as a means of religious edification, “and have preserved the general framework much more nearly.” They arose in different circles: indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of 411 A.D., “not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books in any form.” But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, while Homilies arose in Syria, Recognitions took shape in Rome. Both probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good deal in religious standpoint.4 Homilies was a sort of second edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a generation or two after the Periodoi appeared. The Recognitions, in both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others in the West, was more Catholic in tone and aimed chiefly at commending the Christian religion over against all non-Christian rivals or gnostic perversions. That is, more than one effort of this sort had been made to adapt the story of Clement’s Recognitions to general Christian use. Later the Homilies underwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling even before the Epitome, in its two extant forms, was made by more drastic methods of expurgation. One kind of adaptation at least is proved to have existed before the end of the 4th century, namely a selection of certain discourses from the Homilies under special headings, following on Recognitions, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the Recognitions may be dated c. 350-3755 (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and the Homilies prior even to 350. But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating precarious.

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

Literature.—For a full list of this down to 1904 see Hans Waitz, “Die Pseudoklementinen” (Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr. Literatur, neue Folge, Bd. x. Heft 4), and A. Harnack, Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur (1904), ii. 518 f. In English, besides Hort’s work, there are articles by G. Salmon, in Dict. of Christ. Biog., C. Bigg, Studia Biblica, ii., A.C. Headlam, Journal of Theol. Studies, iii.

(J. V. B.)

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

See F.G. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, i.

CLEOMENES (Κλεομένης), the name of three Spartan kings of the Agiad line.

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

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

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

Cleomenes III., the son and successor of Leonidas II., reigned about 235-219 B.C. He made a determined attempt to reform the social condition of Sparta along the lines laid down by Agis IV., whose widow Agiatis he married; at the same time he aimed at restoring Sparta’s hegemony in the Peloponnese. After twice defeating the forces of the Achaean League in Arcadia, near Mount Lycaeum and at Leuctra, he strengthened his position by assassinating four of the ephors, abolishing the ephorate, which had usurped the supreme power, and banishing some eighty of the leading oligarchs. The authority of the council was also curtailed, and a new board of magistrates, the patronomi, became the chief officers of state. He appointed his own brother Eucleidas as his colleague in succession to the Eurypontid Archidamus, who had been murdered. His social reforms included a redistribution of land, the remission of debts, the restoration of the old system of training (ἀγωγή) and the admission of picked perioeci into the citizen body. As a general Cleomenes did much to revive Sparta’s old prestige. He defeated the Achaeans at Dyme, made himself master of Argos, and was eventually joined by Corinth, Phlius, Epidaurus and other cities. But Aratus, whose jealousy could not brook to see a Spartan at the head of the Achaean league called in Antigonus Doson of Macedonia, and Cleomenes, after conducting successful expeditions to Megalopolis and Argos, was finally defeated at Sellasia, to the north of Sparta, in 222 or 221 B.C. He took refuge at Alexandria with Ptolemy Euergetes, but was arrested by his successor, Ptolemy Philopator, on a charge of conspiracy. Escaping from prison he tried to raise a revolt, but the attempt failed and to avoid capture he put an end to his life. Both as general and as politician Cleomenes was one of Sparta’s greatest men, and with him perished her last hope of recovering her ancient supremacy in Greece.

See Polybius ii. 45-70, v. 35-39, viii. 1; Plutarch, Cleomenes; Aratus, 35-46; Philopoemen, 5, 6; Pausanias ii. 9; Gehlert, De Cleomene (Leipzig, 1883); Holm, History of Greece, iv. cc. 10, 15.

(M. N. T.)

