THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 

 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 FIRST PART 
 
 VOL. I.
 
 ^
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 PART I. 
 
 S. CLEMENT OF ROME. 
 
 A REVISED TEXT 
 
 WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS, 
 AND TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 Uonlroni : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK. 
 1890 
 
 \All R lights reserved.]
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 First Edition 1869. 
 Secotui Edition 1890.
 
 YRL 
 
 PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 THE present volumes complete a work of which the first 
 part was issued in 1869. In that year Bishop Lightfoot, 
 being then Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, pub- 
 lished 'a revised text' of 'Clement of Rome — the two Epistles 
 ' to the Corinthians — with introduction and notes.' Six years 
 afterwards the first complete text of ' the Epistles ' was pub- 
 lished by Bryennios (1875)^ and in the following year a com- 
 plete Syrian translation was found by Prof. Bensly in a MS. 
 purchased for the University Library at Cambridge, and prepared 
 by him for publication. In 1877 Dr Lightfoot embodied the 
 chief results of these important discoveries in "An Appendix 
 " containing the newly recovered portions [of the Epistles of 
 "Clement], with introductions, notes and translations." In 1879 
 he was called away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric 
 of Durham. At that time a large portion of the edition of the 
 Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp was already printed I He 
 steadily pressed forward the completion of this second part of 
 the whole work as he had originally planned it in the scanty 
 leisure left by his official duties, and it was issued in 1885 (second 
 edition, revised and somewhat enlarged, 1889). He then resumed 
 his labours on Clement, and continued them with unflagging 
 interest and zeal up to the time of his illness in the Autumn of 
 
 ^ An autotype of the part of the ' Con- lietween these writings and the Epistles 
 
 stantinopolitan' MS. which contains the of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, per- 
 
 two Epistles is given i. pp. 425 — 474. haps from school associations with the 
 
 ■^ He had also made preparations for edition of Jacobson in which he first 
 
 an edition of Bamabas and Hermas ; but studied them. 
 I always understood him to draw a line 
 
 CLEM. d 
 
 -->
 
 VI PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 1888 and after his partial recovery. Even when he was suffer- 
 ing from the relapse in the following year which proved speedily 
 fatal, he retained his passion for work and was busy with 
 Clement till he fell into a half-unconscious state three days be- 
 fore his death. The last words which he wrote formed part of 
 an imperfect sentence of the fragmentary Essay on St Peter's 
 Visit to Rome. But, in spite of some gaps, the book was sub- 
 stantially finished before the end came. He was happily allowed 
 to treat of 'Clement the Doctor,' 'Ignatius the Martyr," Polycarp 
 the Elder,' in a manner answering to his own noble ideal ; and 
 the "complete edition of the Apostolic Fathers," such as he had 
 designed more than thirty years before, was ready at his death 
 to be a monument of learning, sagacity and judgment unsur- 
 passed in the present age\ 
 
 It is worth while to recal these dates in order that the 
 student may realise how the purpose which the work embodies 
 extended through the Bishop's whole literary life. Before he was 
 appointed to the Hulsean Chair in 1861 he was keenly interested 
 in the Ignatian controversy; and after his appointment he de- 
 voted even more time to the study of sub-apostolic Christian 
 literature than to his Commentaries on St Paul. Whatever 
 his friends might think or plead, he held that his discussion 
 of the Ignatian Epistles was the task of his life. This, as he 
 said, was " the motive and core " of the work which is now 
 fini.shed ; and in breadth and thoroughness of treatment, in 
 vigour and independence, in suggestivcness and fertility of re- 
 source, this new edition of Clement will justly rank beside the 
 " monumental edition " of Ignatius. 
 
 A comparison of the edition of Clement in its three stages 
 is an instructive lesson in the development of a .scholar's work. 
 The commentary remains essentially unchanged from first to 
 last. Fresh illustrations, and a few new notes, were added in 
 the Appendix and in this edition, but a judgment on interpre- 
 
 ^ It was the Bishop's intention to materials for tiiis purpose, which it is 
 superintend an edition of 'The Clement- hoped may still be used, 
 ines', and he made a collection of critical
 
 PREFATORY NOTE. vii 
 
 tation once formed has very rarely been changed. On the other 
 hand the broad historic relations of the First Epistle have been 
 examined again and again with increasing fulness. The Essays 
 on ' Clement the Doctor,' on the ' Early Roman Succession,' and 
 on * Hippolytus,' which appear now for the first time and form 
 nearly half of the present book, supply an exhaustive study of 
 the chief records of the history of the Roman Church to the 
 third century. They deal with many questions which have been 
 keenly debated ; and, to single out one only, perhaps it is not 
 too much to say that the problem of the order of the first five 
 Bishops of Rome is now finally settled. 
 
