[1] Zahn thinks we have part of them in the _Adumbrationes Clem.
Alex. in epistolas canonicas_ (Codex Lindum, 96, sec. ix.). They were
perhaps intended as a completion of the preceding course.
CLEMENT, FRANCOIS (1714-1793), French historian, was born at Beze, near
Dijon, and was educated at the Jesuit College at Dijon. At the age of
seventeen he entered the society of the Benedictines of Saint Maur, and
worked with such intense application that at the age of twenty-five he
was obliged to take a protracted rest. He now resided in Paris, where he
wrote the 11th and 12th vols. of the _Histoire litteraire de la France_,
and edited (with Dom Brial) the 12th and 13th vols. of the _Recueil des
historiens des Gauls et de la France_. The king appointed him on the
committee which was engaged in publishing charters, diplomas and other
documents connected with French history (see Xavier Charmes, _Le Comite
des travaux historiques et scientifiques_, vol. i., 1886, passim); and
the Academy of Inscriptions chose him as a member (1785). Dom Clement
also revised the _Art de verifier les dates_, edited in 1750 by Dom
Clemencet. Three volumes with the Indexes appeared from 1783 to 1792. He
was engaged in preparing another volume including the period before the
Christian era, when he died suddenly of apoplexy, at the age of
sixty-nine. The work was afterwards brought down from 1770 to 1827 by
Julien de Courcelles and Fortia d'Urban.
CLEMENT, JACQUES (1567-1589), murderer of the French king Henry III.,
was born at Sorbon in the Ardennes, and became a Dominican friar. Civil
war was raging in France, and Clement became an ardent partisan of the
League; his mind appears to have become unhinged by religious
fanaticism, and he talked of exterminating the heretics, and formed a
plan to kill Henry III. His project was encouraged by some of the heads
of the League; he was assured of temporal rewards if he succeeded, and
of eternal bliss if he failed. Having obtained letters for the king, he
left Paris on the 31st of July 1589, and reached St Cloud, the
headquarters of Henry, who was besieging Paris. On the following day he
was admitted to the royal presence, and presenting his letters he told
the king that he had an important and confidential message to deliver.
The attendants then withdrew, and while Henry was reading the letters
Clement mortally wounded him with a dagger which had been concealed
beneath his cloak. The assassin was at once killed by the attendants who
rushed in, and Henry died early on the following day. Clement's body
was afterwards quartered and burned. This deed, however, was viewed with
far different feelings in Paris and by the partisans of the League, the
murderer being regarded as a martyr and extolled by Pope Sixtus V.,
while even his canonization was discussed.
See E. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, tome vi. (Paris, 1904).
CLEMENTI, MUZIO (c. 1751-1832), Italian pianist and composer, was born
at Rome between 1750 and 1752. His father, a jeweller, encouraged his
son's early musical talent. Buroni and Cordicelli were his first
masters, and at the age of nine Clementi's theoretical and practical
studies had advanced to such a degree that he was able to win the
position of organist at a church. He continued his studies under
Santarelli and Carpani, and at the age of fourteen wrote a mass which
was performed in public. About 1766 Beckford, the author of _Vathek_,
persuaded Clementi to follow him to England, where the young composer
lived in retirement at one of the country seats of his protector in
Dorsetshire until 1770. In that year he first appeared in London, where
his success both as composer and pianist was rapid and brilliant. In
1777 he was for some time employed as conductor of the Italian opera,
but he soon afterwards left London for Paris. Here also his concerts
were crowded by enthusiastic audiences, and the same success accompanied
Clementi on a tour about the year 1780 to southern Germany and Austria.
At Vienna, which he visited between 1781 and 1782, he was received with
high honour by the emperor Joseph II., in whose presence he met Mozart,
and fought a kind of musical duel with him. His technical skill proved
to be equal if not superior to that of his rival, who on the other hand
infinitely surpassed him by the passionate beauty of his interpretation.
It is worth noting that one of the finest of Clementi's sonatas, that in
B flat, shows an exactly identical opening theme with Mozart's overture
to the _Flauto Magico_.
In May 1782 Clementi returned to London, where for the next twelve years
he continued his lucrative occupations of fashionable teacher and
performer at the concerts of the aristocracy. He took shares in the
pianoforte business of a firm which went bankrupt in 1800. He then
established a pianoforte and music business of his own, under the name
of Clementi & Co. Other members were added to the firm, including
Collard and Davis, and the firm was ultimately taken over by Messrs
Collard alone. Amongst his pupils on the pianoforte during this period
may be mentioned John Field, the composer of the celebrated _Nocturnes_.
