FOOTNOTES:

[1] The archonship of Isagoras in 508 is important as showing that

Cleisthenes, three years after his return, had so far failed to

secure the support of a majority in Athens. There is no sufficient

reason for supposing that the election of Isagoras was procured by

Cleomenes; all the evidence points to its having been brought about

in the ordinary way. Probably, therefore, Cleisthenes did not take

the people thoroughly into partnership till after the spring of 508.

[2] The explanation given for this step by Herodotus (v. 67) is an

amusing example of his incapacity as a critical historian. To compare

Cleisthenes of Sicyon (see below), bent on humiliating the Dorians of

Sicyon by giving opprobrious names to the Dorian tribes, with his

grandson, whose endeavour was to elevate the very persons whose

tribal organization he replaced, is clearly absurd.

[3] Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (_Arist. und Athen_, pp. 149-150)

suggests [Greek: dekacha], "in ten batches," instead of [Greek:

deka].

[4] It should be observed that there are other translations of the

difficult phrase [Greek: xenous kai doulous metoikous].

[5] _Colacretae_ were very ancient Athenian magistrates; either (1)

those who "cut up the joints" in the Prytaneum ([Greek: kola,

keiro]), or (2) those who "collected the joints" ([Greek: kola,

ageiro]) which were left over from public sacrifices, and consumed in

the Prytaneum. These officials were again important in the time of

Aristophanes (_Wasps_, 693, 724; _Birds_, 1541), and they presided

over the payment of the dicasts instituted by Pericles. They are not

mentioned, though they may have existed, after 403 B.C. At Sicyon

also magistrates of this name are found.

[6] It is, however, more probable that the right reading of the

passage is [Greek: deka ippeis] instead of [Greek: duo], which would

give a cavalry force in early Athens of 480, a reasonable number in

proportion to the total fighting strength.

CLEITARCHUS, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, son of

Deinon, also an historian, was possibly a native of Egypt, or at least

spent a considerable time at the court of Ptolemy Lagus. Quintilian

(_Instit._ x. i. 74) credits him with more ability than trustworthiness,

and Cicero (_Brutus_, 11) accuses him of giving a fictitious account of

the death of Themistocles. But there is no doubt that his history was

very popular, and much used by Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Justin

and Plutarch, and the authors of the Alexander romances. His unnatural

and exaggerated style became proverbial.

The fragments, some thirty in number, chiefly preserved in Aelian and

Strabo, will be found in C. Mueller's _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri

Magni_ (in the Didot _Arrian_, 1846); monographs by C. Raun, _De

Clitarcho Diodori, Curtii, Justini auctore_ (1868), and F. Reuss,

"Hellenistische Beitraege" in _Rhein. Mus._ lxiii. (1908), pp. 58-78.

CLEITHRAL (Gr. [Greek: kleithron], an enclosed or shut-up place), an

architectural term applied to a covered Greek temple, in

contradistinction to _hypaethral_, which designates one that is

uncovered; the roof of a cleithral temple completely covers it.

CLEITOR, or CLITOR, a town of ancient Greece, in that part of Arcadia

which corresponds to the modern eparchy of Kalavryta in the nomos of

Elis and Achaea. It stood in a fertile plain to the south of Mt Chelmos,

the highest peak of the Aroanian Mountains, and not far from a stream

of its own name, which joined the Aroanius, or Katzana. In the

neighbourhood was a fountain, the waters of which were said to deprive

those who drank them of the taste for wine. The town was a place of

considerable importance in Arcadia, and its inhabitants were noted for

their love of liberty. It extended its territory over several

neighbouring towns, and in the Theban war fought against Orchomenus. It

joined the other Arcadian cities in the foundation of Megalopolis. As a

member of the Achaean league it was besieged by the Aetolians in 220

B.C., and was on several occasions the seat of the federal assemblies.

It coined money up to the time of Septimius Severus. The ruins, which

bear the common name of Paleopoli, or Old City, are still to be seen

about 3 m. from a village that preserves the ancient designation. The

greater part of the walls which enclose an area of about a mile and

several of the semi-circular towers with which they were strengthened

can be clearly made out; and there are also remains of three Doric

temples and a small theatre.

CLELAND, WILLIAM (1661?-1689), Scottish poet and soldier, son of Thomas

Cleland, gamekeeper to the marquis of Douglas, was born about 1661. He

was probably brought up on the marquess of Douglas's estate in

Lanarkshire, and was educated at St Andrews University. Immediately on

leaving college he joined the army of the Covenanters, and was present

at Drumclog, where, says Robert Wodrow, some attributed to Cleland the

manoeuvre which led to the victory. He also fought at Bothwell Bridge.

He and his brother James were described in a royal proclamation of the

16th of June 1679 among the leaders of the insurgents. He escaped to

Holland, but in 1685 was again in Scotland in connexion with the

abortive invasion of the earl of Argyll. He escaped once more, to return

in 1688 as agent for William of Orange. He was appointed

lieutenant-colonel of the Cameronian regiment raised from the minority

of the western Covenanters who consented to serve under William III. The

Cameronians were entrusted with the defence of Dunkeld, which they held

against the fierce assault of the Highlanders on the 26th of August. The

repulse of the Highlanders before Dunkeld ended the Jacobite rising, but

Cleland fell in the struggle. He wrote _A Collection of several Poems

and Verses_ composed upon various occasions (published posthumously,

1697). Of "Hullo, my fancie, whither wilt thou go?" only the last nine

stanzas are by Cleland. His poems have small literary merit, and are

written, not in pure Lowland Scots, but in English with a large

admixture of Scottish words. The longest and most important of them are

the "mock poems" "On the Expedition of the Highland Host who came to

destroy the western shires in winter 1678" and "On the clergie when they

met to consult about taking the Test in the year 1681."

An Exact Narrative of the _Conflict of Dunkeld ... collected from

several officers of the regiment ..._ appeared in 1689.

CLEMATIS, in botany, a genus of the natural order Ranunculaceae,

containing nearly two hundred species, and widely distributed. It is

represented in England by _Clematis Vitalba_, "old man's beard" or

"traveller's joy," a common plant on chalky or light soil. The plants

are shrubby climbers with generally compound opposite leaves, the stalk

of which is sensitive to contact like a tendril, becoming twisted round

suitable objects and thereby giving support to the plant. The flowers

are arranged in axillary or terminal clusters; they have no petals, but

white or coloured, often very large sepals, and an indefinite number of

stamens and carpels. They contain no honey, and are visited by insects

for the sake of the pollen, which is plentiful. The fruit is a head of

achenes, each bearing the long-bearded persistent style, suggesting the

popular name. This feathery style is an important agent in the

distribution of the seed by means of the wind. Several of the species,

especially the large-flowered ones, are favourite garden plants, well

adapted for covering trellises or walls, or trailing over the ground.

Many garden forms have been produced by hybridization; among the best

known is _C. Jackmanni_, due to Mr George Jackman of Woking.

Further information may be obtained from _The Clematis as a Garden

Flower_, by Thos. Moore and George Jackman. See also G. Nicholson,

_Dictionary of Gardening_, i. (1885) and _Supplements_.

CLEMENCEAU, GEORGES (1841- ), French statesman, was born at

Mouilleron-en-Pareds, Vendee, on the 28th of September 1841. Having

adopted medicine as his profession, he settled in 1869 in Montmartre;

and after the revolution of 1870 he had become sufficiently well known

to be nominated mayor of the 18th arrondissement of Paris

(Montmartre)--an unruly district over which it was a difficult task to

preside. On the 8th of February 1871 he was elected as a Radical to the

National Assembly for the department of the Seine, and voted against the

peace preliminaries. The execution, or rather murder, of Generals

Lecomte and Clement Thomas by the communists on 18th March, which he

vainly tried to prevent, brought him into collision with the central

committee sitting at the hotel de ville, and they ordered his arrest,

but he escaped; he was accused, however, by various witnesses, at the

subsequent trial of the murderers (November 29th), of not having

intervened when he might have done, and though he was cleared of this

charge it led to a duel, for his share in which he was prosecuted and

sentenced to a fine and a fortnight's imprisonment.