CLEON (d. 422 B.C.), Athenian politician during the Peloponnesian War, was the son of Cleaenetus, from whom he inherited a lucrative tannery business. He was the first prominent representative of the commercial class in Athenian politics. He came into notice first as an opponent of Pericles, to whom his advanced ideas were naturally unacceptable, and in his opposition somewhat curiously found himself acting in concert with the aristocrats, who equally hated and feared Pericles. During the dark days of 430, after the unsuccessful expedition of Pericles to Peloponnesus, and when the city was devastated by the plague, Cleon headed the opposition to the Periclean régime. Pericles was accused by Cleon of maladministration of public money, with the result that he was actually found guilty (see Grote’s Hist. of Greece, abridged ed., 1907, p. 406, note 1). A revulsion of feeling, however, soon took place. Pericles was reinstated, and Cleon now for a time fell into the background. The death of Pericles (429) left the field clear for him. Hitherto he had only been a vigorous opposition speaker, a trenchant critic and accuser of state officials. He now came forward as the professed champion and leader of the democracy, and, owing to the moderate abilities of his rivals and opponents, he was for some years undoubtedly the foremost man in Athens. Although rough and unpolished, he was gifted with natural eloquence and a powerful voice, and knew exactly how to work upon the feelings of the people. He strengthened his hold on the poorer classes by his measure for trebling the pay of the jurymen, which provided the poorer Athenians with an easy means of livelihood. The notorious fondness of the Athenians for litigation increased his power; and the practice of “sycophancy” (raking up material for false charges; see Sycophant), enabled him to remove those who were likely to endanger his ascendancy. Having no further use for his former aristocratic associates, he broke off all connexion with them, and thus felt at liberty to attack the secret combinations for political purposes, the oligarchical clubs to which they mostly belonged. Whether he also introduced a property-tax for military purposes, and even held a high position in connexion with the treasury, is uncertain. His ruling principles were an inveterate hatred of the nobility, and an equal hatred of Sparta. It was mainly through him that the opportunity of concluding an honourable peace (in 425) was lost, and in his determination to see Sparta humbled he misled the people as to the extent of the resources of the state, and dazzled them by promises of future benefits.

In 427 Cleon gained an evil notoriety by his proposal to put to death indiscriminately all the inhabitants of Mytilene, which had put itself at the head of a revolt. His proposal, though accepted, was, fortunately for the credit of Athens, rescinded, although, as it was, the chief leaders and prominent men, numbering about 1000, fell victims. In 425, he reached the summit of his fame by capturing and transporting to Athens the Spartans who had been blockaded in Sphacteria (see Pylos). Much of the credit was probably due to the military skill of his colleague Demosthenes; but it must be admitted that it was due to Cleon’s determination that the Ecclesia sent out the additional force which was needed. It was almost certainly due to Cleon that the tribute of the “allies” was doubled in 425 (see Delian League). In 422 he was sent to recapture Amphipolis, but was outgeneralled by Brasidas and killed. His death removed the chief obstacle to an arrangement with Sparta, and in 421 the peace of Nicias was concluded (see Peloponnesian War).

The character of Cleon is represented by Aristophanes and Thucydides in an extremely unfavourable light. But neither can be considered an unprejudiced witness. The poet had a grudge against Cleon, who had accused him before the senate of having ridiculed (in his Babylonians) the policy and institutions of his country in the presence of foreigners and at the time of a great national war. Thucydides, a man of strong oligarchical prejudices, had also been prosecuted for military incapacity and exiled by a decree proposed by Cleon. It is therefore likely that Cleon has had less than justice done to him in the portraits handed down by these two writers.

Authorities.—For the literature on Cleon see C.F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, i. pt. 2 (6th ed. by V. Thumser, 1892), p. 709, and G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, iii. pt. 2 (1904), p. 988, note 3. The following are the chief authorities:—(a) Favourable to Cleon.—C.F. Ranke, Commentatio de Vita Aristophanis (Leipzig, 1845); J.G. Droysen, Aristophanes, ii., introd. to the Knights (Berlin, 1837); G. Grote, Hist. of Greece, chs. 50, 54; W. Oncken, Athen und Hellas, ii. p. 204 (Leipzig, 1866); H. Müller-Strübing, Aristophanes und die historische Kritik (Leipzig, 1873); J.B. Bury, Hist. of Greece, i. (1902). (b) Unfavourable.—J.F. Kortüm, Geschichtliche Forschungen (Leipzig, 1863), and Zur Geschichte hellenischen Staatsverfassungen (Heidelberg, 1821); F. Passow, Vermischte Schriften (Leipzig, 1843); C. Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, ch. 21; E. Curtius, Hist. of Greece (Eng. tr.) iii. p. 112; J. Schvarcz, Die Demokratie (Leipzig, 1882); H. Delbrück, Die Strategie des Perikles (Berlin, 1890); E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, ii. p. 333 (Halle, 1899). The balance between the two extreme views is fairly held by J. Beloch, Die attische Politik seit Perikles (Leipzig, 1884), and Griechische Geschichte, i. p. 537; and by A. Holm, Hist. of Greece, ii. (Eng. tr.), ch. 23, with the notes.