In his company Clementi paid, in 1804, a visit to Paris, Vienna, St
Petersburg, Berlin and other cities. While he was in Berlin, Meyerbeer
became one of his pupils. He also revisited his own country after an
absence of more than thirty years. In 1810 Clementi returned to London,
but refused to play again in public, devoting the remainder of his life
to composition. Several symphonies belong to this time, and were played
with much success at contemporary concerts, but none of them seem to
have been published. His intellectual and musical faculties remained
unimpaired until his death, on the 9th of March 1832, at Evesham,
Worcester.
Of Clementi's playing in his youth, Moscheles wrote that it was "marked
by a most beautiful _legato_, a supple touch in lively passages, and a
most unfailing _technique_." Mozart may be said to have closed the old
and Clementi to have founded the newer school of _technique_ on the
piano. Amongst Clementi's compositions the most remarkable are sixty
sonatas for pianoforte, and the great collection of _Etudes_ called
_Gradus ad Parnassum_.
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, the name generally given to the writings which at
one time or another were fathered upon Pope Clement I. (q.v.), commonly
called Clemens Romanus, who was early regarded as a disciple of St
Peter. Thus they are for the most part a species of the larger
pseudo-Petrine genus. Chief among them are: (1) The so-called Second
Epistle; (2) two Epistles on Virginity; (3) the _Homilies_ and
_Recognitions_; (4) the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (q.v.); and (5) five
epistles forming part of the Forged Decretals (see DECRETALS). The
present article deals mainly with the third group, to which the title
"Clementine literature" is usually confined, owing to the stress laid
upon it in the famous Tuebingen reconstruction of primitive Christianity,
in which it played a leading part; but later criticism has lowered its
importance as its true date and historical relations have been
progressively ascertained. (1) and (2) became "Clementine" only by
chance, but (3) was so originally by literary device or fiction, the
cause at work also in (4) and (5). But while in all cases the suggestion
of Clement's authorship came ultimately from his prestige as writer of
the genuine Epistle of Clement (see CLEMENT I.), both (3) and (4) were
due to this idea as operative on Syrian soil; (5) is a secondary
formation based on (3) as known to the West.
(1) _The "Second Epistle of Clement."_--This is really the earliest
extant Christian homily (see APOSTOLIC FATHERS). Its theme is the duty
of Christian repentance, with a view to obedience to Christ's precepts
as the true confession and homage which He requires. Its special charge
is "Preserve the flesh pure and the seal (i.e. baptism) unstained"
(viii. 6). But the peculiar way in which it enforces its morals in terms
of the Platonic contrast between the spiritual and sensuous worlds, as
archetype and temporal manifestation, suggests a special local type of
theology which must be taken into account in fixing its _provenance_.
This theology, the fact that the preacher seems to quote the _Gospel
according to the Egyptians_ (in ch. xii. and possibly elsewhere) as if
familiar to his hearers, and indeed its literary affinities generally,
all point to Alexandria as the original home of the homily, at a date
about 120-140 (see _Zeit. f. N. T. Wissenschaft_, vii. 123 ff). Neither
Corinth (as Lightfoot) nor Rome (as Harnack, who assigns it to Bishop
Soter, c. 166-174) satisfies all the internal conditions, while the
Eastern nature of the external evidence and the homily's quasi-canonical
status in the Codex-Alexandrinus strongly favour an Alexandrine origin.
(2) _The Two Epistles to Virgins_, i.e. to Christian celibates of both
sexes. These are known in their entirety only in Syriac, and were first
published by Wetstein (1752), who held them genuine. This view is now
generally discredited, even by Roman Catholics like Funk, their best
recent editor (_Patres Apost._, vol. ii.). External evidence begins with
Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx. 15) and Jerome (_Ad Jovin._ i. 12); and the
silence of Eusebius tells heavily against their existence before the 4th
century, at any rate as writings of Clement. The Monophysite Timothy of
Alexandria (A.D. 457) cites one of them as Clement's, while Antiochus of
St Saba (c. A.D. 620) makes copious but unacknowledged extracts from
both in the original Greek. There is no trace of their use in the West.
