Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Cincinnatus" to "Cleruchy" (part 4)

China-clay is white, friable and earthy. It occurs in regions of granite, porphyry and syenite, and usually occupies funnel-shaped cavities of no great superficial area, but of considerable depth. It consists of very fine scaly kaolin, larger, shining plates of white mica, grains of quartz and particles of semi-decomposed felspar, tourmaline, zircon and other minerals, which originally formed part of the granite. These clays are produced by the decomposition of the granite by acid vapours, which are discharged after the igneous rock has solidified (“fumarole or pneumatolytic action”). Fluorine and its compounds are often supposed to have been among the agencies which produce this change, but more probably carbonic acid played the principal role. The felspar decomposes into kaolin and quartz; its alkalis are for the most part set free and removed in solution, but are partly retained in the white mica which is constantly found in crude china-clays. Semi-decomposed varieties of the granite are known as china-stone. The kaolin may be washed away from its original site, and deposited in hollows or lakes to form beds of white clay, such as pipe-clay; in this case it is always more or less impure. Yellow and pinkish varieties of china-clay and pipe-clay contain a small quantity of oxide of iron. The best known localities for china-clay are Cornwall, Limoges (France), Saxony, Bohemia and China; it is found also in Pennsylvania, N. Carolina and elsewhere in the United States.

Fire-clays include all those varieties of clay which are very refractory to heat. They must contain little alkalis, lime, magnesia and iron, but some of them are comparatively rich in silica. Many of the clays which pass under this designation belong to the Carboniferous period, and are found underlying seams of coal. Either by rapid growth of vegetation, or by subsequent percolation of organic solutions, most of the alkalis and the lime have been carried away.

Any argillaceous material, which can be used for the manufacture of bricks, may be called a brick-clay. In England, Kimmeridge Clay, Lias clays, London Clay and pulverized shale and slate are all employed for this purpose. Each variety needs special treatment according to its properties. The true brick-clays, however, are superficial deposits of Pleistocene or Quaternary age, and occur in hollows, filled-up lakes and deserted stream channels. Many of them are derived from the glacial boulder-clays, or from the washing away of the finer materials contained in older clay formations. They are always very impure.

The red-clay is an abysmal formation, occurring in the sea bottom in the deepest part of the oceans. It is estimated to cover over fifty millions of square miles, and is probably the most extensive deposit which is in course of accumulation at the present day. In addition to the reddish or brownish argillaceous matrix it contains fresh or decomposed crystals of volcanic minerals, such as felspar, augite, hornblende, olivine and pumiceous or palagonitic rocks. These must either have been ejected by submarine volcanoes or drifted by the wind from active vents, as the fine ash discharged by Krakatoa was wafted over the whole globe. Larger rounded lumps of pumice, found in the clay, have probably floated to their present situations, and sank when decomposed, all their cavities becoming filled with sea water. Crystals of zeolites (phillipsite) form in the red-clay as radiate, nodular groups. Lumps of manganese oxide, with a black, shining outer surface, are also characteristic of this deposit, and frequently encrust pieces of pumice or animal remains. The only fossils of the clay are radiolaria, sharks’ teeth and the ear-bones of whales, precisely those parts of the skeleton of marine creatures which are hardest and can longest survive exposure to sea-water. Their comparative abundance shows how slowly the clay gathers. Small rounded spherules of iron, believed by some to be meteoric dust, have also been obtained in some numbers. Among the rocks of the continents nothing exactly the same as this remarkable deposit is known to occur, though fine dark clays, with manganese nodules, are found in many localities, accompanied by other rocks which indicate deep-water conditions of deposit.

Another type of red-clay is found in caves, and is known as cave-earth or red-earth (terra rossa). It is fine, tenacious and bright red, and represents the insoluble and thoroughly weathered impurities which are left behind when the calcareous matter is removed in solution by carbonated waters. Similar residual clays sometimes occur on the surface of areas of limestone in hollows and fissures formed by weathering.

Boulder-clay is a coarse unstratified deposit of fine clay, with more or less sand, and boulders of various sizes, the latter usually marked with glacial striations.

Some clay rocks which have been laid down by water are very uniform through their whole thickness, and are called mud-stones. Others split readily into fine leaflets or laminae parallel to their bedding, and this structure is accentuated by the presence of films of other materials, such as sand or vegetable debris. Laminated clays of this sort are generally known as shales; they occur in many formations but are very common in the Carboniferous. Some of them contain much organic debris, and when distilled yield paraffin oil, wax, compounds of ammonia, &c. In these oil-shales there are clear, globular, yellow bodies which seem to be resinous. It has been suggested that the admixture of large quantities of decomposed fresh-water algae among the original mud is the origin of the paraffins. In New South Wales, Scotland and several parts of America such oil-shales are worked on a commercial scale. Many shales contain great numbers of ovoid or rounded septarian nodules of clay ironstone. Others are rich in pyrites, which, on oxidation, produces sulphuric acid; this attacks the aluminous silicates of the clay and forms aluminium sulphate (alum shales). The lias shales of Whitby contain blocks of semi-mineralized wood, or jet, which is black with a resinous lustre, and a fibrous structure. The laminated structure of shales, though partly due to successive very thin sheets of deposit, is certainly dependent also on the vertical pressure exerted by masses of super-incumbent rock; it indicates a transition to the fissile character of clay slates.