Meanwhile, on the 20th of March 1871, he had introduced in the National

Assembly at Versailles, on behalf of his Radical colleagues, the bill

establishing a Paris municipal council of eighty members; but he was not

returned himself at the elections of the 26th of March. He tried with

the other Paris mayors to mediate between Versailles and the hotel de

ville, but failed, and accordingly resigned his mayoralty and his seat

in the Assembly, and temporarily gave up politics; but he was elected to

the Paris municipal council on the 23rd of July 1871 for the

Clignancourt _quartier_, and retained his seat till 1876, passing

through the offices of secretary and vice-president, and becoming

president in 1875. In 1876 he stood again for the Chamber of Deputies,

and was elected for the 18th arrondissement. He joined the Extreme Left,

and his energy and mordant eloquence speedily made him the leader of the

Radical section. In 1877, after the _Seize Mai_ (see FRANCE: _History_),

he was one of the republican majority who denounced the Broglie

ministry, and he took a leading part in resisting the anti-republican

policy of which the _Seize Mai_ incident was a symptom, his demand in

1879 for the indictment of the Broglie ministry bringing him into

particular prominence. In 1880 he started his newspaper, _La Justice_,

which became the principal organ of Parisian Radicalism; and from this

time onwards throughout M. Grevy's presidency his reputation as a

political critic, and as a destroyer of ministries who yet would not

take office himself, rapidly grew. He led the Extreme Left in the

Chamber. He was an active opponent of M. Jules Ferry's colonial policy

and of the Opportunist party, and in 1885 it was his use of the Tongking

disaster which principally determined the fall of the Ferry cabinet. At

the elections of 1885 he advocated a strong Radical programme, and was

returned both for his old seat in Paris and for the Var, selecting the

latter. Refusing to form a ministry to replace the one he had

overthrown, he supported the Right in keeping M. Freycinet in power in

1886, and was responsible for the inclusion of General Boulanger in the

Freycinet cabinet as war minister. When Boulanger (q.v.) showed himself

as an ambitious pretender, Clemenceau withdrew his support and became a

vigorous combatant against the Boulangist movement, though the Radical

press and a section of the party continued to patronize the general.

By his exposure of the Wilson scandal, and by his personal plain

speaking, M. Clemenceau contributed largely to M. Grevy's resignation of

the presidency in 1887, having himself declined Grevy's request to form

a cabinet on the downfall of that of M. Rouvier; and he was primarily

responsible, by advising his followers to vote neither for Floquet,

Ferry nor Freycinet, for the election of an "outsider" as president in

M. Carnot. He had arrived, however, at the height of his influence, and

several factors now contributed to his decline. The split in the Radical

party over Boulangism weakened his hands, and its collapse made his help

unnecessary to the moderate republicans. A further misfortune occurred

in the Panama affair, Clemenceau's relations with Cornelius Herz leading

to his being involved in the general suspicion; and, though he remained

the leading spokesman of French Radicalism, his hostility to the Russian

alliance so increased his unpopularity that in the election for 1893 he

was defeated for the Chamber, after having sat in it continuously since

1876. After his defeat for the Chamber, M. Clemenceau confined his

political activities to journalism, his career being further

overclouded--so far as any immediate possibility of regaining his old

ascendancy was concerned--by the long-drawn-out Dreyfus case, in which

he took an active and honourable part as a supporter of M. Zola and an

opponent of the anti-Semitic and Nationalist campaign. In 1900 he

withdrew from _La Justice_ to found a weekly review, _Le Bloc_, which

lasted until March 1902. On the 6th of April 1902 he was elected senator

for the Var, although he had previously continually demanded the

suppression of the Senate. He sat with the Socialist Radicals, and

vigorously supported the Combes ministry. In June 1903 he undertook the

direction of the journal _L'Aurore_, which he had founded. In it he led

the campaign for the revision of the Dreyfus affair, and for the

separation of Church and State.

In March 1906 the fall of the Rouvier ministry, owing to the riots

provoked by the inventories of church property, at last brought

Clemenceau to power as minister of the interior in the Sarrien cabinet.

The strike of miners in the Pas de Calais after the disaster at

Courrieres, leading to the threat of disorder on the 1st of May 1906,

obliged him to employ the military; and his attitude in the matter

alienated the Socialist party, from which he definitely broke in his

notable reply in the Chamber to Jean Jaures in June 1906. This speech

marked him out as the strong man of the day in French politics; and when

the Sarrien ministry resigned in October, he became premier. During 1907

and 1908 his premiership was notable for the way in which the new

_entente_ with England was cemented, and for the successful part which

France played in European politics, in spite of difficulties with

Germany and attacks by the Socialist party in connexion with Morocco

(see FRANCE: _History_). But on July 20th, 1909, he was defeated in a

discussion in the Chamber on the state of the navy, in which bitter

words were exchanged between him and Delcasse; and he at once resigned,

being succeeded as premier by M. Briand, with a reconstructed cabinet.

CLEMENCIN, DIEGO (1765-1834), Spanish scholar and politician, was born

on the 27th of September 1765, at Murcia, and was educated there at the

Colegio de San Fulgencio. Abandoning his intention of taking orders, he

found employment at Madrid in 1788 as tutor to the sons of the

countess-duchess de Benavente, and devoted himself to the study of

archaeology. In 1807 he became editor of the _Gaceta de Madrid_, and in

the following year was condemned to death by Murat for publishing a

patriotic article; he fled to Cadiz, and under the Junta Central held

various posts from which he was dismissed by the reactionary government

of 1814. During the liberal regime of 1820-1823 Clemencin took office as

colonial minister, was exiled till 1827, and in 1833 published the first

volume of his edition (1833-1839) of _Don Quixote_. Its merits were

recognized by his appointment as royal librarian, but he did not long

enjoy his triumph: he died on the 30th of July 1834. His commentary on

_Don Quixote_ owes something to John Bowle, and is disfigured by a

patronizing, carping spirit; nevertheless it is the most valuable work

of its kind, and is still unsuperseded. Clemencin is also the author of

an interesting _Elogio de la reina Isabel la Catolica_, published as the

sixth volume of the _Memorias_ of the Spanish Academy of History, to

which body he was elected on the 12th of September 1800.

CLEMENT (Lat. _Clemens_, i.e. merciful; Gr. [Greek: Klemes]), the name

of fourteen popes and two anti-popes.

CLEMENT I., generally known as Clement of Rome, or CLEMENS ROMANUS

(flor. c. A.D. 96), was one of the "Apostolic Fathers," and in the lists

of bishops of Rome is given the third or fourth place--Peter, Linus,

(Anencletus), Clement. There is no ground for identifying him with the

Clement of Phil. iv. 3. He may have been a freedman of T. Flavius

Clemens, who was consul with his cousin, the Emperor Domitian, in A.D.

95. A 9th-century tradition says he was martyred in the Crimea in 102;

earlier authorities say he died a natural death; he is commemorated on

the 23rd of November.

In _The Shepherd of Hermas_ (q.v.) (Vis. 11. iv. 3) mention is made of

one Clement whose office it is to communicate with other churches, and

this function agrees well with what we find in the letter to the church

at Corinth by which Clement is best known. Whilst being on our guard

against reading later ideas into the title "bishop" as applied to

Clement, there is no reason to doubt that he was one of the chief

personalities in the Christian community at Rome, where since the time

of Paul the separate house congregations (Rom. xvi.) had been united

into one church officered by presbyters and deacons (Clem. 40-42). The

letter in question was occasioned by a dispute in the church of Corinth,

which had led to the ejection of several presbyters from their office.

It does not contain Clement's name, but is addressed by "the Church of

God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in

Corinth." But there is no reason for doubting the universal tradition

which ascribes it to Clement, or the generally accepted date, c. A.D.

96. No claim is made by the Roman Church to interfere on any ground of

superior rank; yet it is noteworthy that in the earliest document

outside the canon which we can securely date, the church in the imperial

city comes forward as a peacemaker to compose the troubles of a church

in Greece. Nothing is known of the cause of the discontent; no moral

offence is charged against the presbyters, and their dismissal is

regarded by Clement as high-handed and unjustifiable, and as a revolt of

the younger members of the community against the elder. After a

laudatory account of the past conduct of the Corinthian Church, he

enters upon a denunciation of vices and a praise of virtues, and

illustrates his various topics by copious citations from the Old

Testament scriptures. Thus he paves the way for his tardy rebuke of

present disorders, which he reserves until two-thirds of his epistle is

completed. Clement is exceedingly discursive, and his letter reaches

twice the length of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Many of his general

exhortations are but very indirectly connected with the practical issue

to which the epistle is directed, and it is very probable that he was

drawing largely upon the homiletical material with which he was

accustomed to edify his fellow-Christians at Rome.