CLEOPATRA, the regular name of the queens of Egypt in the Ptolemaic dynasty after Cleopatra, daughter of the Seleucid Antiochus the Great, wife of Ptolemy V., Epiphanes. The best known was the daughter of Ptolemy XIII. Auletes, born 69 (or 68) B.C. At the age of seventeen she became queen of Egypt jointly with her younger brother Ptolemy Dionysus, whose wife, in accordance with Egyptian custom, she was to become. A few years afterwards, deprived of all royal authority, she withdrew into Syria, and made preparation to recover her rights by force of arms. At this juncture Julius Caesar followed Pompey into Egypt. The personal fascinations of Cleopatra induced him to undertake a war on her behalf, in which Ptolemy lost his life, and she was replaced on the throne in conjunction with a younger brother, of whom, however, she soon rid herself by poison. In Rome she lived openly with Caesar as his mistress until his assassination, when, aware of her unpopularity, she returned at once to Egypt. Subsequently she became the ally and mistress of Mark Antony (see Antonius). Their connexion was highly unpopular at Rome, and Octavian (see Augustus) declared war upon them and defeated them at Actium (31 B.C.). Cleopatra took to flight, and escaped to Alexandria, where Antony joined her. Having no prospect of ultimate success, she accepted the proposal of Octavian that she should assassinate Antony, and enticed him to join her in a mausoleum which she had built in order that “they might die together.” Antony committed suicide, in the mistaken belief that she had already done so, but Octavian refused to yield to the charms of Cleopatra who put an end to her life, by applying an asp to her bosom, according to the common tradition, in the thirty-ninth year of her age (29th of August, 30 B.C.). With her ended the dynasty of the Ptolemies, and Egypt was made a Roman province. Cleopatra had three children by Antony, and by Julius Caesar, as some say, a son, called Caesarion, who was put to death by Octavian. In her the type of queen characteristic of the Macedonian dynasties stands in the most brilliant light. Imperious will, masculine boldness, relentless ambition like hers had been exhibited by queens of her race since the old Macedonian days before Philip and Alexander. But the last Cleopatra had perhaps some special intellectual endowment. She surprised her generation by being able to speak the many tongues of her subjects. There may have been an individual quality in her luxurious profligacy, but then her predecessors had not had the Roman lords of the world for wooers.

For the history of Cleopatra see Antonius, Marcus; Caesar, Gaius Julius; Ptolemies. The life of Antony by Plutarch is our main authority; it is upon this that Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra is based. Her life is the subject of monographs by Stahr (1879, an apologia), and Houssaye, Aspasie, Cléopâtre, &c. (1879).

CLEPSYDRA (from Gr. κλἐπτειν, to steal, and ὕδωρ, water), the chronometer of the Greeks and Romans, which measured time by the flow of water. In its simplest form it was a short-necked earthenware globe of known capacity, pierced at the bottom with several small holes, through which the water escaped or “stole away.” The instrument was employed to set a limit to the speeches in courts of justice, hence the phrases aquam dare, to give the advocate speaking time, and aquam perdere, to waste time. Smaller clepsydrae of glass were very early used in place of the sun-dial, to mark the hours. But as the length of the hour varied according to the season of the year, various arrangements, of which we have no clear account, were necessary to obviate this and other defects. For instance, the flow of water varied with the temperature and pressure of the air, and secondly, the rate of flow became less as the vessel emptied itself. The latter defect was remedied by keeping the level of the water in the clepsydra uniform, the volume of that discharged being noted. Plato is said to have invented a complicated clepsydra to indicate the hours of the night as well as of the day. In the clepsydra or hydraulic clock of Ctesibius of Alexandria, made about 135 B.C., the movement of water-wheels caused the gradual rise of a little figure, which pointed out the hours with a little stick on an index attached to the machine. The clepsydra is said to have been known to the Egyptians. There was one in the Tower of the Winds at Athens; and the turret on the south side of the tower is supposed to have contained the cistern which supplied the water.

See Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, i. (2nd ed., 1886), p. 792; G. Bilfinger, Die Zeitmesser der antiken Völker (1886), and Die antiken Stundenangaben (1888).