(J. S. F.)

CLAY CROSS, an urban district in the Chesterfield parliamentary division of Derbyshire, England, near the river Amber, on the Midland railway, 5 m. S. of Chesterfield. Pop. (1901) 8358. The Clay Cross Colliery and Ironworks Company, whose mines were for a time leased by George Stephenson, employ a great number of hands.

CLAYMORE (from the Gaelic claidheamh mòr, “great sword”), the old two-edged broadsword with cross hilt, of which the guards were usually turned down, used by the Highlanders of Scotland. The name is also wrongly applied to the single-edged basket-hilted sword adopted in the 16th century and still worn as the full-dress sword in the Highland regiments of the British army.

CLAYS, PAUL JEAN (1819-1900), Belgian artist, was born at Bruges in 1819, and died at Brussels in 1900. He was one of the most esteemed marine painters of his time, and early in his career he substituted a sincere study of nature for the extravagant and artificial conventionality of most of his predecessors. When he began to paint, the sea was considered by continental artists as worth representing only under its most tempestuous aspects. Artists cared only for the stirring drama of storm and wreck, and they clung still to the old-world tradition of the romantic school. Clays was the first to appreciate the beauty of calm waters reflecting the slow procession of clouds, the glories of sunset illuminating the sails of ships or gilding the tarred sides of heavy fishing-boats. He painted the peaceful life of rivers, the poetry of wide estuaries, the regulated stir of roadsteads and ports. And while he thus broke away from old traditions he also threw off the trammels imposed on him by his master, the marine painter Theodore Gudin (1802-1880). Endeavouring only to give truthful expression to the nature that delighted his eyes, he sought to render the limpid salt atmosphere, the weight of waters, the transparence of moist horizons, the gem-like sparkle of the sky. A Fleming in his feeling for colour, he set his palette with clean strong hues, and their powerful harmonies were in striking contrast with the rusty, smoky tones then in favour. If he was not a “luminist” in the modern use of the word, he deserves at any rate to be classed with the founders of the modern naturalistic school. This conscientious and healthy interpretation, to which the artist remained faithful, without any important change, to the end of an unusually long and laborious career, attracted those minds which aspired to be bold, and won over those which were moderate. Clays soon took his place among the most famous Belgian painters of his generation, and his pictures, sold at high prices, are to be seen in most public and private galleries. We may mention, among others, “The Beach at Ault,” “Boats in a Dutch Port,” and “Dutch Boats in the Flushing Roads,” the last in the National Gallery, London. In the Brussels gallery are “The Port of Antwerp,” “Coast near Ostend,” and a “Calm on the Scheldt”; in the Antwerp museum, “The Meuse at Dordrecht”; in the Pinakothek at Munich, “The Open North Sea”; in the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts, New York, “The Festival of the Freedom of the Scheldt at Antwerp in 1863”; in the palace of the king of the Belgians, “Arrival of Queen Victoria at Ostend in 1857”; in the Bruges academy, “Port of Feirugudo, Portugal.” Clays was a member of several Academies, Belgian and foreign, and of the Order of Leopold, the Legion of Honour, &c.

See Camille Lemonnier, Histoire des Beaux-Arts (Brussels, 1887).

(O. M.*)

CLAYTON, JOHN MIDDLETON (1796-1856), American politician, was born in Dagsborough, Sussex county, Delaware, on the 24th of July 1796. He came of an old Quaker family long prominent in the political history of Delaware. He graduated at Yale in 1815, and in 1819 began to practise law at Dover, Delaware, where for a time he was associated with his cousin, Thomas Clayton (1778-1854), subsequently a United States senator and chief-justice of the state. He soon gained a large practice. He became a member of the state House of Representatives in 1824, and from December 1826 to October 1828 was secretary of state of Delaware. In 1829, by a combination of anti-Jackson forces in the state legislature, he was elected to the United States Senate. Here his great oratorical gifts gave him a high place as one of the ablest and most eloquent opponents of the administration. In 1831 he was a member of the Delaware constitutional convention, and in 1835 he was returned to the Senate as a Whig, but resigned in the following year. In 1837-1839 he was chief justice of Delaware. In 1845 he again entered the Senate, where he opposed the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War, but advocated the active prosecution of the latter once it was begun. In March 1849 he became secretary of state in the cabinet of President Zachary Taylor, to whose nomination and election his influence had contributed. His brief tenure of the state portfolio, which terminated on the 22nd of July 1850, soon after Taylor’s death, was notable chiefly for the negotiation with the British minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (q.v.). He was once more a member of the Senate from March 1853 until his death at Dover, Delaware, on the 9th of November 1856. By his contemporaries Clayton was considered one of the ablest debaters and orators in the Senate.