This view receives some support from the long liturgical prayer at the

close, which almost certainly represents the intercession used in the

Roman eucharists. But we must not allow such a theory to blind us to the

true wisdom with which the writer defers his censure. He knows that the

roots of the quarrel lie in a wrong condition of the church's life. His

general exhortations, courteously expressed in the first person plural,

are directed towards a wide reformation of manners. If the wrong spirit

can be exorcised, there is hope that the quarrel will end in a general

desire for reconciliation. The most permanent interest of the epistle

lies in the conception of the grounds on which the Christian ministry

rests according to the view of a prominent teacher before the 1st

century has closed. The orderliness of nature is appealed to as

expressing the mind of its Creator. The orderliness of Old Testament

worship bears a like witness; everything is duly fixed by God; high

priests, priests and Levites, and the people in the people's place.

Similarly in the Christian dispensation all is in order due. "The

apostles preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus

Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the apostles from

Christ. . . . They appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by

the Spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who should believe. . . .

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be

strife about the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore,

having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid, and

afterwards gave a further injunction ([Greek: heptnomen] has now the

further evidence of the Latin _legem_) that, if these should fall

asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. . . . It

will be no small sin in us if we eject from the bishop's office those

who have offered the gifts blamelessly and holily" (cc. xlii. xliv.).

Clement's familiarity with the Old Testament points to his being a

Christian of long standing rather than a recent convert. We learn from

his letter (i. 7) that the church at Rome, though suffering persecution,

was firmly held together by faith and love, and was exhibiting its unity

in an orderly worship. The epistle was publicly read from time to time

at Corinth, and by the 4th century this usage had spread to other

churches. We even find it attached to the famous Alexandrian MS. (Codex

A) of the New Testament, but this does not imply that it ever reached

canonical rank. For the mass of early Christian literature that was

gradually attached to his name see CLEMENTINE LITERATURE.

The epistle was published in 1633 by Patrick Young from Cod.

Alexandrinus, in which a leaf near the end was missing, so that the

great prayer (cc. lv.-lxiv.) remained unknown. In 1875 (six years

after J.B. Lightfoot's first edition) Bryennius (q.v.) published a

complete text from the MS. in Constantinople (dated 1055), from which

in 1883 he gave us the _Didache_. In 1876 R.L. Bensly found a complete

Syriac text in a MS. recently obtained by the University library at

Cambridge. Lightfoot made use of these new materials in an Appendix

(1877); his second edition, on which he had been at work at the time

of his death, came out in 1890. This must remain the standard edition,

notwithstanding Dom Morin's most interesting discovery of a Latin

version (1894), which was probably made in the 3rd century, and is a

valuable addition to the authorities for the text. Its evidence is

used in a small edition of the epistle by R. Knopf (Leipzig, 1899).

See also W. Wrede, _Untersuchungen zum ersten Clemensbrief_ (1891),

and the other literature cited in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopaedie_,

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

CLEMENT II. (Suidger) became pope on the 25th of December 1046. He

belonged to a noble Saxon family, was bishop of Bamberg, and chancellor

to the emperor Henry III., to whom he was indebted for his elevation to

the papacy upon the abdication of Gregory VI. He was the first pope

placed on the throne by the power of the German emperors, but his short

pontificate was only signalized by the convocation of a council in which

decrees were enacted against simony. He died on the 9th of October 1047,

and was buried at Bamberg. (L. D.*)

CLEMENT III. (Paolo Scolari), pope from 1187 to 1191, a Roman, was made

cardinal bishop of Palestrina by Alexander III. in 1180 or 1181. On the

19th of December 1187 he was chosen at Pisa to succeed Gregory VIII. On

the 31st of May 1188 he concluded a treaty with the Romans which removed

difficulties of long standing, and in April 1189 he made peace with the

emperor Frederick I. Barbarossa. He settled a controversy with William

of Scotland concerning the choice of the archbishop of St Andrews, and

on the 13th of March 1188 removed the Scottish church from under the

legatine jurisdiction of the archbishop of York, thus making it

independent of all save Rome. In spite of his conciliatory policy,

Clement angered Henry VI. of Germany by bestowing Sicily on Tancred. The

crisis was acute when the pope died, probably in the latter part of

March 1191.

See "Epistolae et Privilegia," in J.P. Migne, _Patrologiae cursus

completes_, tom. 204 (Paris, 1853), 1253 ff.; additional material in

_Neues Archiv fuer die aeltere deutsche Geschichtskunde_, 2. 219; 6.

293; 14. 178-182; P. Jaffe, _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_, tom. 2

(2nd edition, Leipzig, 1888), 535 ff. (W. W. R.*)

CLEMENT IV. (Gui Foulques), pope from 1265 to 1268, son of a successful

lawyer and judge, was born at St Gilles-sur-Rhone. He studied law, and

became a valued adviser of Louis IX. of France. He married, and was the

father of two daughters, but after the death of his wife took orders. In

1257 he became bishop of Le Puy; in 1259 he was elected archbishop of

Narbonne; and on the 24th of December 1261 Urban IV. created him

cardinal bishop of Sabina. He was appointed legate in England on the

22nd of November 1263, and before his return was elected pope at Perugia

on the 5th of February 1265. On the 26th of February he invested Charles

of Anjou with the kingdom of Sicily; but subsequently he came into

conflict with Charles, especially after the death of Manfred in February

1266. To the cruelty and avarice of Charles he opposed a generous

humanity. When Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen, appeared in Italy

the pope excommunicated him and his supporters, but it is improbable

that he was in the remotest degree responsible for his execution. At

Viterbo, where he spent most of his pontificate, Clement died on the

29th of November 1268, leaving a name unsullied by nepotism. As the

benefactor and protector of Roger Bacon he has a special title to the

gratitude of posterity.

See A. Potthast, _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_, vol. ii. (Berlin,

l875). 1542 ff.; E. Jordan, _Les Registres de Clement IV_ (Paris, 1893

ff.); Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopaedie_ (3rd ed., vol. iv., Leipzig,

1898), 144 f.; J. Heidemann, _Papst Clemens IV., I. Teil: Das Vorleben

des Papstes und sein Legationsregister = Kirchengeschichtliche

Studien, herausgegeben von Knoepfler_, &c., 6. Band, 4. Heft (Muenster,

1903), reprints _Processus legationis in Angliam_. (W. W. R.*)

CLEMENT V. (Bertrand de Gouth), pope from 1305 to 1314, was born of a

noble Gascon family about 1264. After studying the arts at Toulouse and

law at Orleans and Bologna, he became a canon at Bordeaux and then

vicar-general to his brother the archbishop of Lyons, who in 1294 was

created cardinal bishop of Albano. Bertrand was made a chaplain to

Boniface VIII., who in 1295 nominated him bishop of Cominges (Haute

Garonne), and in 1299 translated him to the archbishopric of Bordeaux.

Because he attended the synod at Rome in 1302 in the controversy between

France and the Pope, he was considered a supporter of Boniface VIII.,

yet was by no means unfavourably regarded at the French court. At

Perugia on the 5th of June 1305 he was chosen to succeed Benedict XI;

the cardinals by a vote of ten to five electing one neither an Italian

nor a cardinal, in order to end a conclave which had lasted eleven

months. The chronicler Villani relates that Bertrand owed his election

to a secret agreement with Philip IV., made at St Jean d'Angely in

Saintonge; this may be dismissed as gossip, but it is probable that the

future pope had to accept certain conditions laid down by the cardinals.