 The section on the ' Philosophumena' of Hippolytus is wholly 
 wanting, and the Essay on ' St Peter in Rome ' is unfinished ; 
 but though it would have been a great gain to have had in detail 
 Bishop Lightfoot's views on these subjects, he has expressed his 
 general opinion on the main questions which are involved in 
 them (see Index). With these we must be content, for he has 
 left no other indication of the lines which his fuller investigation 
 would have taken. His method of work was characteristic. 
 When a subject was chosen, he mastered, stored, arranged in 
 his mind, all the materials which were available for its complete 
 treatment, but he drew up no systematic notes, and sketched no 
 plan. As soon as the scope of the Essay was distinctly con- 
 ceived, he wrote continuously and rapidly, trusting to his memory 
 for the authorities which he used, and adding them as he went 
 forward, but so that every reference was again carefully verified 
 in proof. One subject in which he was deeply interested he has 
 touched lightly, the relation of the Early Liturgies to the Syna- 
 gogue Service (I. 384 ff). There is, I venture to think, no 
 subject which would better reward thorough discussion, and it 
 may be that Bishop Lightfoot's last work will encourage some 
 young student to make it his own*. 
 
 ^ The indices have l)een prepared by the indices to the second part of the 
 
 the Rev. J. R. Harmer, Fellow of Corpus work; and to him the best thanks of 
 
 Christi College, and late Fellow of King's every reader are due. 
 College, Cambridge, who also prepared
 
 viii PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 To write those few linos is a task of sin^'ular pathos. Here 
 indeed the parts are inverted. But at least no one can have the 
 knowledge which I have of the self-forgetful generosity of Dr 
 Lightfoot's work at Cambridge, and of the abiding effect of his 
 episcopal work in Durham. He called me to Cambridge to 
 occupy a place which was his own by right ; and having done 
 this ho spared no pains to secure for his colleague favourable 
 opportunities for action while he himself withdrew in some sense 
 from the position which he had long virtually occupied. And 
 now when I have been charged to fulfil according to the measure 
 of my strength the office which he held here, I find in every 
 parish an inheritance of reverence and affection which he has 
 bequeathed to his successor. 
 
 So it is that from the historic house which he delighted to 
 fill with the memorials of his predecessors, under the shadow of 
 the Chapel, which he made a true symbol of our Church in its 
 foundation and its catholicity, surrounded by personal relics 
 which speak of common labours through twenty years, it is my 
 duty to commend to the welcome of all serious students the last 
 mature fruit of labours pursued with unwearied devotion at 
 Cambridge, at St Paul's, and at Durham, by one whose "sole 
 desire " it was, in his own words written a few months before his 
 death, in "great things and in small, to be found avvepj6<i ry 
 dXrjdela." 
 
 B. F. DUNELM. 
 
 Auckland Castle, 
 Bisiior Auckland, 
 SepL 12///, 1890.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 FIRST VOLUME. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. i— i.^ 
 
 Fragmentary character of early Christian hterature ; the writings of the 
 sub-apostoHc age neglected [i]. The epithet 'apostolic' [2]. The title 
 'Apostolic Fathers', \vritings so designated [3 — 6]. Their external form [6]. 
 Their internal character and spirit [7, 8]. Their relation to the apostolic 
 teaching and the Canon [8— 11]. Their currency and importance [11 — 13]. 
 