Thus their Syrian origin is manifest, the more so that in the Syriac MS.
they are appended to the New Testament, like the better-known epistles
of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus. Indeed, judging from another
Syriac MS. of earlier date, which includes the latter writings in its
canon, it seems that the Epistles on Virginity gradually replaced the
earlier pair in certain Syrian churches--even should Lightfoot be right
in doubting if this had really occurred by Epiphanius's day (_S. Clement
of Rome_, i. 412).
Probably these epistles did not originally bear Clement's name at all,
but formed a single epistle addressed to ascetics among an actual circle
of churches. In that case they, or rather it, may date from the 3rd
century in spite of Eusebius's silence, and are not pseudo-Clementine in
any real sense. It matters little whether or not the false ascription
was made before the division into two implied already by Epiphanius (c.
A.D. 375). Special occasion for such a hortatory letter may be discerned
in its polemic against intimate relations between ascetics of opposite
sex, implied to exist among its readers, in contrast to usage in the
writer's own locality. Now we know that spiritual unions, prompted
originally by highstrung Christian idealism as to a religious fellowship
transcending the law of nature in relation to sex, did exist between
persons living under vows of celibacy during the 3rd century in
particular, and not least in Syria (cf. the case of Paul of Samosata, c.
265, and the Synod of Ancyra in Galatia, c. 314). It is natural, then,
to see in the original epistle a protest against the dangers of such
spiritual boldness (cf. "Subintroductae" in Herzog-Hauck's
_Realencyklopaedie_), prior perhaps to the famous case at Antioch just
noted. Possibly it is the feeling of south Syria or Palestine that here
expresses itself in remonstrance against usages prevalent in north
Syria. Such a view finds support also in the New Testament canon implied
in these epistles.
(3)[a] _The Epistle of Clement to James_ (the Lord's brother). This was
originally part of (3)[b], in connexion with which its origin and date
are discussed. But as known to the West through Rufinus's Latin version,
it was quoted as genuine by the synod of Vaison (A.D. 442) and
throughout the middle ages. It became "the starting point of the most
momentous and gigantic of medieval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals,"
"where it stands at the head of the pontifical letters, extended to more
than twice its original length." This extension perhaps occurred during
the 5th century. At any rate the letter in this form, along with a
"second epistle to James" (on the Eucharist, church furniture, &c.),
dating from the early 6th century, had separate currency long before the
9th century, when they were incorporated in the _Decretals_ by the
forger who raised the Clementine epistles to five (see Lightfoot,
_Clement_, i. 414 ff.).
(3)[b] _The "Homilies" and "Recognitions_"--"The two chief extant
Clementine writings, differing considerably in some respects in
doctrine, are both evidently the outcome of a peculiar speculative type
of Judaistic Christianity, for which the most characteristic name of
Christ was 'the true Prophet.' The framework of both is a narrative
purporting to be written by Clement (of Rome) to St James, the Lord's
brother, describing at the beginning his own conversion and the
circumstances of his first acquaintance with St Peter, and then a long
succession of incidents accompanying St Peter's discourses and
disputations, leading up to a romantic recognition of Clement's father,
mother and two brothers, from whom he had been separated since
childhood. The problems discussed under this fictitious guise are with
rare exceptions fundamental problems for every age; and, whatever may be
thought of the positions maintained, the discussions are hardly ever
feeble or trivial. Regarded simply as mirroring the past, few, if any,
remains of Christian antiquity present us with so vivid a picture of the
working of men's minds under the influence of the new leaven which had
entered into the world" (Hort, _Clem. Recog._, p. xiv.).
The indispensable preliminary to a really historic view of these
writings is some solution of the problem of their mutual relations. The
older criticism assumed a dependence of one upon the other, and assigned
one or both to the latter part of the 2nd century. Recent criticism,
however, builds on the principle, which emerges alike from the external
and internal evidence (see Salmon in the _Dict. of Christian
Biography_), that both used a common basis. Our main task, then, is to
define the nature, origin and date of the parent document, and if
possible its own literary antecedents. Towards the solution of this
problem two contributions of prime importance have recently been made.
The earlier of these is by F.J.A. Hort, and was delivered in the form of
lectures as far back as 1884, though issued posthumously only in 1901;
the other is the elaborate monograph of Dr Hans Waitz (1904).