CLERESTORY, or Clearstory (Ital. chiaro piano, Fr. clairevoie, claire étage, Ger. Lichtgaden), in architecture, the upper storey of the nave of a church, the walls of which rise above the aisles and are pierced with windows (“clere” being simply “clear,” in the sense of “lighted”). Sometimes these windows are very small, being mere quatrefoils or spherical triangles. In large buildings, however, they are important objects, both for beauty and utility. The windows of the clerestories of Norman work, even in large churches, are of less importance than in the later styles. In Early English they became larger; and in the Decorated they are more important still, being lengthened as the triforium diminishes. In Perpendicular work the latter often disappears altogether, and in many later churches, as at Taunton, and many churches in Norfolk and Suffolk, the clerestories are close ranges of windows. The term is equally applicable to the Egyptian temples, where the lighting of the hall of columns was obtained over the stone roofs of the adjoining aisles, through slits pierced in vertical slabs of stone. The Romans also in their baths and palaces employed the same method, and probably derived it from the Greeks; in the palaces at Crete, however, light-wells would seem to have been employed.

CLERFAYT (or Clairfayt), FRANÇOIS SEBASTIEN CHARLES JOSEPH DE CROIX, Count of (1733-1798), Austrian field marshal, entered the Austrian army in 1753. In the Seven Years’ War he greatly distinguished himself, earning rapid promotion, and receiving the decoration of the order of Maria Theresa. At the conclusion of the peace, though still under thirty, he was already a colonel. During the outbreak of the Netherlands in 1787, he was, as a Walloon by birth, subjected to great pressure to induce him to abandon Joseph II., but he resisted all overtures, and in the following year went to the Turkish war in the rank of lieutenant field marshal. In an independent command Clerfayt achieved great success, defeating the Turks at Mehadia and Calafat. In 1792, as one of the most distinguished of the emperor’s generals, he received the command of the Austrian contingent in the duke of Brunswick’s army, and at Croix-sous-Bois his corps inflicted a reverse on the troops of the French revolution. In the Netherlands, to which quarter he was transferred after Jemappes, he opened the campaign of 1793 with the victory of Aldenhoven and the relief of Maestricht, and on March 18th mainly brought about the complete defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden. Later in the year, however, his victorious career was checked by the reverse at Wattignies, and in 1794 he was unsuccessful in West Flanders against Pichegru. In the course of the campaign Clerfayt succeeded the duke of Saxe-Coburg in the supreme command, but was quite unable to make head against the French, and had to recross the Rhine. In 1795, now field marshal, he commanded on the middle Rhine against Jourdan, and this time the fortune of war changed. Jourdan was beaten at Höchst and Mainz brilliantly relieved. But the field marshal’s action in concluding an armistice with the French not being approved by Thugut, he resigned the command, and became a member of the Aulic Council in Vienna. He died in 1798. A brave and skilful soldier, Clerfayt perhaps achieved more than any other Austrian commander (except the archduke Charles) in the hopeless struggle of small dynastic armies against a “nation in arms.”

See von Vivenot, Thugut, Clerfayt, und Würmser (Vienna, 1869).

CLERGY (M.E. clergie, O. Fr. clergie, from Low Lat. form clericia [Skeat], by assimilation with O. Fr. clergié, Fr. clergé, from Low Lat. clericatus), a collective term signifying in English strictly the body of “clerks,” i.e. men in holy orders (see Clerk). The word has, however, undergone sundry modifications of meaning. Its M.E. senses of “clerkship” and “learning” have long since fallen obsolete. On the other hand, in modern times there has been an increasing tendency to depart from its strict application to technical “clerks,” and to widen it out so as to embrace all varieties of ordained Christian ministers. While, however, it is now not unusual to speak of “the Nonconformist clergy,” the word “clergyman” is still, at least in the United Kingdom, used of the clergy of the Established Church in contradistinction to “minister.” As applied to the Roman Catholic Church the word embraces the whole hierarchy, whether its clerici be in holy orders or merely in minor orders. The term has also been sometimes loosely used to include the members of the regular orders; but this use is improper, since monks and friars, as such, have at no time been clerici. The use of the word “clergy” as a plural, though the New English Dictionary quotes the high authority of Cardinal Newman for it, is less rare than wrong; in the case cited “Some hundred Clergy” should have been “Some hundred of the Clergy.”