At Bordeaux Bertrand was formally notified of his election and urged to

come to Italy; but he caused his coronation to take place at Lyons on

the 14th of November 1305. From the beginning Clement V. was subservient

to French interests. Among his first acts was the creation of nine

French cardinals. Early in 1306 he modified or explained away those

features of the bulls _Clericis Laicos_ and _Unam sanctam_ which were

particularly offensive to the king. Most of the year 1306 he spent at

Bordeaux because of ill-health; subsequently he resided at Poitiers and

elsewhere, and in March 1309 the entire papal court settled at Avignon,

an imperial fief held by the king of Sicily. Thus began the seventy

years "Babylonian captivity of the Church." On the 13th of October 1307

came the arrest of all the Knights Templar in France, the breaking of a

storm conjured up by royal jealousy and greed. From the very day of

Clement's coronation the king had charged the Templars with heresy,

immorality and abuses, and the scruples of the weak pope were at length

overcome by apprehension lest the State should not wait for the Church,

but should proceed independently against the alleged heretics, as well

as by the royal threats of pressing the accusation of heresy against the

late Boniface VIII. In pursuance of the king's wishes Clement summoned

the council of Vienne (see VIENNE, COUNCIL OF), which was unable to

conclude that the Templars were guilty of heresy. The pope abolished the

order, however, as it seemed to be in bad repute and had outlived its

usefulness. Its French estates were granted to the Hospitallers, but

actually Philip IV. held them until his death.

In his relations to the Empire Clement was an opportunist. He refused to

use his full influence in favour of the candidacy of Charles of Valois,

brother of Philip IV., lest France became too powerful; and recognized

Henry of Luxemburg, whom his representatives crowned emperor at the

Lateran in 1312. When Henry, however, came into conflict with Robert of

Naples, Clement supported Robert and threatened the emperor with ban and

interdict. But the crisis passed with the unexpected death of Henry,

soon followed by that of the pope on the 20th of April 1314 at

Roquemaure-sur-Rhone. Though the sale of offices and oppressive taxation

which disgraced his pontificate may in part be explained by the

desperate condition of the papal finances and by his saving up gold for

a crusade, nevertheless he indulged in unbecoming pomp. Showing

favouritism toward his family and his nation, he brought untold

disaster on the Church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY--See "Clementis V. . . . et aliorum epistolae," in S.

Baluzius, _Vitae Paparum Avenionensium_, tom. ii. (Paris, 1693), 55

ff.; "Tractatus cum Henrico VII. imp. Germ. anno 1309," in Pertz,

_Monumenta Germaniae historica_, legum ii. I. 492-496; J.F. Rabanis,

_Clement V et Philippe le Bel. Suivie du journal de la visite

pastorale de Bertrand de Got dans la province ecclesiastique de

Bordeaux en 1304 et 1305_ (Paris, 1858); "Clementis Papae V.

Constitutiones," in _Corpus Iuris Canonici_, ed. Aemilius Friedberg,

vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1881), 1125-1200; P.B. Gams, _Series Episcoporum

Ecclesiae Catholicae_ (Regensburg, 1873); Wetzer und Welte,

_Kirchenlexikon_, vol. iii. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1884), 462-473;

_Regestum Clementis Papae V. ex Vaticanis archetypis cura et studio

monachorum ord. Ben._ (Rome, 1885-1892), 9 vols. and appendix; J.

Gmelin, _Schuld oder Unschuld des Templerordens_ (Stuttgart, 1893);

Gachon, _Pieces relatifs au debat du pape Clement V avec l'empereur

Henri VII_ (Montpellier 1894); Lacoste, _Nouvelles Etudes sur Clement

V_ (1896); Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopaedie_, vol. iv. (3rd ed.,

Leipzig, 1898), 144 f.; J. Loserth, _Geschichte des spaeteren

Mittelalters_ (Munich, 1903); and A. Eitel, _Der Kirchenstaat unter

Klemens V._ (Berlin, 1907). (W. W. R.*)

CLEMENT VI. (Pierre Roger), pope from the 7th of May 1342 to the 6th of

December 1352, was born at Maumont in Limousin in 1291, the son of the

wealthy lord of Rosieres, entered the Benedictine order as a boy,

studied at Paris, and became successively prior of St Baudil, abbot of

Fecamp, bishop of Arras, chancellor of France, archbishop of Sens and

archbishop of Rouen. He was made cardinal-priest of Sti Nereo ed

Achilleo and administrator of the bishopric of Avignon by Benedict XII.

in 1338, and four years later succeeded him as pope. He continued to

reside at Avignon despite the arguments of envoys and the verses of

Petrarch, but threw a sop to the Romans by reducing the Jubilee term

from one hundred years to fifty. He appointed Cola di Rienzo to a civil

position at Rome, and, although at first approving the establishment of

the tribunate, he later sent a legate who excommunicated Rienzo and,

with the help of the aristocratic faction, drove him from the city

(December 1347). Clement continued the struggle of his predecessors with

the emperor Louis the Bavarian, excommunicating him after protracted

negotiations on the 13th of April 1346, and directing the election of

Charles of Moravia, who received general recognition after the death of

Louis in October 1347, and put an end to the schism which had long

divided Germany. Clement proclaimed a crusade in 1343, but nothing was

accomplished beyond a naval attack on Smyrna (29th of October 1344). He

also carried on fruitless negotiations for church unity with the

Armenians and with the Greek emperor, John Cantacuzenus. He tried to end

the Hundred Years' War between England and France, but secured only a

temporary truce. He excommunicated Casimir of Poland for marital

infidelity and forced him to do penance. He successfully resisted

encroachments on ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the kings of England,

Castile and Aragon. He made Prague an archbishopric in 1344, and three

years later founded the university there. During the disastrous plague

of 1347-1348 Clement did all he could to alleviate the distress, and

condemned the Flagellants and Jew-baiters. He tried Queen Joanna of

Naples for the murder of her husband and acquitted her. He secured full

ownership of the county of Avignon through purchase from Queen Joanna

(9th of June 1348) and renunciation of feudal claims by Charles IV. of

France, and considerably enlarged the papal palace in that city. To

supply money for his many undertakings Clement revived the practice of

selling reservations and expectancies, which had been abolished by his

predecessor. Oppressive taxation and unblushing nepotism were Clement's

great faults. On the other hand, he was famed for his engaging manners,

eloquence and theological learning. He died on the 6th of December 1352,

and was buried in the Benedictine abbey at Auvergne, but his tomb was

destroyed by Calvinists in 1562. His successor was Innocent VI.

The chief sources for the life of Clement VI. are in Baluzius, _Vitae

Pap. Avenion._, vol. i. (Paris, 1693); E. Werunsky, _Excerpta ex

registris Clementis VI. et Innocentii VI._ (Innsbruck, 1885); and F.

Cerasoli, _Clemente VI. e Giovanni I. di Napoli--Documenti inedite

dell' Archivio Vaticano_ (1896, &c).

See L. Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. i., trans, by F.I.

Antrobus (London, 1899); F. Gregorovius, _Rome in the Middle Ages_,

vol. vi. trans. by Mrs G.W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); J.B.

Christophe, _Histoire de la papaute pendant le XIVe siecle_, vol. ii.

(Paris, 1853); also article by L. Kuepper in the _Kirchenlexikon_ (2nd

ed.). (C.H.HA.)

CLEMENT VII. (Robert of Geneva), (d. 1394), antipope, brother of Peter,

count of Genevois, was connected by blood or marriage with most of the

sovereigns of Europe. After occupying the episcopal sees of Therouanne

and Cambrai, he attained to the cardinalate at an early age. In 1377, as

legate of Pope Gregory XI. in the Romagna, he directed, or rather

assisted in, the savage suppression of the revolt of the inhabitants of

Cesena against the papal authority. In the following year he took part

in the election of Pope Urban VI. at Rome, and was perhaps the first to

express doubts as to the validity of that tumultuous election. After

withdrawing to Fondi to reconsider the election, the cardinals finally

resolved to regard Urban as an intruder and the Holy See as still

vacant, and an almost unanimous vote was given in favour of Robert of

Geneva (20th of September 1378), who took the name of Clement VII. Thus

originated the Great Schism of the West.