_Criticism._--(i.) _External Evidence as to the Clementine Romance._ The
evidence of ancient writers really begins, not with Origen,[1] but with
Eusebius of Caesarea, who in his _Eccl. Hist._ iii. 38, writes as
follows: "Certain men have quite lately brought forward as written by
him (Clement) other verbose and lengthy writings, containing dialogues
of Peter, forsooth, and Apion, whereof not the slightest mention is to
be found among the ancients, for they do not even preserve in purity the
stamp of the Apostolic orthodoxy." Apion, the Alexandrine grammarian
and foe of Judaism, whose criticism was answered by Josephus, appears
in this character both in _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, though mainly
in the former (iv. 6-vii. 5). Thus Eusebius implies (1) a spurious
Clementine work containing matter found also in our _Homilies_ at any
rate; and (2) its quite recent origin. Next we note that an extract in
the _Philocalia_ is introduced as follows: "Yea, and Clement the Roman,
a disciple of Peter the Apostle, after using words in harmony with these
on the present problem, in conversation with his father at Laodicea in
the _Circuits_, speaks a very necessary word for the end of arguments
touching this matter, viz. those things which seem to have proceeded
from _genesis_ (= astrological destiny), in the fourteenth book." The
extract answers to _Recognitions_, x. 10-13, but it is absent from our
_Homilies_. Here we observe that (1) the extract agrees this time with
_Recognitions_, not with _Homilies_; (2) its framework is that of the
Clementine romance found in both; (3) the tenth and last book of
_Recognitions_ is here parallel to book xiv. of a work called _Circuits_
(_Periodoi_).
This last point leads on naturally to the witness of Epiphanius (c.
375), who, speaking of Ebionites or Judaizing Christians of various
sorts, and particularly the Essene type, says (_Haer._ xxx. 15) that
"they use certain other books likewise, to wit, the so-called _Circuits_
of Peter, which were written by the hand of Clement, falsifying their
contents, though leaving a few genuine things." Here Ephiphanius simply
assumes that the Ebionite _Circuits of Peter_ was based on a genuine
work of the same scope, and goes on to say that the spurious elements
are proved such by contrast with the tenor of Clement's "encyclic
epistles" (i.e. those to virgins, (2) above); for these enjoin virginity
(celibacy), and praise Elijah, David, Samson, and all the prophets,
whereas the Ebionite _Circuits_ favour marriage (even in Apostles) and
depreciate the prophets between Moses and Christ, "the true Prophet."
"In the _Circuits_, then, they adapted the whole to their own views,
representing Peter falsely in many ways, as that he was daily baptized
for the sake of purification, as these also do; and they say that he
likewise abstained from animal food and meat, as they themselves also
do." Now all the points here noted in the _Circuits_ can be traced in
our _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, though toned down in different
degrees.
The witness of the Arianizing _Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum_ (c. 400) is
in general similar. Its usual form of citation is "Peter in Clement"
(_apud Clementem_). This points to "Clement" as a brief title for the
Clementine _Periodoi_, a title actually found in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411
which contains large parts of _Recognitions_ and _Homilies_, and twice
used by Rufinus, e.g. when he proposes to inscribe his version of the
_Recognitions_ "Rufinus _Clemens_." Rufinus in his preface to this
work--in which for the first time we meet the title
_Recognition(s)_--observes that there are two editions to which the name
applies, two collections of books differing in some points but in many
respects containing the same narrative. This he remarks in explanation of
the order of his version in some places, which he feels may strike his
friend Gaudentius as unusual, the inference being that the other edition
was the better-known one, although it lacked "the transformation of Simon"
(i.e. of Clement's father into Simon's likeness), which is common to the
close both of our _Recognitions_ and _Homilies_, and so probably belonged
to the _Circuits_. We may assume, too (e.g. on the basis of our Syriac
MS.), that the Greek edition of the _Recognition(s)_ actually used by
Rufinus was much nearer the text of the _Periodoi_ of which we have found
traces than we should imagine from its Latin form.