In distinction to the “clergy” we find the “laity” (Gr. λάος, people), the great body of “faithful people” which, in nearly every various conception of the Christian Church, stands in relation to the clergy as a flock of sheep to its pastor. This distinction was of early growth, and developed, with the increasing power of the hierarchy, during the middle ages into a very lively opposition (see Order, Holy; Church History; Papacy; Investitures). The extreme claim of the great medieval popes, that the priest, as “ruler over spiritual things,” was as much superior to temporal rulers as the soul is to the body (see Innocent III.), led logically to the vast privileges and immunities enjoyed by the clergy during the middle ages. In those countries where the Reformation triumphed, this triumph represented the victory of the civil over the clerical powers in the long contest. The victory was, however, by no means complete. The Presbyterian model was, for instance, as sacerdotal in its essence as the Catholic; Milton complained with justice that “new presbyter is but old priest writ large,” and declared that “the Title of Clergy St Peter gave to all God’s people,” its later restriction being a papal and prelatical usurpation (i.e. i Peter v. 3, for κλῆρος and κλήρων).

Clerical immunities, of course, differed largely at different times and in different countries, the extent of them having been gradually curtailed from a period a little earlier than the close of the middle ages. They consisted mainly in exemption from public burdens, both as regarded person and pocket, and in immunity from lay jurisdiction. This last enormous privilege, which became one of the main and most efficient instruments of the subjection of Europe to clerical tyranny, extended to matters both civil and criminal; though, as Bingham shows, it did not (always and everywhere) prevail in cases of heinous crime (Origines Eccles. bk. v.).

This diversity of jurisdiction, and subjection of the clergy only to the sentences of judges bribed by their esprit de corps to judge leniently, led to the adoption of a scale of punishments for the offences of clerks avowedly much lighter than that which was inflicted for the same crimes on laymen; and this in turn led to the survival in England, long after the Reformation, of the curious legal fiction of benefit of clergy (see below), used to mitigate the extreme harshness of the criminal law.

CLERGY, BENEFIT OF, an obsolete but once very important feature in English criminal law. Benefit of clergy began with the claim on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in the 12th century that every clericus should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the temporal courts and be subject to the spiritual courts alone. The issue of the conflict was that the common law courts abandoned the extreme punishment of death assigned to some offences when the person convicted was a clericus, and the church was obliged to accept the compromise and let a secondary punishment be inflicted. The term “clerk” or clericus always included a large number of persons in what were called minor orders, and in 1350 the privilege was extended to secular as well as to religious clerks; and, finally, the test of being a clerk was the ability to read the opening words of verse 1 of Psalm li., hence generally known as the “neck-verse.” Even this requirement was abolished in 1705. In 1487 it was enacted that every layman, when convicted of a clergyable felony, should be branded on the thumb, and disabled from claiming the benefit a second time. The privilege was extended to peers, even if they could not read, in 1547, and to women, partially in 1622 and fully in 1692. The partial exemption claimed by the Church did not apply to the more atrocious crimes, and hence offences came to be divided into clergyable and unclergyable. According to the common practice in England of working out modern improvements through antiquated forms, this exemption was made the means of modifying the severity of the criminal law. It became the practice to claim and be allowed the benefit of clergy; and when it was the intention by statute to make a crime really punishable with death, it was awarded “without benefit of clergy.” The benefit of clergy was abolished by a statute of 1827, but as this statute did not repeal that of 1547, under which peers were given the privilege, a further statute was passed in 1841 putting peers on the same footing as commons and clergy.

For a full account of benefit of clergy see Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. i. 424-440; also Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. i.; E. Friedberg, Corpus juris canonici (Leipzig, 1879-1881).

CLERGY RESERVES, in Canada. By the act of 1791, establishing the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, the British government set apart one-eighth of all the crown lands for the support of “a Protestant clergy.” These reservations, after being for many years a stumbling-block to the economic development of the province, and the cause of much bitter political and ecclesiastical controversy, were secularized by the Canadian parliament in 1854, and the proceeds applied to other purposes, chiefly educational. Owing to the wording of the imperial act, the amount set apart is often stated as one-seventh, and was sometimes claimed as such by the clergy.

