RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Clement of Alexandria Clement of Rome
■■ 171-604 An exhaustive bibliography to 1886 is in ANF Bibliography, pp. 38-42 ; a list of later works is given' iu Harnack. Litteratur. ii. 1, pp. ^5. On the cnti- Lm of the text consult: C. C. J. Bunsen, Analecta TZ-Nicc^a, i. 157-340, London, 1854; T. B. Mayor, in Classical Review, ix (1894), 385-391; O. Stahlin, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der MSS. des Clemens Alex., Nuremberg, 1895- W. Christ, Philologische Studien zu Clemens Alexandrinus, Munich, 1600. „ „ „ , , . ,
General discussions are: C. E. Freppel, Clement d Alexandrie Paris, 1873; B. F. Westcott, General Hist, of N. T Canon, pp. 339-340, 350-354, London, 1875; C. Bigg, Christian ' Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 36-114, Oxford, 1886; Kriiger, History, pp. 162-173; Schafif, Christian Church, ii. 781-785 et passim; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 296- 327 836-841, ii. 1, PP. 1 sqq.; O. Stahlin, TU, new series, vol.' v., 1901; DCB, i. 559-567; KL. iii. 508-517; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, vol. ii., Freiburg,'ie03.
On the teaching of Qement consult: F. J. Winter, Die Ethik des Clement von Alexandrien, Leipsic, 1882; J. H. Muller, Idees dogmatiques de Clement d'Alexandrie, Strasburg, 1861; J. Kaye, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, London, 1835; J. Cognat, Clement d'Alexandrie, sa doctrine et sa polemigue, Paris, 1859; W. Scherer, Klemens von Alexandrien und seine Erkenntnissprinzipien, Munich, 1907.
On his relation to earlier teaching consult: C. Merk, Clemens Alex, in seiner Ahhangigkeit von der griechischen Philosophie, Leipsic, 1879; E. Hiller, in Hermes, xxi (1886), 12G-133; E. Kutter, Clemens Alex, und das N. T., Giessen, 1897; E. de Faye, Clement d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1898.
On Clement as a hymnist consult Julian, Hymnology.
CLEMENT OF ROME.
Discordant Traditions (§1).
Relationship to the Flavians (§ 2).
The First Epistle (§ 3).
Questions Unsettled (§ 4).
Second Epistle and Other Writings (§ 5).
According to tradition Clement was an earlybishop of Rome and a distinguished Christian author. But of the writings attributed to him most are certainly not his and not one is undisputed, and the facts of his life are no I. Discord- better authenticated. He is menant Tra- tioned in aU the lists of the early
ditions. bishops of Rome, though there is no agreement about the place of his name. Irenaeus {Hcer., III. iii. 3), representing the Roman tradition of c. 180, gives Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement; with this agree Eusebius {Hist eccl. and Chron.), Epiphanius {Hcer., xxvii. 6), and Jerome {De Dir. ill., xv.), though the last-named is aware that some of the Latins give a different order, and he, as well as Epiphanius, gives the form Cletus for Anencletus. A different order occurs first in the " Chronicle " of Hippolytus, where Clement takes third place, before Cletus; this order recurs m the Catalogus Liberianus, and is accepted by Augustine, Optatus, and others. In the Apostolic Constitutions also (vii. 46), Clement immediately follows Linus, the variant name now giving two distinct persons, Cletus and Anencletus. The catalogue of the time of Sylvester reverts to the older order, while the Liber Felicianus, fusing this and the Liberian, gives Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anencletus. According to the epistle to James attributed to Clement (preceding the Clementine Homilies), Peter designated Clement as his successor, and himself installed him. This view probably originated with the purpose of bringing Clement into closer relation with Peter;
and the lists which put Clement third, between Linus and Cletus or Anencletus, are very likely attempting a compromise between it and the other tradition. It is safe to say that Clement does not belong to the epoch immediately following the apostles, but that two men came between him and Peter. .He was not bishop of Rome in the strict sense, as the first epistle shows that there was no bishop there in his time. The developed episcopal idea of a later age was carried back in the attempt to trace the succession to the apostles; and the earliest authorities justify no more than the assertion that he was one of the leading presbyters, or perhaps the first of them.
Irenseus (ut sup.) makes Clement a disciple of the apostles. Origen (on John i. 29), Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. iv. 3, and Chrysostom (on I Tim.) even makes him a companion of Paul on all his journeys; while the Jewish-Christian Clementina place him in the closest relations to Peter. Various attempts were made to combine these conflicting views. The Apostolic Constitutions regard Linus as appointed by Paul, Clement by Peter. Rufinus regards Linus and Cletus as having performed episcopal functions in Peter's lifetime, and Clement as appointed by the apostle when both were dead. Epiphanius explains that Clement was appointed by Peter indeed, but laid down his office for a time, during which Linus and Cletus held it. Modern scholars have usually doubted his being a disciple of the apostles, even when they admit his authorship of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The identification with the Clement of Phil. iv. 3 is abandoned by most of these scholars.
Another mooted question concerns the assertion of the Homilies and Recognitions that Clement was a connection of the imperial house. 2. Relation- It is in any case necessary to substiship to the tute Domitian for Tiberius, whom the
Flavians. Clementina name in order to secure greater antiquity. Assuming that not only the Flavia Domitilla mentioned by Eusebius, but also the consul Flavius Clemens whom Domitian put to death, belonged to the Christian community, we should have two prominent Christians of the name of Clement in Rome at the same time. The pseudo-Clementine literature identified them as one person. Von Gebhardt and Harnack leave the question undecided, while Lightfoot is inclined to regard them as two persons. Really nothing is known of Clement's life except what the first epistle tells us. It is even uncertain whether he was of Jewish or pagan descent, though both views have found convinced advocates.
Among the numerous writings which bear the name of Clement, decidedly the most important are the two epistles to the Corinthians. Until 1875 only one manuscript of these was known, an imperfect copy forming part of the famous Codex Alexandrinus, from which Junius published them with a Latin translation (Oxford, 1633); new editions were made from the manuscript by Wotton (Cambridge, 1718), Jacobson (Oxford, 1834), Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1863, 1873), Lightfoot (Lon-
Clement of Rome Clementina