So far we have no sure trace of our _Homilies_ at all, apart from the
Syriac version. Even four centuries later, Photius, in referring to a
collection of books called both _Acts of Peter_ and the _Recognition of
Clement_, does not make clear whether he means _Homilies_ or
_Recognitions_ or either. "In all the copies which we have seen (and
they are not a few) after those different epistles (viz. 'Peter to
James' and 'Clement to James,' prefixed, the one in some MSS. the other
in others) and titles, we found without variation the same treatise,
beginning, I, Clement, &c." But it is not clear that he had read more
than the opening of these MSS. The fact that different epistles are
prefixed to the same work leads him to conjecture "that there were two
editions made of the _Acts of Peter_ (his usual title for the
collection), but in course of time the one perished and that of Clement
prevailed." This is interesting as anticipating a result of modern
criticism, as will appear below. The earliest probable reference to our
_Homilies_ occurs in a work of doubtful date, the pseudo-Athanasian
_Synopsis_, which mentions "Clementines, whence came by selection and
rewriting the true and inspired form." Here too we have the first sure
trace of an expurgated recension, made with the idea of recovering the
genuine form assumed, as earlier by Epiphanius, to lie behind an
unorthodox recension of Clement's narrative. As, moreover, the extant
_Epitome_ is based on our _Homilies_, it is natural to suppose it was
also the basis of earlier orthodox recensions, one or more of which may
be used in certain Florilegia of the 7th century and later. Nowhere do
we find the title _Homilies_ given to any form of the Clementine
collection in antiquity.
(ii.) _The Genesis of the Clementine Literature._ It has been needful to
cite so much of the evidence proving that our _Homilies_ and
_Recognitions_ are both recensions of a common basis, at first known as
the _Circuits of Peter_ and later by titles connecting it rather with
Clement, its ostensible author, because it affords data also for the
historical problems touching (a) the contents and origin of the primary
Clementine work, and (b) the conditions under which our extant
recensions of it arose.
(a) _The Circuits of Peter_, as defined on the one hand by the epistle
of Clement to James originally prefixed to it and by patristic evidence,
and on the other by the common element in our _Homilies_ and
_Recognitions_, may be conceived as follows. It contained accounts of
Peter's teachings and discussions at various points on a route beginning
at Caesarea, and extending northwards along the coast-lands of Syria as
far as Antioch. During this tour he meets with persons of typically
erroneous views, which it was presumably the aim of the work to refute
in the interests of true Christianity, conceived as the final form of
divine revelation--a revelation given through true prophecy embodied in
a succession of persons, the chief of whom were Moses and the prophet
whom Moses foretold, Jesus the Christ. The prime exponent of the
spurious religion is Simon Magus. A second protagonist of error, this
time of Gentile philosophic criticism directed against fundamental
Judaism, is Apion, the notorious anti-Jewish Alexandrine grammarian of
Peter's day; while the role of upholder of astrological fatalism
(_Genesis_) is played by Faustus, father of Clement, with whom Peter and
Clement debate at Laodicea. Finally, all this is already embedded in a
setting determined by the romance of Clement and his lost relatives,
"recognition" of whom forms the _denouement_ of the story.
There is no reason to doubt that such, roughly speaking, were the
contents of the Clementine work to which Eusebius alludes slightingly,
in connexion with that section of it which had to his eye least
verisimilitude, viz. the dialogues between Peter and Apion. Now Eusebius
believed the work to have been of quite recent and suspicious origin.
This points to a date about the last quarter of the 3rd century; and the
prevailing doctrinal tone of the contents, as known to us, leads to the
same result. The standpoint is that of the peculiar Judaizing or Ebonite
Christianity due to persistence among Christians of the tendencies known
among pre-Christian Jews as Essene. The Essenes, while clinging to what
they held to be original Mosaism, yet conceived and practised their
ancestral faith in ways which showed distinct traces of syncretism, or
the operation of influences foreign to Judaism proper. They thus
occupied an ambiguous position on the borders of Judaism. Similarly
Christian Essenism was syncretist in spirit, as we see from its
best-known representatives, the Elchasaites, of whom we first hear about
220, when a certain Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria (some 60 m. south of
Antioch) brought to Rome the _Book of Helxai_--the manifesto of their
distinctive message (Hippol., _Philos._ ix. 13)--and again some twenty
years later, when Origen refers to one of their leaders as having lately
arrived at Caesarea (Euseb. vi. 38). The first half of the 3rd century
was marked, especially in Syria, by a strong tendency to syncretism,
which may well have stirred certain Christian Essenes to fresh
propaganda. Other writings than the _Book of Helxai_, representing also
other species of the same genus, would take shape. Such may have been
some of the pseudo-apostolic _Acts_ to which Epiphanius alludes as in
use among the Ebionites of his own day: and such was probably the
nucleus of our Clementine writings, the _Periodoi_ of Peter.