See the memoir by Joseph P. Comegys in the Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, No. 4 (Wilmington, 1882).

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, a famous treaty between the United States and Great Britain, negotiated in 1850 by John M. Clayton and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer (Lord Dalling), in consequence of the situation created by the project of an interoceanic canal across Nicaragua, each signatory being jealous of the activities of the other in Central America. Great Britain had large and indefinite territorial claims in three regions—Belize or British Honduras, the Mosquito Coast and the Bay Islands. On the other hand, the United States, without territorial claims, held in reserve, ready for ratification, treaties with Nicaragua and Honduras, which gave her a certain diplomatic vantage with which to balance the de facto dominion of Great Britain. Agreement on these points being impossible and agreement on the canal question possible, the latter was put in the foreground. The resulting treaty had four essential points. It bound both parties not to “obtain or maintain” any exclusive control of the proposed canal, or unequal advantage in its use. It guaranteed the neutralization of such canal. It declared that, the intention of the signatories being not only the accomplishment of “a particular object”—i.e. that the canal, then supposedly near realization, should be neutral and equally free to the two contracting powers—“but also to establish a general principle,” they agreed “to extend their protection by treaty stipulation to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America.” Finally, it stipulated that neither signatory would ever “occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast or any part of Central America,” nor make use of any protectorate or alliance, present or future, to such ends.

The treaty was signed on the 19th of April, and was ratified by both governments; but before the exchange of ratifications Lord Palmerston, on the 8th of June, directed Sir H. Bulwer to make a “declaration” that the British government did not understand the treaty “as applying to Her Majesty’s settlement at Honduras, or its dependencies.” Mr Clayton made a counter-declaration, which recited that the United States did not regard the treaty as applying to “the British settlement in Honduras commonly called British-Honduras ... nor the small islands in the neighbourhood of that settlement which may be known as its dependencies”; that the treaty’s engagements did apply to all the Central American states, “with their just limits and proper dependencies”; and that these declarations, not being submitted to the United States Senate, could of course not affect the legal import of the treaty. The interpretation of the declarations soon became a matter of contention. The phraseology reflects the effort made by the United States to render impossible a physical control of the canal by Great Britain through the territory held by her at its mouth—the United States losing the above-mentioned treaty advantages,—just as the explicit abnegations of the treaty rendered impossible such control politically by either power. But great Britain claimed that the excepted “settlement” at Honduras was the “Belize” covered by the extreme British claim; that the Bay Islands were a dependency of Belize; and that, as for the Mosquito Coast, the abnegatory clauses being wholly prospective in intent, she was not required to abandon her protectorate. The United States contended that the Bay Islands were not the “dependencies” of Belize, these being the small neighbouring islands mentioned in the same treaties; that the excepted “settlement” was the British-Honduras of definite extent and narrow purpose recognized in British treaties with Spain; that she had not confirmed by recognition the large, indefinite and offensive claims whose dangers the treaty was primarily designed to lessen; and that, as to the Mosquito Coast, the treaty was retrospective, and mutual in the rigour of its requirements, and as the United States had no de facto possessions, while Great Britain had, the clause binding both not to “occupy” any part of Central America or the Mosquito Coast necessitated the abandonment of such territory as Great Britain was already actually occupying or exercising dominion over; and the United States demanded the complete abandonment of the British protectorate over the Mosquito Indians. It seems to be a just conclusion that when in 1852 the Bay Islands were erected into a British “colony” this was a flagrant infraction of the treaty; that as regards Belize the American arguments were decidedly stronger, and more correct historically; and that as regards the Mosquito question, inasmuch as a protectorate seems certainly to have been recognized by the treaty, to demand its absolute abandonment was unwarranted, although to satisfy the treaty Great Britain was bound materially to weaken it.

In 1859-1860, by British treaties with Central American states, the Bay Islands and Mosquito questions were settled nearly in accord with the American contentions. But by the same treaties Belize was accorded limits much greater than those contended for by the United States. This settlement the latter power accepted without cavil for many years.

Until 1866 the policy of the United States was consistently for inter-oceanic canals open equally to all nations, and unequivocally neutralized; indeed, until 1880 there was practically no official divergence from this policy. But in 1880-1884 a variety of reasons were advanced why the United States might justly repudiate at will the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. The new policy was based on national self-interest. The arguments advanced on its behalf were quite indefensible in law and history, and although the position of the United States in 1850-1860 was in general the stronger in history, law and political ethics, that of Great Britain was even more conspicuously the stronger in the years 1880-1884. In 1885 the former government reverted to its traditional policy, and the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1902, which replaced the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, adopted the rule of neutralization for the Panama Canal.