CLERK1 (from A.S. cleric or clerc, which, with the similar Fr. form, comes direct from the Lat. clericus), in its original sense, as used in the civil law, one who had taken religious orders of whatever rank, whether “holy” or “minor.” The word clericus is derived from the Greek κληρικός, “of or pertaining to an inheritance,” from κλῆρος, “lot,” “allotment,” “estate,” “inheritance”; but the authorities are by no means agreed in which sense the root is connected with the sense of the derivative, some conceiving that the original idea was that the clergy received the service of God as their lot or portion; others that they were the portion of the Lord; while others again, with more reason as Bingham (Orig. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 5, sec. 9) seems to think, maintain that the word has reference to the choosing by lot, as in early ages was the case of those to whom public offices were to be entrusted.

In the primitive times of the church the term canon was used as synonymous with clerk, from the names of all the persons in the service of any church having been inscribed on a roll, or κανών, whence they were termed canonici, a fact which shows that the practice of the Roman Catholic Church of including all persons of all ranks in the service of the church, ordained or unordained, in the term clerks, or clergy, is at least in conformity with the practice of antiquity. Thus, too, in English ecclesiastical law, a clerk was any one who had been admitted to the ecclesiastical state, and had taken the tonsure. The application of the word in this sense gradually underwent a change, and “clerk” became more especially the term applied to those in minor orders, while those in “major” or “holy” orders were designated in full “clerks in holy orders,” which in English law still remains the designation of clergymen of the Established Church. After the Reformation the word “clerk” was still further extended to include laymen who performed duties in cathedrals, churches, &c., e.g. the choirmen, who were designated “lay clerks.” Of these lay clerks or choirmen there was always one whose duty it was to be constantly present at every service, to sing or say the responses as the leader or representative of the laity. His duties were gradually enlarged to include the care of the church and precincts, assisting at baptisms, marriages, &c., and he thus became the precursor of the later parish clerk. In a somewhat similar sense we find bible clerk, singing clerk, &c. The use of the word “clerk” to denote a person ordained to the ministry is now mainly legal or formal.

The word also developed in a different sense. In medieval times the pursuit of letters and general learning was confined to the clergy, and as they were practically the only persons who could read and write all notarial and secretarial work was discharged by them, so that in time the word was used with special reference to secretaries, notaries, accountants or even mere penmen. This special meaning developed into what is now one of the ordinary senses of the word. We find, accordingly, the term applied to those officers of courts, corporations, &c., whose duty consists in keeping records, correspondence, and generally managing business, as clerk of the market, clerk of the petty bag, clerk of the peace, town clerk, &c. Similarly, a clerk also means any one who in a subordinate position is engaged in writing, making entries, ordinary correspondence, or similar “clerkly” work. In the United States the word means also an assistant in a commercial house, a retail salesman.

CLERKE, AGNES MARY (1842-1907), English astronomer and scientific writer, was born on the 10th of February 1842, and died in London on the 20th of January 1907. She wrote extensively on various scientific subjects, but devoted herself more especially to astronomy. Though not a practical astronomer in the ordinary sense, she possessed remarkable skill in collating, interpreting and summarizing the results of astronomical research, and as a historian her work has an important place in scientific literature. Her chief works were A Popular History of Astronomy during the 19th Century, first edition 1885, fourth 1902; The System of the Stars, first edition 1890, second 1905; and Problems in Astrophysics, 1903. In addition she wrote Familiar Studies in Homer (1892), The Herschels and Modern Astronomy (1895), Modern Cosmogonies (1906), and many valuable articles, such as her contributions to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In 1903 she was elected an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society.