To his high connexions and his adroitness, as well as to the gross

mistakes of his rival, Clement owed the immediate support of Queen

Joanna of Naples and of several of the Italian barons; and the king of

France, Charles V., who seems to have been sounded beforehand on the

choice of the Roman pontiff, soon became his warmest protector. Clement

eventually succeeded in winning to his cause Scotland, Castile, Aragon,

Navarre, a great part of the Latin East, and Flanders. He had adherents,

besides, scattered through Germany, while Portugal on two occasions

acknowledged him, but afterwards forsook him. From Avignon, however,

where he had immediately fixed his residence, his eyes were always

turned towards Italy, his purpose being to wrest Rome from his rival. To

attain this end he lavished his gold--or rather the gold provided by the

clergy in his obedience--without stint, and conceived a succession of

the most adventurous projects, of which one at least was to leave a

lasting mark on history.

By the bait of a kingdom to be carved expressly out of the States of the

Church and to be called the kingdom of Adria, coupled with the

expectation of succeeding to Queen Joanna, Clement incited Louis, duke

of Anjou, the eldest of the brothers of Charles V., to take arms in his

favour. These tempting offers gave rise to a series of expeditions into

Italy carried out almost exclusively at Clement's expense, in the first

of which Louis lost his life. These enterprises on several occasions

planted Angevin domination in the south of the Italian peninsula, and

their most decisive result was the assuring of Provence to the dukes of

Anjou and afterwards to the kings of France. After the death of Louis,

Clement hoped to find equally brave and interested champions in Louis'

son and namesake; in Louis of Orleans, the brother of Charles VI.; in

Charles VI. himself; and in John III., count of Armagnac. The prospect

of his briliant progress to Rome was ever before his eyes; and in his

thoughts force of arms, of French arms, was to be the instrument of his

glorious triumph over his competitor.

There came a time, however, when Clement and more particularly his

following had to acknowledge the vanity of these illusive dreams; and

before his death, which took place on the 16th of September 1394, he

realized the impossibility of overcoming by brute force an opposition

which was founded on the convictions of the greater part of Catholic

Europe, and discerned among his adherents the germs of disaffection. By

his vast expenditure, ascribable not only to his wars in Italy, his

incessant embassies, and the necessity of defending himself in the

Comtat Venaissin against the incursions of the adventurous Raymond of

Turenne, but also to his luxurious tastes and princely habits, as well

as by his persistent refusal to refer the question of the schism to a

council, he incurred general reproach. Unity was the crying need; and

men began to fasten upon him the responsibility of the hateful schism,

not on the score of insincerity--which would have been very unjust,--but

by reason of his obstinate persistence in the course he had chosen.

See N. Valois, _La France el le grand schisme d'occident_ (Paris,

1896). (N.V.)

CLEMENT VII. (Giulio de' Medici), pope from 1523 to 1534, was the son of

Giuliano de' Medici, assassinated in the conspiracy of the Pazzi at

Florence, and of a certain Fioretta, daughter of Antonia. Being left an

orphan he was taken into his own house by Lorenzo the Magnificent and

educated with his sons. In 1494 Giulio went with them into exile; but,

on Giovanni's restoration to power, returned to Florence, of which he

was made archbishop by his cousin Pope Leo X., a special dispensation

being granted on account of his illegitimate birth, followed by a formal

declaration of the fact that his parents had been secretly married and

that he was therefore legitimate. On the 23rd of September 1513 the pope

conferred on him the title of cardinal and made him legate at Bologna.

During the reign of the pleasure-loving Leo, Cardinal Giulio had

practically the whole papal government in his hands and displayed all

the qualities of a good administrator; and when, on the death of Adrian

VI.--whose election he had done most to secure--he was chosen pope (Nov.

18, 1523), his accession was hailed as the dawn of a happier era. It

soon became clear, however, that the qualities which had made Clement an

excellent second in command were not equal to the exigencies of supreme

power at a time of peculiar peril and difficulty.

Though free from the grosser vices of his predecessors, a man of taste,

and economical without being avaricious, Clement VII. was essentially a

man of narrow outlook and interests. He failed to understand the great

spiritual movement which was convulsing the Church; and instead of

bending his mind to the problem of the Reformation, he from the first

subordinated the cause of Catholicism and of the world to his interests

as an Italian prince and a Medici. Even in these purely secular affairs,

moreover, his timidity and indecision prevented him from pursuing a

consistent policy; and his ill fortune, or his lack of judgment, placed

him, as long as he had the power of choice, ever on the losing side.

Clement's accession at once brought about a political change in favour

of France; yet he was unable to take a strong line, and wavered between

the emperor and Francis I., concluding a treaty of alliance with the

French king, and then, when the crushing defeat of Pavia had shown him

his mistake, making his peace with Charles (April 1, 1525), only to

break it again by countenancing Girolamo Morone's League of Freedom, of

which the aim was to assert the independence of Italy from foreign

powers. On the betrayal of this conspiracy Clement made a fresh

submission to the emperor, only to follow this, a year later, by the

Holy League of Cognac with Francis I. (May 22, 1526). Then followed the

imperial invasion of Italy and Bourbon's sack of Rome (May 1527) which

ended the Augustan age of the papal city in a horror of fire and blood.

The pope himself was besieged in the castle of St Angelo, compelled on

the 6th of June to ransom himself with a payment of 400,000 scudi, and

kept in confinement until, on the 26th of November, he accepted the

emperor's terms, which besides money payments included the promise to

convene a general council to deal with Lutheranism. On the 6th of

December Clement escaped, before the day fixed for his liberation, to

Orvieto, and at once set to work to establish peace. After the signature

of the treaty of Cambrai on the 3rd of August 1529 Charles met Clement

at Bologna and received from him the imperial crown and the iron crown

of Lombardy. The pope was now restored to the greater part of his

temporal power; but for some years it was exercised in subservience to

the emperor. During this period Clement was mainly occupied in urging

Charles to arrest the progress of the Reformation in Germany and in

efforts to elude the emperor's demand for a general council, which

Clement feared lest the question of the mode of his election and his

legitimacy should be raised. It was due to his dependence on Charles V.,

rather than to any conscientious scruples, that Clement evaded Henry

VIII.'s demand for the nullification of his marriage with Catherine of

Aragon, and so brought about the breach between England and Rome. Some

time before his death, however, the dynastic interests of his family led

him once more to a rapprochement with France. On the 9th of June 1531 an

agreement was signed for the marriage of Henry of Orleans with

Catherine de' Medici; but it was not till October 1533 that Clement met

Francis at Marseilles, the wedding being celebrated on the 27th. Before,

however, the new political alliance, thus cemented, could take effect,

Clement died, on the 25th of September 1534.

See E. Casanova, _Lettere di Carlo V. a Clemente VII._ (Florence,

1893); Hugo Laemmer, _Monumenta Vaticana_, &c (Freiburg, 1861); P.

Balan, _Monumenta saeculi XVI. hist. illustr._ (Innsbruck, 1885); ib.

_Mon. Reform. Luther_ (Regensburg, 1884); Stefan Ehses, _Roem. Dokum.

z. Gesch. der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII._ (Paderborn, 1893);

_Calendar of State Papers_ (London, 1869, &c.); J.J.I. von Doellinger,

_Beitraege zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte_ (3 vols.,

Vienna, 1882); F. Guicciardini, _Istoria d'Italia_; L. von Ranke, _Die

roemischen Paepste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten_, and _Deutsche

Gesch. im Zeitalter der Reformation_; W. Hellwig, _Die politischen

Beziehungen Clements VII. zu Karl V., 1526_ (Leipzig, 1889); H.

Baumgarten, _Gesch. Karls V._ (Stuttgart, 1888); F. Gregorovius,

_Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, vol. viii. p. 414. (2nd ed., 1874); P.

Balan, _Clemente VII. e l' Italia de' suoi tempi_ (Milan, 1887); E.

Armstrong, _Charles the Fifth_ (2 vols., London, 1902); M. Creighton,

_Hist. of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation_ (London,

1882); and H.M. Vaughan, _The Medici Popes_ (1908). Further references

will be found in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopaedie, s. Clemens VII_. See

also _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. ii. chap. i. and bibliography.

(W. A. P.)