See the collected diplomatic correspondence in I.D. Travis, History of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1899); J.H. Latané, Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America (Baltimore, 1900); T.J. Lawrence, Disputed Questions of Modern International Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, England, 1885); Sir E.L. Bulwer in 99 Quarterly Rev. 235-286, and Sir H. Bulwer in 104 Edinburgh Rev. 280-298.

The claims to a part of the first two were very old in origin, but all were heavily clouded by interruptions of possession, contested interpretations of Spanish-British treaties, and active controversy with the Central American States. The claim to some of the territory was new and still more contestable. See particularly on these claims Travis’e book cited below.

The islands were ceded to Honduras. The Mosquito Coast was recognized as under Nicaraguan rule limited by an attenuated British protectorate over the Indians, who were given a reservation and certain peculiar rights. They were left free to accept full Nicaraguan rule at will. This they did in 1894.

It was argued, e.g., that the “general principle” of that engagement was contingent on the prior realization of its “particular object,” which had failed, and the treaty had determined as a special contract; moreover, none of the additional treaties to embody the “general principle” had been negotiated, and Great Britain had not even offered co-operation in the protection and neutrality-guarantee of the Panama railway built in 1850-1855, so that her rights had lapsed; certain engagements of the treaty she had violated, and therefore the whole treaty was voidable, &c.

CLAY-WITH-FLINTS, in geology, the name given by W. Whitaker in 1861 to a peculiar deposit of stiff red, brown or yellow clay containing unworn whole flints as well as angular shattered fragments, also with a variable admixture of rounded flint, quartz, quartzite and other pebbles. It occurs “in sheets or patches of various sizes over a large area in the south of England, from Hertfordshire on the north to Sussex on the south, and from Kent on the east to Devon on the west. It almost always lies on the surface of the Upper Chalk, but in Dorset it passes on to the Middle and Lower Chalk, and in Devon it is found on the Chert-Beds of the Selbornian group” (A.J. Jukes-Browne, “The Clay-with-Flints, its Origin and Distribution,” Q.J.G.S., vol. lxii., 1906, p. 132). Many geologists have supposed, and some still hold, that the Clay-with-Flints is the residue left by the slow solution and disintegration of the Chalk by the processes of weathering; on the other hand, it has long been known that the deposit very frequently contains materials foreign to the Chalk, derived either from the Tertiary rocks or from overlying drift. In the paper quoted above, Jukes-Browne ably summarizes the evidence against the view that the deposit is mainly a Chalk residue, and brings forward a good deal of evidence to show that many patches of the Clay-with-Flints lie upon the same plane and may be directly associated with Reading Beds. He concludes “that the material of the Clay-with-Flints has been chiefly and almost entirely derived from Eocene clay, with addition of some flints from the Chalk; that its presence is an indication of the previous existence of Lower Eocene Beds on the same site and nearly at the same relative level, and, consequently, that comparatively little Chalk has been removed from beneath it. Finally, I think that the tracts of Clay-with-Flints have been much more extensive than they are now” (loc. cit. p. 159).

It is noteworthy that the Clay-with-Flints is developed over an area which is just beyond the limits of the ice sheets of the Glacial epoch, and the peculiar conditions of late Pliocene and Pleistocene times; involving heavy rains, snow and frost, may have had much to do with the mingling of the Tertiary and Chalky material. Besides the occurrence in surface patches, Clay-with-Flints is very commonly to be observed descending in “pipes” often to a considerable depth into the Chalk; here, if anywhere, the residual chalk portion of the deposit should be found, and it is surmised that a thin layer of very dark clay with darkly stained flints, which appears in contact with the sides and bottom of the pipe, may represent all there is of insoluble residue.

A somewhat similar deposit, a “conglomérat de silex” or “argue à silex,” occurs at the base of the Eocene on the southern and western borders of the Paris basin, in the neighbourhood of Chartres, Thimerais and Sancerrois.

(J. A. H.)

CLAZOMENAE (mod. Kelisman), an ancient town of Ionia and a member of the Ionian Dodecapolis (Confederation of Twelve Cities), on the Gulf of Smyrna, about 20 m. W. of that city. Though not in existence before the arrival of the Ionians in Asia, its original founders were largely settlers from Phlius and Cleonae. It stood originally on the isthmus connecting the mainland with the peninsula on which Erythrae stood; but the inhabitants, alarmed by the encroachments of the Persians, removed to one of the small islands of the bay, and there established their city. This island was connected with the mainland by Alexander the Great by means of a pier, the remains of which are still visible. During the 5th century it was for some time subject to the Athenians, but about the middle of the Peloponnesian war (412 B.C.) it revolted. After a brief resistance, however, it again acknowledged the Athenian supremacy, and repelled a Lacedaemonian attack. Under the Romans Clazomenae was included in the province of Asia, and enjoyed an immunity from taxation. The site can still be made out, in the neighbourhood of Vourla, but nearly every portion of its ruins has been removed. It was the birthplace of the philosopher Anaxagoras. It is famous for its painted terra-cotta sarcophagi, which are the finest monuments of Ionian painting in the 6th century B.C.