Harnack (_Chronologie_, ii. 522 f.), indeed, while admitting that much
(e.g. in _Homilies_, viii. 5-7) points the other way, prefers the view
that even the _Circuits_ were of Catholic origin (Chapman, as above, says
Arian, soon after 325), regarding the syncretistic Jewish-Christian
features in it as due either to its earlier basis or to an instinct to
preserve continuity of manner (e.g. absence of explicit reference to
Paul). Hort, on the contrary, assumes as author "an ingenious Helxaite ...
perhaps stimulated by the example of the many Encratite _Periodoi_" (p.
131), and writing about A.D. 200.
Only it must not be thought of as properly Elchasaite, since it knew no
baptism distinct from the ordinary Christian one. It seems rather to
represent a later and modified Essene Christianity, already
half-Catholic, such as would suit a date after 250, in keeping with
Eusebius's evidence. Confirmation of such a date is afforded by the
silence of the Syrian _Didascalia_, itself perhaps dating from about
250, as to any visit of Simon Magus to Caesarea, in contrast to the
reference in its later form, the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (c.
350-400), which is plainly coloured (vi. 9) by the Clementine story. On
the other hand, the _Didascalia_ seems to have been evoked partly by
Judaizing propaganda in north Syria. If, then, it helps to date the
_Periodoi_ as after 250, it may also suggest as place of origin one of
the large cities lying south of Antioch, say Laodicea (itself on the
coast about 30 m. from Apamea), where the Clementine story reaches its
climax. The intimacy of local knowledge touching this region implied in
the narrative common to _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ is notable, and
tells against an origin for the _Periodoi_ outside Syria (e.g. in Rome,
as Waitz and Harnack hold, but Lightfoot disproves, _Clem._ i. 55 f.,
64,100, cf. Hort, p. 131). Further, though the curtain even in it fell
on Peter at Antioch itself (our one complete MS. of the _Homilies_ is
proved by the _Epitome_, based on the _Homilies_, to be here abridged),
the interest of the story culminates at Laodicea.
If we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines
arose in Syria, perhaps c. 265,[2] had it also a written source or
sources which we can trace? Though Hort doubts it, most recent scholars
(e.g. Waitz, Harnack) infer the existence of at least one source,
"Preachings (_Kerygmata_) of Peter," containing no reference at all to
Clement. Such a work seems implied by the epistle of Peter to James and
its appended adjuration, prefixed in our MSS. to the _Homilies_ along
with the epistle of Clement to James. Thus the later work aimed at
superseding the earlier, much as Photius suggests (see above). It was,
then, to these "Preachings of Peter" that the most Ebionite features,
and especially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still
inhering in the _Periodoi_ (as implied by _Homilies_ in particular),
originally belonged. The fact, however, that these were not more
completely suppressed in the later work, proves that it, too, arose in
circles of kindred, though largely modified, Judaeo-Christian sentiment
(cf. _Homilies_, vii., e.g. ch. 8). The differences of standpoint may be
due not only to lapse of time, and the emergence of new problems on the
horizon of Syrian Christianity generally, but also to change in locality
and in the degree of Greek culture represented by the two works. A
probable date for the "Preachings" used in the _Periodoi_ is c. 200.[3]
If the home of the _Periodoi_ was the region of the Syrian Laodicea, we
can readily explain most of its characteristics. Photius refers to the
"excellences of its language and its learning"; while Waitz describes
the aim and spirit of its contents as those of an apology for
Christianity against heresy and paganism, in the widest sense of the
word, written in order to win over both Jews (cf. _Recognitions_, i.
53-70) and pagans, but mainly the latter. In particular it had in view
persons of culture, as most apt to be swayed by the philosophical
tendencies in the sphere of religion prevalent in that age, the age of
neo-Platonism. It was in fact designed for propaganda among religious
seekers in a time of singular religious restlessness and varied inquiry,
and, above all, for use by catechumens (cf. _Ep. Clem._ 2, 13) in the
earlier stages of their preparation for Christian baptism. To such its
romantic setting would be specially adapted, as falling in with the
literary habits and tastes of the period; while its doctrinal
peculiarities would least give offence in a work of the aim and
character just described.