CLEMENT VIII. (Aegidius Munoz), antipope from 1425 to the 26th of July

1429, was a canon at Barcelona until elected at Peniscola by three

cardinals whom the stubborn antipope Benedict XIII. had named on his

death-bed. Clement was immediately recognized by Alphonso V. of Aragon,

who was hostile to Pope Martin V. on account of the latter's opposition

to his claims to the kingdom of Naples, but abdicated as soon as an

agreement was reached between Alphonso and Martin through the exertions

of Cardinal Pierre de Foix, an able diplomat and relation of the king's.

Clement spent his last years as bishop of Majorca, and died on the 28th

of December 1446.

See. L. Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. i. trans, by F.I.

Antrobus (London, 1899); M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol.

ii. (London, 1899); and consult bibliography on MARTIN V. (C.H.HA.)

CLEMENT VIII. (Ippolito Aldobrandini), pope from 1592 to 1605, was born

at Fano, in 1535. He became a jurist and filled several important

offices. In 1585 he was made a cardinal, and subsequently discharged a

delicate mission to Poland with skill. His moderation and experience

commended him to his fellow cardinals, and on the 30th of January 1592

he was elected pope, to succeed Innocent IX. While not hostile to Philip

II., Clement desired to emancipate the papacy from undue Spanish

influence, and to that end cultivated closer relations with France. In

1595 he granted absolution to Henry IV., and so removed the last

objection to the acknowledgment of his legitimacy. The peace of Vervins

(1598), which marked the end of Philip's opposition to Henry, was mainly

the work of the pope. Clement also entertained hopes of recovering

England. He corresponded with James I. and with his queen, Anne of

Denmark, a convert to Catholicism. But James was only half in earnest,

and, besides, dared not risk a breach with his subjects. Upon the

failure of the line of Este, Clement claimed the reversion of Ferrara

and reincorporated it into the States of the Church (1598). He

remonstrated against the exclusion of the Jesuits from France, and

obtained their readmission. But in their doctrinal controversy with the

Dominicans (see MOLINA, LUIS) he refrained from a decision, being

unwilling to offend either party. Under Clement the publication of the

revised edition of the Vulgate, begun by Sixtus V., was finished; the

Breviary, Missal and Pontifical received certain corrections; the Index

was expanded; the Vatican library enlarged; and the Collegium

Clementinum founded. Clement was an unblushing nepotist; three of his

nephews he made cardinals, and to one of them gradually surrendered the

control of affairs. But on the other hand among those whom he promoted

to the cardinalate were such men as Baronius, Bellarmine and Toledo.

During this pontificate occurred the burning of Giordano Bruno for

heresy; and the tragedy of the Cenci (see the respective articles).

Clement died on the 5th of March 1605, and was succeeded by Leo XI.

See the contemporary life by Ciaconius, _Vitae et res gestae summorum

Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1601-1602); Francolini, _Ippolito Aldobrandini,

che fu Clemente VIII._ (Perugia, 1867); Ranke's excellent sketch,

_Popes_ (Eng. trans. Austin), ii. 234 seq.; v. Reumont, _Gesch. der

Stadt Rom_, iii. 2, 599 seq.; Brosch, _Gesch. des Kirchenstaates_

(1880), i. 301 seq. (T. F. C.)

CLEMENT IX. (Giulio Rospigliosi) was born in 1600, became successively

auditor of the Rota, archbishop of Tarsus _in partibus_, and cardinal,

and was elected pope on the 20th of June 1667. He effected a temporary

adjustment of the Jansenist controversy; was instrumental in concluding

the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668); healed a long-standing breach

between the Holy See and Portugal; aided Venice against the Turks, and

laboured unceasingly for the relief of Crete, the fall of which hastened

his death on the 9th of October 1669.

See Oldoin, continuator of Ciaconius, _Vitae et res gestae summorum

Pontiff. Rom._; Palazzi, _Gesta Pontiff. Rom._ (Venice, 1687-1688),

iv. 621 seq. (both contemporary); Ranke, _Popes_ (Eng. trans. Austin),

iii. 59 seq.; and v. Reumont, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom_, iii. 2, 634 seq.

(T.F.C.)

CLEMENT X. (Emilio Altieri) was born in Rome, on the 13th of July 1590.

Before becoming pope, on the 29th of April 1670 he had been auditor in

Poland, governor of Ancona, and nuncio in Naples. His advanced age

induced him to resign the control of affairs to his adopted nephew,

Cardinal Paluzzi, who embroiled the papacy in disputes with the resident

ambassadors, and incurred the enmity of Louis XIV., thus provoking the

long controversy over the regalia (see INNOCENT XI.). Clement died on

the 22nd of July 1676.

See Guarnacci, _Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1751),

(contin. of Ciaconius), i. 1 seq.; Palazzi, _Gesta Pontiff. Rom._

(Venice, 1687-1688), iv. 655 seq.; and Ranke, _Popes_ (Eng. trans.

Austin), iii. 172 seq. (T.F.C.)

CLEMENT XI (Giovanni Francesco Albani), pope from 1700 to 1721, was born

in Urbino, on the 22nd of July 1649, received an extraordinary education

in letters, theology and law, filled various important offices in the

Curia, and finally, on the 23rd of November 1700, succeeded Innocent

XII. as pope. His private life and his administration were blameless,

but it was his misfortune to reign in troublous times. In the war of the

Spanish Succession he would willingly have remained neutral, but found

himself between two fires, forced first to recognize Philip V., then

driven by the emperor to recognize the Archduke Charles. In the peace of

Utrecht he was ignored; Sardinia and Sicily, Parma and Piacenza, were

disposed of without regard to papal claims. When he quarrelled with the

duke of Savoy, and revoked his investiture rights in Sicily (1715), his

interdict was treated with contempt. The prestige of the papacy had

hardly been lower within two centuries. About 1702 the Jansenist

controversy broke out afresh. Clement reaffirmed the infallibility of

the pope, in matters of _fact_ (1705), and, in 1713, issued the bull

_Unigenitus_, condemning 101 Jansenistic propositions extracted from the

_Moral Reflections_ of Pasquier Quesnel. The rejection of this bull by

certain bishops led to a new party division and a further prolonging of

the controversy (see JANSENISM and QUESNEL, PASQUIER). Clement also

forbade the practice of the Jesuit missionaries in China of

"accommodating" their teachings to pagan notions or customs, in order to

win converts. Clement was a polished writer, and a generous patron of

art and letters. He died on the 19th of March 1721.

For contemporary lives see Elci, _The Present State of the Court of

Rome_, trans, from the Ital. (London, 1706); Polidoro, _De Vita et

Reb. Gest. Clem. XI._ (Urbino, 1727); Reboulet, _Hist. de Clem. XI.

Pape_ (Avignon, 1752); Guarnacci, _Vitae et res gest. Pontiff. Rom._

(Rome, 1751); Sandini, _Vitae Pontiff Rom._ (Padua, 1739); Buder,

_Leben u. Thaten Clementis XI._ (Frankfort, 1720-1721). See also

_Clementis XI. Opera Omnia_ (Frankfort, 1729); the detailed "Studii

sul pontificato di Clem. XI.," by Pometti in the _Archivio della R.

Soc. romana di storia patria_, vols. 21, 22, 23 (1898-1900), and the

extended bibliography in Hergenroether, _Allg. Kirchengesch._ (1880),

iii. 506. (T. F. C.)

CLEMENT XII. (Lorenzo Corsini), pope from 1730 to 1740, succeeded

Benedict XIII. on the 12th of July 1730, at the age of seventy-eight.

The rascally Cardinal Coscia, who had deluded Benedict, was at once

brought to justice and forced to disgorge his dishonest gains.

Politically the papacy had sunk to the level of pitiful helplessness,

unable to resist the aggressions of the Powers, who ignored or coerced

it at will. Yet Clement entertained high hopes for Catholicism; he

laboured for a union with the Greek Church, and was ready to facilitate

the return of the Protestants of Saxony. He deserves well of posterity

for his services to learning and art; the restoration of the Arch of

Constantine; the enrichment of the Capitoline museum with antique

marbles and inscriptions, and of the Vatican library With oriental

manuscripts (see ASSEMANI); and the embellishment of the city with many

buildings. He died on the 6th of February 1740, and was succeeded by

Benedict XIV.

See Guarnacci, _Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1751);

Sandini, _Vitae Pontiff. Rom._ (Padua, 1739); Fabroni, _De Vita et

Reb. Gest. Clementis XII_. (Rome, 1760); Ranke, _Popes_ (Eng. trans.