(E. GR.)

CLEANTHES (c. 301-232 or 252 B.C.), Stoic philosopher, born at Assos in the Troad, was originally a boxer. With but four drachmae in his possession he came to Athens, where he listened first to the lectures of Crates the Cynic, and then to those of Zeno, the Stoic, supporting himself meanwhile by working all night as water-carrier to a gardener (hence his nickname Φρεάντλης). His power of patient endurance, or perhaps his slowness, earned him the title of “the Ass”; but such was the esteem awakened by his high moral qualities that, on the death of Zeno in 263, he became the leader of the school. He continued, however, to support himself by the labour of his own hands. Among his pupils were his successor, Chrysippus, and Antigonus, king of Macedon, from whom he accepted 2000 minae. The manner of his death was characteristic. A dangerous ulcer had compelled him to fast for a time. Subsequently he continued his abstinence, saying that, as he was already half-way on the road to death, he would not trouble to retrace his steps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(T. A. I.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(E. O.*)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J. M. M.)

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.

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.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Arist. und Athen, pp. 149-150) suggests δεκαχά, “in ten batches,” instead of δέκα.

It should be observed that there are other translations of the difficult phrase ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους.

Colacretae were very ancient Athenian magistrates; either (1) those who “cut up the joints” in the Prytaneum (κῶλα, κείρω), or (2) those who “collected the joints” (κῶλα, ἀγείρω) 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.

It is, however, more probable that the right reading of the passage is δέκα ἱππεῖς instead of δύο, 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. Müller’s Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni (in the Didot Arrian, 1846); monographs by C. Raun, De Clitarcho Diodori, Curtii, Justini auctore (1868), and F. Reuss, “Hellenistische Beiträge” in Rhein. Mus. lxiii. (1908), pp. 58-78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(L. D.*)

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

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

(W. W. R.*)

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

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

(W. W. R.*)

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

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

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

(W. W. R.*)

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

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

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

(C. H. HA.)

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

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

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

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

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

(N. V.)

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

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

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

See E. Casanova, Lettere di Carlo V. a Clemente VII. (Florence, 1893); Hugo Lämmer, Monumenta Vaticana, &c (Freiburg, 1861); P. Balan, Monumenta saeculi XVI. hist. illustr. (Innsbruck, 1885); ib. Mon. Reform. Luther (Regensburg, 1884); Stefan Ehses, Röm. Dokum. z. Gesch. der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. (Paderborn, 1893); Calendar of State Papers (London, 1869, &c.); J.J.I. von Döllinger, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte (3 vols., Vienna, 1882); F. Guicciardini, Istoria d’Italia; L. von Ranke, Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten, and Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter der Reformation; W. Hellwig, Die politischen Beziehungen Clements VII. zu Karl V., 1526 (Leipzig, 1889); H. Baumgarten, Gesch. Karls V. (Stuttgart, 1888); F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. viii. p. 414. (2nd ed., 1874); P. Balan, Clemente VII. e l’ Italia de’ suoi tempi (Milan, 1887); E. Armstrong, Charles the Fifth (2 vols., London, 1902); M. Creighton, Hist. of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation (London, 1882); and H.M. Vaughan, The Medici Popes (1908). Further references will be found in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, s. Clemens VII. See also Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. chap. i. and bibliography.

(W. A. P.)

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

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

(C. H. HA.)

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

A contemporary account of Clement was written by Augustin de Andrès y Sobiñas, ... el nacimiento, estudios y empleos de ... Clem. XIII. (Madrid, 1759). Ravignan’s Clement XIII. e Clement XIV. (Paris, 1854) is partisan but free from rancour; and appends many interesting documents. See also the bibliographical note under Clement XIV. infra.; and the extended bibliography in Hergenröther, Allg. Kirchengesch. (1880), iii. 509.

(T. F. C.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(T. F. C.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C. Bi.; J. D.)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines arose in Syria, perhaps c. 265, 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.

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. 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 (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.)

Dr Armitage Robinson, in his edition of the Philocalia (extracts made c. 358 by Basil and Gregory from Origen’s writings), proved that the passage cited below is simply introduced as a parallel to an extract of Origen’s; while Dom Chapman, in the Journal of Theol. Studies, iii. 436 ff., made it probable that the passages in Origen’s Comm. on Matthew akin to those in the Opus Imperf. in Matth. are insertions in the former, which is extant only in a Latin version. Subsequently he suggested (Zeitsch. f. N.T. Wissenschaft, ix. 33 f.) that the passage in the Philocalia is due not to its authors but to an early editor, since it is the only citation not referred to Origen.