 2. CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 14— 103 
 
 Story of Clement the bishop in the Clementine romance [14 — 16]. It 
 leads us to the imperial palace [i6]. The stemma Flaviorum, and Flavius 
 Clemens [16 — 21]. The identification of Clement the bishop, theories 
 disposed of [22 — 25]. His social status [25]. Christianity in the imperial 
 household [25—29]. Its upward social tendency [29, 30]. Pomponia 
 Graecina, a Christian [30 — 33]. Flavia Domitilla and Flavius Clemens, 
 Christians [33 — 35]. The evidence of the catacombs to other Christian 
 Flavii [35 — 39]. Domitian's assassination due to his treatment of Flavia 
 Domitilla [39 — 42]. Domitilla the Virgin [42 — 44]. Her existence trace- 
 able to Eusebius, and improbable ; Eusebius's authorities Bruttius and 
 Africanus [45 — -51]. Clement the consul and Clement the bishop distinct 
 [52 — 58]. The writer of the Epistle a Hellenist Jew [58 — 60]. Probably 
 a freedman of the household of Flavius Clemens [61]. Social status of 
 early bishops [61, 62]. Date of Clement's episcopate and order in the 
 episcopal succession [63 — 67]. Nature of his episcopal office [67 — 69]. 
 The Roman Church at this time [69 — 72]. Events in his life ; S. Peter 
 and S. Paul at Rome, the Neronian persecution, the episcopates of Linus 
 and Anencletus [72 — 81]. His episcopate and the persecution of Domitian 
 [81]. His Epistle to the Corinthians [82—84]. His death [84]. Legend 
 of his martyrdom and reliques [85—91]. His basilica at Rome [91 — 95]. 
 Characteristics of his Epistle [95 — 98]. His memory neglected in the West 
 [98]. Writings assigned to him [99 — 102]. The designation 'the Doctor' 
 [103].
 
 X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Notices relating to the Persecution under Domitian, and the 
 
 FAMILY OF FLAVIUS CLEMENS. IO4 — 115 
 
 Dion Cassius t'04]; Melilo [104]; Tertullian [105]; L.ictantius [105]; 
 Eusebius [105 — 108]; llieronymus [108]; Thcodorel [109]; Anliochenc 
 Acts of Ignatius [109]; John Malalas [109]; Chronicon Paschale [no]; 
 Georgius Syncellus [no]; Georgius Ilamartolus [in]; Acts of Nereus 
 [mi]; Suclonivis [ni, 112]; Quintilian [112]; Philoslratus [112, 113]; 
 TrcbcUius Pollio [113]; Anthologia Latina [113]; Inscriptions [114, 115]. 
 
 3. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 116—147 
 
 The three authorities [116]. (i) Alexandrian Manuscript; history and 
 dale [116, 117]. Position and title of the Clementine Epistles [117, 118]. 
 Collations and facsimiles [118 — 120]. Character of the text [120, 121]. 
 (2) Constantinopolitan Manuscript; history, contents and discovery [121 — 
 
 I :_5]. The Clementine text independent of the Alexandrian Manuscript, but 
 inferior [123, 124]. Its characteristic features [124 — 128]. Its importance 
 [129]. (3) Syriac Version; the manuscript [129, 130]. Position and title 
 of the Clementine Epistles [131, 132]. Date and headings [133]. The 
 table of lessons [134]. The Clementine Epistles not part of the Ilarcleo- 
 Philoxenian version [135]. Character of the version [136 — 138]. The 
 underlying Greek text, its independence and characteristics [138 — 142]. 
 Our three authorities compared [142 — 145]. Date and corruptions in the 
 arclietype [145, 146]. Possibility of other manuscripts and versions [146, 
 147]- 
 
 4. QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 148—200 
 
 I Bamabas [148, 149]. 2 Ignatius [149]. 3 Polycarp [149 — 152]. 
 4 Hennas [152]. 5 Second Clementine Epistle [153]. 6 Justin Martyr 
 [153]- 7 Ecttcr of the Smyrnceans [153]. 8 Ilegesippus [153, 154]- 
 9 Dionysius of Corinth [154, 155]- 10 Thcopliilus of Antioch [155]. 
 