Austin), iii. 191 seq.; v. Reumont, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom_, iii. 2,

653 seq. (T.F.C.)

CLEMENT XIII. (Carlo della Torre Rezzonico), pope from 1758 to 1769, was

born in Venice, on the 7th of March 1693, filled various important posts

in the Curia, became cardinal in 1737, bishop of Padua in 1743, and

succeeded Benedict XIV. as pope on the 6th of July 1758. He was a man of

upright, moderate and pacific intentions, but his pontificate of eleven

years was anything but tranquil. The Jesuits had fallen upon evil days;

in 1758 Pombal expelled them from Portugal; his example was followed by

the Bourbon countries--France, Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma

(1764-1768). The order turned to the pope as its natural protector; but

his protests (cf. the bull _Apostolicum pascendi munus_, 7th of January

1765) were unheeded (see JESUITS). A clash with Parma occurred to

aggravate his troubles. The Bourbon kings espoused their relative's

quarrel, seized Avignon, Benevento and Ponte Corvo, and united in a

peremptory demand for the suppression of the Jesuits (January 1769).

Driven to extremities, Clement consented to call a Consistory to

consider the step, but on the very eve of the day set for its meeting he

died (2nd of February 1769), not without suspicion of poison, of which,

however, there appears to be no conclusive evidence.

A contemporary account of Clement was written by Augustin de Andres y

Sobinas, ... _el nacimiento, estudios y empleos de ... Clem. XIII_.

(Madrid, 1759). Ravignan's _Clement XIII. e Clement XIV._ (Paris,

1854) is partisan but free from rancour; and appends many interesting

documents. See also the bibliographical note under Clement XIV.

_infra_.; and the extended bibliography in Hergenroether, _Allg.

Kirchengesch._ (1880), iii. 509. (T. F. C.)

CLEMENT XIV. (Lorenzo Ganganelli), pope from 1769 to 1774, son of a

physician of St Arcangelo, near Rimini, was born on the 31st of October

1705, entered the Franciscan order at the age of seventeen, and became a

teacher of theology and philosophy. As regent of the college of S.

Bonaventura, Rome, he came under the notice of Benedict XIV., who

conceived a high opinion of his talents and made him consulter of the

Inquisition. Upon the recommendation of Ricci, general of the Jesuits,

Clement XIII. made him a cardinal; but, owing to his disapproval of the

pope's policy, he found himself out of favour and without influence. The

conclave following the death of Clement XIII. was the most momentous of

at least two centuries. The fate of the Jesuits hung in the balance; and

the Bourbon princes were determined to have a pope subservient to their

hostile designs. The struggle was prolonged three months. At length, on

the 19th of May 1769, Ganganelli was chosen, not as a declared enemy of

the Jesuits, but as being least objectionable to each of the contending

factions. The charge of simony was inspired by Jesuit hatred; there is

absolutely no evidence that Ganganelli pledged himself to suppress the

order.

The outlook for the papacy was dark; Portugal was talking of a

patriarchate; France held Avignon; Naples held Ponte Corvo and

Benevento; Spain was ill-affected; Parma, defiant; Venice, aggressive;

Poland meditating a restriction of the rights of the nuncio. Clement

realized the imperative necessity of conciliating the powers. He

suspended the public reading of the bull _In Coena Domini_, so obnoxious

to civil authority; resumed relations with Portugal; revoked the

_monitorium_ of his predecessor against Parma. But the powers were bent

upon the destruction of the Jesuits, and they had the pope at their

mercy. Clement looked abroad for help, but found none. Even Maria

Theresa, his last hope, suppressed the order in Austria. Temporizing

and partial concessions were of no avail. At last, convinced that the

peace of the Church demanded the sacrifice, Clement signed the brief

_Dominus ac Redemptor_, dissolving the order, on the 21st of July 1773.

The powers at once gave substantial proof of their satisfaction;

Benevento, Ponte Corvo, Avignon and the Venaissin were restored to the

Holy See. But it would be unfair to accept this as evidence of a

bargain. Clement had formerly indignantly rejected the suggestion of

such an exchange of favours.

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 Clement 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 Jesuites_ (Paris, 1846), represented

Clement as lamentably, almost culpably, weak; Cretineau-Joly, in his

_Hist. ... de la Comp. de Jesus_ (Paris, 1844-1845), and his _Clement

XIV et les Jesuites_ (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 Clement

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 Hergenroether, _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) [Greek: Pros Hellenas logos o protreptikos], _A

Hortatory Address to the Greeks_. (2) [Greek: O Paidagogos], _The

Tutor_, in three books. (3) [Greek: Stromateis], or _Patch-work_, in

eight books. (4) [Greek: Tis o sozomenos plousios]; _Who is the Rich

Man that is Saved?_ (5) Eight books of [Greek: Hypotyposeis],

_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 [Greek: Kanon ekklesiastikos], 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 [Greek:

mystes] 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. [Greek: stromateis] were bags in which

bedclothes ([Greek: stromata]) 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 _Hypotyposes_[1] in eight books, have not come down to us.

Cassiodorus translated them into Latin, freely altering to suit his

own ideas of orthodoxy. Both Eusebius and Photius describe the work.

It was a short commentary on all the books of Scripture, including

some of the apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the

Revelation of Peter. Photius speaks in strong language of the impiety

of some opinions in the book (_Bibl._ cod. 109, p. 89 a Bekker), but

his statements are such as to prove conclusively that he must have had

a corrupt copy, or read very carelessly, or grossly misunderstood

Clement. Notes in Latin on the first epistle of Peter, the epistle of

Jude, and the first two of John have come down to us; but whether they

are the translation of Cassiodorus, or indeed a translation of

Clement's work at all, is a matter of dispute.

The treatise on the Passover was occasioned by a work of Melito on the

same subject. Two fragments of this treatise were given by Petavius,

and are contained in the modern editions.

We know nothing of the work called _The Ecclesiastical Canon_ from any

external testimony. Clement himself often mentions the [Greek:

ekklesiastikos kanon], and defines it as the agreement and harmony of

the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered at the appearance

of Christ (_Strom._ vi. cap. xv. 125, p. 803, P.). No doubt this was

the subject of the treatise. Jerome and Photius call the work

_Ecclesiastical Canons_, but this seems to be a mistake.

Of the other treatises mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome nothing is

known. A fragment of Clement, quoted by Antonius Melissa, is most

probably taken from the treatise on slander.

Besides the treatises mentioned by Eusebius, fragments of treatises on

Providence and the Soul have been preserved. Mention is also made of a

work by Clement on the Prophet Amos, and another on Definitions.

In addition to these Clement often speaks of his intention to write on

certain subjects, but it may well be doubted whether in most cases, if

not all, he intended to devote separate treatises to them. Some have

found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The

other subjects are Marriage ([Greek: gamikos logos]), Continence, the

Duties of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and Widows, Prophecy, the Soul,

the Transmigration of the Soul and the Devil, Angels, the Origin of

the World, First Principles and the Divinity of the Logos, Allegorical

Interpretations of Statements made with regard to God's anger and

similar affections, the Unity of the Church, and the Resurrection.

Two works are incorporated in the editions of Clement which are not

mentioned by himself or any ancient writer. They are [Greek: Ek ton

Theodoton kai tes anatolikes kaloumenes didaskalias kata tous

Oualentinou chronous epitomai], and [Greek: Ek ton prophetikon

eklogai]. The first, if it is the work of Clement, must be a book

merely of excerpts, for it contains many opinions which Clement

opposed. Mention is made of Pantaenus in the second, and some have

thought it more worthy of him than the first. Others have regarded it

as a work similar to the first, and derived from Theodorus.