While Hort and Waitz say c. 200, Harnack says c. 260. The reign of Gallienus (260-268) would suit the tone of its references to the Roman emperor (Waitz, p. 74), and also any polemic against the Neoplatonic philosophy of revelation by visions and dreams which it may contain.

Even Waitz agrees to this, though he argues back to a yet earlier anti-Pauline (rather than anti-Marcionite) form, composed in Caesarea, c. 135.

Dom Chapman maintains that the Recognitions (c. 370-390,) even attack the doctrine of God in the Homilies or their archetype.

Dom Chapman (ut supra, p. 158) says during the Neoplatonist reaction under Julian 361-363, to which period he also assigns the Homilies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(M. N. T.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The accepted English pronunciation, “clark,” is found in southern English as early as the 15th century; but northern dialects still preserve the e sound (“clurk”), which is the common pronunciation in America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principal building is the cathedral, a Gothic edifice begun in the 13th century. It was not completed, however, till the 19th century, when the west portal and towers and two bays of the nave were added, according to the plans of Viollet-le-Duc. The fine stained glass of the windows dates from the 13th to the 15th centuries. A monument of the Crusades with a statue of Pope Urban II. stands in the Cathedral square. The church of Notre-Dame du Port is a typical example of the Romanesque style of Auvergne, dating chiefly from the 11th and 12th centuries. The exterior of the choir, with its four radiating chapels, its jutting cornices supported by modillions and columns with carved capitals, and its mosaic decoration of black and white stones, is the most interesting part of the exterior. The rest of the church comprises a narthex surmounted by a tower, three naves and a transept, over which rises another tower. There are several churches of minor importance in the town. Among the old houses one, dating from the 16th century, was the birthplace of Blaise Pascal, whose statue stands in a neighbouring square. There is a statue of General Louis Charles Desaix de Veygoux in the Place de Jaude. Montferrand has several interesting houses of the 15th and 16th centuries, and a church of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.

Clermont-Ferrand is the seat of a bishopric and a prefecture and headquarters of the XIII. army corps; it has tribunals of first instance and of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators, a chamber of commerce, an exchange and a branch of the Bank of France. The town is the centre of an educational division (académie), and has faculties of science and of literature. It also has lycées and training colleges for both sexes, ecclesiastical seminaries, a preparatory school of medicine and pharmacy, schools of architecture, music, commerce and industry, museums of art and antiquities and natural history and a library. A great variety of industries is carried on, the chief being the manufacture of semolina and other farinaceous foods, confectionery, preserved fruit and jams, chemicals and rubber goods. Liqueurs, chicory, chocolate, candles, hats, boots and shoes, and woollen and linen goods are also made, and tanning is practised. Clermont is the chief market for the grain and other agricultural produce of Auvergne and Velay. Its waters are in local repute. On the bank of the Tiretaine there is a remarkable calcareous spring, the fountain of St Allyre, the copious deposits of which have formed a curious natural bridge over the stream.

Clermont is identified with the ancient Augustonemetum, the chief town of the Arverni, and it still preserves some remains of the Roman period. The present name, derived from Clarus Mons and originally applied only to the citadel, was used of the town as early as the 9th century. During the disintegration of the Roman empire Clermont suffered as much perhaps from capture and pillage as any city in the country; its history during the middle ages chiefly records the struggles between its bishops and the counts of Auvergne, and between the citizens and their overlord the bishop. It was the seat of seven ecclesiastical councils, held in the years 535, 549, 587, 1095, 1110, 1124 and 1130; and of these the council of 1095 is for ever memorable as that in which Pope Urban II. proclaimed the first crusade. In the wars against the English in the 14th and 15th centuries and the religious wars of the 16th century the town had its full participation; and in 1665 it acquired a terrible notoriety by the trial and execution of many members of the nobility of Auvergne who had tyrannized over the neighbouring districts. The proceedings lasted six months, and the episode is known as les Grands Jours de Clermont. Before the Revolution the town possessed several monastic establishments, of which the most important were the abbey of Saint Allyre, founded, it is said, in the 3rd century by St Austremonius (St Stremoine), the apostle of Auvergne and first bishop of Clermont, and the abbey of St André, where the counts of Clermont were interred.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, CHARLES SIMON (1846- ), French Orientalist, the son of a sculptor of some repute, was born in Paris on the 19th of February 1846. After an education at the École des Langues Orientales, he entered the diplomatic service as dragoman to the consulate at Jerusalem, and afterwards at Constantinople. He laid the foundation of his reputation by his discovery (in 1870) of the “stele” of Mesha (Moabite Stone), which bears the oldest Semitic inscription known. In 1874 he was employed by the British government to take charge of an archaeological expedition to Palestine, and was subsequently entrusted by his own government with similar missions to Syria and the Red Sea. He was made chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1875. After serving as vice-consul at Jaffa from 1880 to 1882, he returned to Paris as “secrétaire-interprète” for oriental languages, and in 1886 was appointed consul of the first class. He subsequently accepted the post of director of the École des Langues Orientales and professor at the Collège de France. In 1889 he was elected a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, of which he had been a correspondent since 1880. In 1896 he was promoted to be consul-general, and was minister plenipotentiary in 1906. He was the first in England to expose the famous forgeries of Hebrew texts offered to the British Museum by M.W. Shapira (q.v.) in 1883, and in 1903 he took a prominent part in the investigation of the so-called “tiara of Saïtapharnes.” This tiara had been purchased by the Louvre for 400,000 francs, and exhibited as a genuine antique. Much discussion arose as to the perpetrators of the fraud, some believing that it came from southern Russia. It was agreed, however, that the whole object, except perhaps the band round the tiara, was of modern manufacture.