CLERKENWELL, a district on the north side of the city of London, England, within the metropolitan borough of Finsbury (q.v.). It is so called from one of several wells or springs in this district, near which miracle plays were performed by the parish clerks of London. This well existed until the middle of the 19th century. Here was situated a priory, founded in 1100, which grew to great wealth and fame as the principal institution in England of the Knights Hospitallers of the Order of St John of Jerusalem. Its gateway, erected in 1504, and remaining in St John’s Square, served various purposes after the suppression of the monasteries, being, for example, the birthplace of the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1731, and the scene of Dr Johnson’s work in connexion with that journal. In modern times the gatehouse again became associated with the Order, and is the headquarters of the St John’s Ambulance Association. An Early English crypt remains beneath the neighbouring parish church of St John, where the notorious deception of the “Cock Lane Ghost,” in which Johnson took great interest, was exposed. Adjoining the priory was St Mary’s Benedictine nunnery, St James’s church (1792) marking the site, and preserving in its vaults some of the ancient monuments. In the 17th century Clerkenwell became a fashionable place of residence. A prison erected here at this period gave place later to the House of Detention, notorious as the scene of a Fenian outrage in 1867, when it was sought to release certain prisoners by blowing up part of the building. Clerkenwell is a centre of the watch-making and jeweller’s industries, long established here; and the Northampton Polytechnic Institute, Northampton Square, a branch of the City Polytechnic, has a department devoted to instruction in these trades.

CLERMONT-EN-BEAUVAISIS, or Clermont-de-l’Oise, a town of northern France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Oise, on the right bank of the Brèche, 41 m. N. of Paris on the Northern railway to Amiens. Pop. (1906) 4014. The hill on which the town is built is surmounted by a keep of the 14th century, the relic of a fortress the site of which is partly occupied by a large penitentiary for women. The church dates from the 14th to the 16th centuries. The hôtel-de-ville, built by King Charles IV., who was born at Clermont in 1294, is the oldest in the north of France. The most attractive feature of the town is the Promenade du Châtellier on the site of the old ramparts. Clermont is the seat of a sub-prefect and has a tribunal of first instance, a communal college and a large lunatic asylum. It manufactures felt and corsets, and carries on a trade in horses, cattle and grain.

The town was probably founded during the time of the Norman invasions, and was an important military post, during the middle ages. It was several times taken and retaken by the contending parties during the Hundred Years’ War, and the Wars of Religion, and in 1615 Henry II., prince of Condé, was besieged and captured there by the marshal d’Ancre.

Counts of Clermont. Clermont was at one time the seat of a countship, the lords of which were already powerful in the 11th century. Raoul de Clermont, constable of France, died at Acre in 1191, leaving a daughter who brought Clermont to her husband, Louis, count of Blois and Chartres. Theobald, count of Blois and Clermont, died in 1218 without issue, and King Philip Augustus, having received the countship of Clermont from the collateral heirs of this lord, gave it to his son Philip Hurepel, whose daughter Jeanne, and his widow, Mahaut, countess of Dammartin, next held the countship. It was united by Saint Louis to the crown, and afterwards given by him (1269) to his son Robert, from whom sprang the house of Bourbon. In 1524 the countship of Clermont was confiscated from the constable de Bourbon, and later (1540) given to the duke of Orleans, to Catherine de’ Medici (1562), to Eric, duke of Brunswick (1569), from whom it passed to his brother-in-law Charles of Lorraine (1596), and finally to Henry II., prince of Condé (1611). In 1641 it was again confiscated from Louis de Bourbon, count of Soissons, then in 1696 sold to Louis Thomas Amadeus of Savoy, count of Soissons, in 1702 to Françoise de Brancas, princesse d’Harcourt, and in 1719 to Louis-Henry, prince of Condé. From a branch of the old lords of Clermont were descended the lords of Nesle and Chantilly.

CLERMONT-FERRAND, a city of central France, capital of the department of Puy-de-Dôme, 113 m. W. of Lyons on the Paris-Lyon railway. Pop. (1906) town, 44,113; commune, 58,363. Clermont-Ferrand is situated on an eminence on the western border of the fertile plain of Limagne. On the north, west and south it is surrounded by hills, with a background of mountains amongst which the Puy-de-Dôme stands out prominently. A small river, the Tiretaine, borders the town on the north. Since 1731 it has been composed of the two towns of Clermont and Montferrand, now connected by a fine avenue of walnut trees and willows, 2 m. in length, bordered on one side by barracks. The watering-place of Royat lies a little more than a mile to the west. Clermont has several handsome squares ornamented with fountains, the chief of which is a graceful structure erected by Bishop Jacques d’Amboise in 1515. The streets of the older and busier quarter of Clermont in the neighbourhood of the cathedral and the Place de Jaude, the principal square, are for the most part narrow, sombre and bordered by old houses built of lava; boulevards divide this part from more modern and spacious quarters, which adjoin it. To the south lies the fine promenade known as the Jardin Lecoq.