Clement occupies a profoundly interesting position in the history of

Christianity. He is the first to bring all the culture of the Greeks and

all the speculations of the Christian heretics to bear on the exposition

of Christian truth. He does not attain to a systematic exhibition of

Christian doctrine, but he paves the way for it, and lays the first

stones of the foundation. In some respects Justin anticipated him. He

also was well acquainted with Greek philosophy, and took a genial view

of it; but he was not nearly so widely read as Clement. The list of

Greek authors whom Clement has quoted occupies upwards of fourteen of

the quarto pages in Fabricius's _Bibliotheca Graeca_. He is at home

alike in the epic and the lyric, the tragic and the comic poets, and his

knowledge of the prose writers is very extensive. Some, however, of the

classic poets he appears to have known only from anthologies; hence he

was misled into quoting as from Euripides and others verses which were

written by Jewish forgers. He made a special study of the philosophers.

Equally minute is his knowledge of the systems of the Christian

heretics. And in all cases it is plain that he not merely read but

thought deeply on the questions which the civilization of the Greeks and

the various writings of poets, philosophers and heretics raised. But it

was in the Scriptures that he found his greatest delight. He believed

them to contain the revelation of God's wisdom to men. He quotes all the

books of the Old Testament except Ruth and the Song of Solomon, and

amongst the sacred writings of the Old Testament he evidently included

the book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. He is

equally full in his quotations from the New Testament, for he quotes

from all the books except the epistle to Philemon, the second epistle of

St Peter, and the epistle of St James, and he quotes from _The Shepherd

of Hermas_, and the epistles of Clemens Romanus and of Barnabas, as

inspired. He appeals also to many of the lost gospels, such as those of

the Hebrews, of the Egyptians and of Matthias.

Notwithstanding this adequate knowledge of Scripture, the modern

theologian is disappointed to find very little of what he deems

characteristically Christian. In fact Clement regarded Christianity as a

philosophy. The ancient philosophers sought through their philosophy to

attain to a nobler and holier life, and this also was the aim of

Christianity. The difference between the two, in Clement's judgment, was

that the Greek philosophers had only glimpses of the truth, that they

attained only to fragments of the truth, while Christianity revealed in

Christ the absolute and perfect truth. All the stages of the world's

history were therefore preparations leading up to this full revelation,

and God's care was not confined to the Hebrews alone. The worship of the

heavenly bodies, for instance, was given to man at an early stage that

he might rise from a contemplation of these sublime objects to the

worship of the Creator. Greek philosophy in particular was the

preparation of the Greeks for Christ. It was the schoolmaster or

paedagogue to lead them to Christ. Plato was Moses atticizing. Clement

varies in his statement how Plato got his wisdom or his fragments of the

Reason. Sometimes he thinks that they came direct from God, like all

good things, but he is also fond of maintaining that many of Plato's

best thoughts were borrowed from the Hebrew prophets; and he makes the

same statement in regard to the wisdom of the other philosophers. But

however this may be, Christ was the end to which all that was true in

philosophies pointed. Christ himself was the Logos, the Reason. God the

Father was ineffable. The Son alone can manifest Him fully. He is the

Reason that pervades the universe, that brings out all goodness, that

guides all good men. It was through possessing somewhat of this Reason

that the philosophers attained to any truth and goodness; but in

Christians he dwells more fully and guides them through all the

perplexities of life. Photius, probably on a careless reading of

Clement, argued that he could not have believed in a real incarnation.

But the words of Clement are quite precise and their meaning

indisputable. The real difficulty attaches not to the Second Person, but

to the First. The Father in Clement's mind becomes the Absolute of the

philosophers, that is to say, not the Father at all, but the Monad, a

mere point devoid of all attributes. He believed in a personal Son of

God who was the Reason and Wisdom of God; and he believed that this Son

of God really became incarnate though he speaks of him almost invariably

as the Word, and attaches little value to his human nature. The object

of his incarnation and death was to free man from his sins, to lead him

into the path of wisdom, and thus in the end elevate him to the position

of a god. But man's salvation was to be gradual. It began with faith,

passed from that to love, and ended in full and complete knowledge.

There could be no faith without knowledge. But the knowledge is

imperfect, and the Christian was to do many things in simple obedience

without knowing the reason. But he has to move upwards continually until

he at length does nothing that is evil, and he knows fully the reason

and object of what he does. He thus becomes the true Gnostic, but he can

become the true Gnostic only by contemplation and by the practice of

what is right. He has to free himself from the power of passion. He has

to give up all thoughts of pleasure. He must prefer goodness in the

midst of torture to evil with unlimited pleasure. He has to resist the

temptations of the body, keeping it under strict control, and with the

eye of the soul undimmed by corporeal wants and impulses, contemplate

God the supreme good, and live a life according to reason. In other

words, he must strive after likeness to God as he reveals himself in his

Reason or in Christ. Clement thus looks entirely at the enlightened

moral elevation to which Christianity raises man. He believed that

Christ instructed men before he came into the world, and he therefore

viewed heathenism with kindly eye. He was also favourable to the pursuit

of all kinds of knowledge. All enlightenment tended to lead up to the

truths of Christianity, and hence knowledge of every kind not evil was

its handmaid. Clement had at the same time a strong belief in evolution

or development. The world went through various stages in preparation for

Christianity. The man goes through various stages before he can reach

Christian perfection. And Clement conceived that this development took

place not merely in this life, but in the future through successive

grades. The Jew and the heathen had the gospel preached to them in the

world below by Christ and his apostles, and Christians will have to pass

through processes of purification and trial after death before they

reach knowledge and perfect bliss.

The beliefs of Clement have caused considerable difference of opinion

among modern scholars. He sought the truth from whatever quarter he

could get it, believing that all that is good comes from God, wherever

it be found. He belongs therefore to no school of philosophers. He calls

himself an Eclectic. He was in the main a Neoplatonist, drawing from

that school his doctrines of the Monad and his strong tendency towards

mysticism. For his moral doctrine he borrowed freely from Stoicism.

Aristotelian features may be found but are quite subordinate. But

Clement always regards the articles of the Christian creed as the axioms

of a new philosophy. Daehne had tried to show that he was Neoplatonic,

and Reinkens has maintained that he was essentially Aristotelian. His

mode of viewing Christianity does not fit into any classification. It is

the result of the period in which he lived, of his wide culture and the

simplicity and noble purity of his character.

It is needless to say that his books well deserve study; but the study

is not smoothed by simplicity of style. Clement professed to despise

rhetoric, but was himself a rhetorician, and his style is turgid,

involved and difficult. He is singularly simple in his character. In

discussing marriage he refuses to use any but the plainest language. A

euphemism is with him a falsehood. But he is temperate in his opinions;

and the practical advices in the second and third books of the

_Paedagogue_ are remarkably sound and moderate. He is not always very

critical, and he is passionately fond of allegorical interpretations,

but these were the faults of his age.

All early writers speak of Clement in the highest terms of laudation,

and he certainly ought to have been a saint in any Church that reveres

saints. But Clement is not a saint in the Roman Church. He was a saint

up till the time of Benedict XIV., who read Photius on Clement, believed

him, and struck the Alexandrian's name out of the calendar. But many

Roman Catholic writers, though they yield a practical obedience to the

papal decision, have adduced good reason why it should be reversed

(Cognat, p. 451).

EDITIONS.--The standard edition of the collected works will be that of

O. Staehlin (first vol. containing _Protrepticus_ and _Paedagogus_,

Leipzig, 1905). Separate editions of _Strom_. vii., Hort and Major

(1902); _Q.D.S._, Barnard in _Texts and Studies_, v. 2 (1897); W.

Dindorf's edition in 4 vols. (Oxford, 1869) is little more than a

reprint of the text of Bishop Potter, 1715. For the _Fragments_ see

Zahn, _Forschungen zur Gesch. des neut. Kanons_, part iii., or Harnack

and Preuschen, _Gesch. der altch. Litt._, vol. i.

LITERATURE.--A copious bibliography will be found in Harnack,

_Chronologie_, vol. ii., or in Bardenhewer, _Gesch. der altk. Lit._

Either of these will supply the names of works upon Clement's biblical

text, his use of Stoic writers, his quotations from heathen writers,

and his relation to heathen philosophy. A valuable book is de Faye,

_Clem. d'Alex_. (1898). For his theological position see Harnack,

_Dogmengeschichte_; Hort, _Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers_;

Westcott, "Clem, of Alex." in _Dict. Christ. Biog._; Bigg, _Christian

Platonists of Alex._ (1886). A book on Clement's relation to Mysticism

is wanted. (C. Bi.; J. D.)