His chief publications, besides a number of contributions to journals, are:—Palestine inconnue (1886), Études d’archéologie orientale (1880, &c.), Les Fraudes archéologiques (1885), Recueil d’archéologie orientale (1885, &c.), Album d’antiquités orientales (1897, &c.).

CLERMONT-L’HERAULT, or Clermont de Lodève, a town of southern France in the department of Hérault, 10 m. S.S.E. by rail of Lodève. Pop. (1906) 4731. The town is built on the slope of a hill which is crowned by an ancient castle and skirted by the Rhonel, a tributary of the Lergue. It has an interesting church of the 13th and 14th centuries. The chief manufacture is that of cloth for military clothing, and woollen goods, an industry which dates from the latter half of the 17th century. Tanning and leather-dressing are also carried on, and there is trade in wine, wool and grain. Among the public institutions are a tribunal of commerce, a chamber of arts and manufactures, a board of trade-arbitration and a communal college. The town was several times taken and retaken in the religious wars of the 16th century.

CLERMONT-TONNERRE, the name of a French family, members of which played some part in the history of France, especially in Dauphiné, from about 1100 to the Revolution. Sibaud, lord of Clermont in Viennois, who first appears in 1080, was the founder of the family. His descendant, another Sibaud, commanded some troops which aided Pope Calixtus II. in his struggle with the anti-pope Gregory VIII.; and in return for this service it is said that the pope allowed him to add certain emblems—two keys and a tiara—to the arms of his family. A direct descendant, Ainard (d. 1349), called vicomte de Clermont, was granted the dignity of captain-general and first baron of Dauphiné by his suzerain Humbert, dauphin of Viennois, in 1340; and in 1547 Clermont was made a county for Antoine (d. 1578), who was governor of Dauphiné and the French king’s lieutenant in Savoy. In 1572 Antoine’s son Henri was created a duke, but as this was only a “brevet” title it did not descend to his son. Henri was killed before La Rochelle in 1573. In 1596 Henri’s son, Charles Henri, count of Clermont (d. 1640), added Tonnerre to his heritage; but in 1648 this county was sold by his son and successor, François (d. 1679).

A member of a younger branch of Charles Henri’s descendants was Gaspard de Clermont-Tonnerre (1688-1781). This soldier served his country during a long period, fighting in Bohemia and Alsace, and then distinguishing himself greatly at the battles of Fontenoy and Lawfeldt. In 1775 he was created duke of Clermont-Tonnerre, and made a peer of France; as the senior marshal (cr. 1747) of France he assisted as constable at the coronation of Louis XVI. in 1774. His son and successor, Charles Henri Jules, governor of Dauphiné, was guillotined in July 1794, a fate which his grandson, Gaspard Charles, had suffered at Lyons in the previous year. A later duke, Aimé Marie Gaspard (1779-1865), served for some years as a soldier, afterwards becoming minister of marine and then minister of war under Charles X., and retiring into private life after the revolution of 1830. Aimé’s grandson, Roger, duke of Clermont-Tonnerre, was born in 1842.

Among other distinguished members of this family was Catherine (c. 1545-1603), only daughter of Claude de Clermont-Tonnerre. This lady, dame d’honneur to Henry II.’s queen, Catherine de’ Medici, and afterwards wife of Albert de Gondi, due de Retz, won a great reputation by her intellectual attainments, being referred to as the “tenth muse” and the “fourth grace.” One of her grandsons was the famous cardinal de Retz. Other noteworthy members of collateral branches of the family were: François (1629-1701), bishop of Noyon from 1661 until his death, a member of the French Academy, notorious for his inordinate vanity; Stanislas M. A., comte de Clermont-Tonnerre (q.v.); and Anne Antoine Jules (1740-1830), cardinal and bishop of Châlons, who was a member of the states-general in 1789, afterwards retiring into Germany, and after the return of the Bourbons to France became archbishop of Toulouse.