As regards the sources to the narrative part of the _Periodoi_, it is
possible that the "recognition" _motif_ was a literary commonplace. The
account of Peter's journeyings was no doubt based largely on local
Syrian tradition, perhaps as already embodied in written _Acts of Peter_
(so Waitz and Harnack), but differing from the Western type, e.g. in
bringing Peter to Rome long before Nero's reign. As for the allusions,
more or less indirect, to St Paul behind the figure of Simon, as the
arch-enemy of the truth--allusions which first directed attention to the
Clementines in the last century--there can be no doubt as to their
presence, but only as to their origin and the degree to which they are
so meant in _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_. There is certainly "an
application to Simon of words used by or of St Paul, or of claims made
by or in behalf of St Paul" (Hort), especially in _Homilies_ (ii. 17 f.,
xi. 35, xvii. 19), where a consciousness also of the double reference
must still be present, though this does not seem to be the case in
_Recognitions_ (in Rufinus's Latin.) Such covert reference to Paul must
designedly have formed part of the _Periodoi_, yet as adopted from its
more bitterly anti-Pauline basis, the "Preachings of Peter" (cf.
_Homilies_, ii. 17 f. with _Ep. Pet. ad Jac. 2_), which probably shared
most of the features of Ebionite Essenism as described by Epiphanius
xxx. 15 f. (including the qualified dualism of the two kingdoms--the
present one of the devil, and the future one of the angelic
Christ--which appears also in the _Periodoi_, cf. _Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 1
fin._).
(b) That the _Periodoi_ was a longer work than either our _Homilies_ or
_Recognitions_ is practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as
Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form.
Yet _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are abridgments made on different
principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers.
"The _Homilies_ care most for doctrine," especially philosophical
doctrine, "and seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposes"
(e.g. matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx.
1-10 gives additional emphasis to the _Homilies_' theory of evil,
perhaps over against Manichaeism). "The _Recognitions_ care most for the
story," as a means of religious edification, "and have preserved the
general framework much more nearly." They arose in different circles:
indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of
411 A.D., "not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books
in any form." But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, while
_Homilies_ arose in Syria, _Recognitions_ took shape in Rome. Both
probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good
deal in religious standpoint.[4] _Homilies_ was a sort of second
edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much
the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the
doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a
generation or two after the _Periodoi_ appeared. The _Recognitions_, in
both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the
original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others
in the West, was more Catholic in tone and aimed chiefly at commending
the Christian religion over against all non-Christian rivals or gnostic
perversions. That is, more than one effort of this sort had been made to
adapt the story of Clement's _Recognitions_ to general Christian use.
Later the _Homilies_ underwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling
even before the _Epitome_, in its two extant forms, was made by more
drastic methods of expurgation. One kind of adaptation at least is
proved to have existed before the end of the 4th century, namely a
selection of certain discourses from the _Homilies_ under special
headings, following on _Recognitions_, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS.
of A.D. 411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its
archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the _Recognitions_ may be dated c.
350-375[5] (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that
of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and the _Homilies_ prior even to 350.
But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating
precarious.
_Summary._--The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure
phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity, and proves
that it embraced more intermediate types, between Ebionism proper and
Catholicism, than has generally been realized. Incidentally, too, its
successive forms illustrate many matters of belief and usage among
Syrian Christians generally in the 3rd and 4th centuries, notably their
apologetic and catechetical needs and methods. Further, it discusses, as
Hort observes, certain indestructible problems which much early
Christian theology passes by or deals with rather perfunctorily; and it
does so with a freshness and reality which, as we compare the original
3rd-century basis with the conventional manner of the _Epitome_, we see
to be not unconnected with origin in an age as yet free from the
trammels of formal orthodoxy. Again it is a notable specimen of early
Christian pseudepigraphy, and one which had manifold and far-reaching
results. Finally the romance to which it owed much of its popular
appeal, became, through the medium of Rufinus's Latin, the parent of the
late medieval legend of Faust, and so the ancestor of a famous type in
modern literature.
LITERATURE.--For a full list of this down to 1904 see Hans Waitz, "Die
Pseudoklementinen" (_Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr.
Literatur, neue Folge_, Bd. x. Heft 4), and A. Harnack, _Chronologie
der altchr. Litteratur_ (1904), ii. 518 f. In English, besides Hort's
work, there are articles by G. Salmon, in _Dict. of Christ. Biog._, C.
Bigg, _Studia Biblica_, ii., A.C. Headlam, _Journal of Theol.
Studies_, iii. (J. V. B.)