CLERMONT-TONNERRE, STANISLAS MARIE ADELAIDE, Comte de (1757-1792), French politican, was born at Pont-à-Mousson on the 10th of October 1757. At the beginning of the Revolution he was a colonel, with some reputation as a freemason and a Liberal. He was elected to the states-general of 1789 by the noblesse of Paris, and was the spokesman of the minority of Liberal nobles who joined the Third Estate on the 25th of June. He desired to model the new constitution of France on that of England. He was elected president of the Constituent Assembly on the 17th of August 1789; but on the rejection by the Assembly of the scheme elaborated by the first constitutional committee, he attached himself to the party of moderate royalists, known as monarchiens, led by P.V. Malouet. His speech in favour of reserving to the crown the right of absolute veto under the new constitution drew down upon him the wrath of the advanced politicians of the Palais Royal; but in spite of threats and abuse he continued to advocate a moderate liberal policy, especially in the matter of removing the political disabilities of Jews and Protestants and of extending the system of trial by jury. In January 1790 he collaborated with Malouet in founding the Club des Impartiaux and the Journal des Impartiaux, the names of which were changed in November to the Société des Amis de la Constitution Monarchique and Journal de la Société, &c.. in order to emphasize their opposition to the Jacobins (Société des Amis de la Constitution). This club was denounced by Barnave in the Assembly (January 21st, 1791), and on the 28th of March it was attacked by a mob, whereupon it was closed by order of the Assembly. Clermont-Tonnerre was murdered by the populace during the rising of the 9th and 10th of August 1792. He was an excellent orator, having acquired practice in speaking, before the Revolution, in the masonic lodges. He is a good representative of the type of the grands seigneurs holding advanced and liberal ideas, who helped to bring about the movement of 1789, and then tried in vain to arrest its course.

See Recueil des opinions de Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre (4 vols., Paris, 1791), the text of his speeches as published by himself; A. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la Constituante (2nd ed., Paris, 1905).

CLERUCHY (Gr. κληρουχία, from κλῆρος, a lot, ἔχειν, to have), in ancient Greek history a kind of colony composed of Athenian citizens planted, practically as a garrison, in a conquered country. Strictly, the settlers (cleruchs) were not colonists, inasmuch as they retained their status as citizens of Athens (e.g. ὁ δῆμος ὁ ἐν Ήφαιστίᾳ), and their allotments were politically part of Attic soil. These settlements were of three kinds: (1) where the earlier inhabitants were extirpated or expatriated, and the settlers occupied the whole territory; (2) where the settlers occupied allotments in the midst of a conquered people; and (3) where the inhabitants gave up portions of land to settlers in return for certain pecuniary concessions. The primary object (cf. the 4000 cleruchs settled in 506 B.C. upon the lands of the conquered oligarchs of Euboea, known as the Hippobotae) was unquestionably military, and in the later days of the Delian League the system was the simplest precaution against disaffection on the part of the allies, the strength of whose resentment may be gathered from an inscription (Hicks and Hill, 101 ), which, in setting forth the terms of the second Delian Confederacy, expressly forbids the holding of land by Athenians in allied territory.

A secondary object of the cleruchies was social or agrarian, to provide a source of livelihood to the poorer Athenians. Plutarch (Pericles, 11) suggests that Pericles by this means rid the city of the idle and mischievous loafers; but it would appear that the cleruchs were selected by lot, and in any case a wise policy would not deliberately entrust important military duties to recognized wastrels. When we remember that in 50 years of the 5th century some 10,000 cleruchs went out, it is clear that the drain on the citizen population was considerable.

It is impossible to decide precisely how far the state retained control over the cleruchs. Certainly they were liable to military service and presumably to that taxation which fell upon Athenians at home. That they were not liable for the tribute which members of the Delian League paid is clear from the fact that the assessments of places where cleruchs were settled immediately went down considerably (cf. the Periclean cleruchies, 450-445); indeed, this follows from their status as Athenian citizens, which is emphasized by the fact that they retained their membership of deme and tribe. In internal government the cleruchs adopted the Boulē and Assembly system of Athens itself; so we read of Polemarchs, Archons Eponymi, Agoranomi, Strategi, in various places. With a measure of local self-government there was also combined a certain central authority (e.g. in the matter of jurisdiction, some case being tried by the Nautodicae at Athens); in fact we may assume that the more important cases, particularly those between a cleruch and a citizen at home, were tried before the Athenian dicasts. In a few cases, the cleruchs, e.g. in the case of Lesbos (427), were apparently allowed to remain in Athens receiving rent for their allotments from the original Lesbian owners (Thuc. iii. 50); but this represents the perversion of the original idea of the cleruchy to a system of reward and punishment.

See G. Gilbert, Constitutional Antiquities of Athens and Sparta (Eng. trans., London, 1895), but note that Brea, wrongly quoted as an example, is not a cleruchy but a colony (Hicks and Hill, 41 ); A.H.J. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional Antiquities (London, 1896); for the Periclean cleruchs see Pericles; Delian League.

It seems (Strabo, p. 635) that similar colonies were sent out by the Milesians, e.g. to Leros.