 II Irena;us [156, 157]. 12 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions [157, 
 158]. 13 Clement of Alexandria [15S — 160]. 14 Tertullian [160]. 
 15 Clementine Epistles to Virgins [160]. 16 Ilippolytus [161]. 17 Origen 
 [161, 162]. 18 Dionysius of Alexandria [162]. 19 Apostolical Con- 
 stitutions [162, 163]. 20 Peter of Alexandria [164]. 21 Eusebius of 
 Ca'sarea [164 — 167]. 22 Cyril of Jerusalem [167, 168]. 23 Liberian 
 Chronographer [168]. 24 Ephraem Syrus [168]. 25 Basil of C^sarea 
 [169J. 26 Epiphanius [169, 170]. 27 Pseudo-Ignatius [171]. 28 Optatus 
 [171]. 29 Philastrius [172]. 30 Ambrosius [172]. 31 llieronymus [172, 
 »73]- 3-.Macarius Magnes [174]. 33 Augustinus [174]. 34 Paulinus 
 of Nola [174]. 35 Rufinus [174, 175]. 36 Pseudo- Tertullian [176]. 
 37 Didymus of Alexandria [176]. 38 Zosimus [176]. 39 Praedestinatus 
 [177]. 40 Eucherius of Lugdunum [177]. 41 Synod of Vaison [177]. 
 42 Pseudo-Justin [178 — 180]. 43 Timotheus of Alexandria [180 — 182]. 
 44 Euthalius [182]. 45 Sevenis of Antioch [182, 183]. 46 Anonymous 
 Syriac writers [183—186]. 47 Liber Felicianus [186]. 48 Gregory of 
 Tours [186]. 49 Gregory the Great [187]. 50 Joannes Diaconus [187].
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PAGE 
 51 Apostolical Canons [187]. 52 Stephanas Gobanis [188]. 53 Leontius 
 and Joannes [188 — 190]. 54 Dorotheas A rchimandrita [190]. 55 Chroni- 
 con Paschale [190]. 56 Isidorus of Seville [190]. 57 Maximus the Con- 
 fessor [191]. 58 Liber Pontificalis [191, 192]. 59 Earlier Western 
 Martyrologies [192]. 60 Beda [192, 193]. 61 John of Damascus [193, 
 194]. 62 Georgius Syncellus [195]. 63 Theodoras Studita [195]. 
 64 Nicephorus of Constantinople [195, 196]. 65 Georgius Hamartolus 
 [196]. 66 Photius [197, 198]. 67 Anonymous Chronographer [198]. 
 68 Arsenius [199]. 69 Antonius Melissa [199]. 70 Mensea [199, 200]. 
 Concluding remarks [200]. 
 
 5. EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 201-345 
 
 The literature [201, 202]. (i) The Earliest Lists; of Hegesippus, 
 Irenaeus, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus [202 — 206]. (2) The Eusebian 
 Catalogues, in {a) the History [206, 207]. (/>) the Chronicle. The two 
 parts of the Chronicle, titles and versions [207 — 212]. (i) Annenian Version 
 [212 — 216]. (ii) Hieronymian Version [217, 218]. (iii) Syriac Version 
 [218 — -221]. Their mutual relation [221]. Did Jerome readjust Eusebius' 
 papal chronology? [222, 223]. The schematism theories of Harnack, 
 Lipsius and Hort [223, 224]. The theory of two recensions by Eusebius 
 [224]. The divergences explainable by textual corruption [225 — 231]. 
 Results ; our combined authorities represent the single judgment of Eusebius 
 alone [232]. Comparative chronological accuracy of the documents. Lipsius' 
 theories [232 — 240]. Light thrown by Eastern Papal Catalogues [240 — 246]. 
 The Eusebian Catalogue restored [246]. (3) The Liberian Catalogue. The 
 document of which it forms part, transcripts, manuscripts, contents [246 — • 
 252]. Text of the Liberian Catalogue [253 — 258]. Relation of the 
 Chronicle of the World to the Catalogue ; Hippolytus author of the Chronicle 
 and his papal list embodied in the Catalogue [258 — 262]. The three 
 continuators of the Catalogue [263, 264]. Examination of the document, 
 (a) The earlier period: S. Peter to Pontianus, (i) consulships [264]. 
 (ii) Imperial synchronisms [265]. Months and days [266 — 269]. Names 
 and years [270 — 284]. Result ; the original list coincides with the 
 Eusebian Catalogue [284]. {/') The later period: Pontianus to Liberius 
 [284 — 300]. Conclusion as to the document : stages and corruptions [300 — 
 303]. (4) The Liber Pontificalis. The authorship [303, 304]. The earlier 
 edition, or Felician Book, extant in two abridgments [304 — 306]. The 
 later, or Cononian, edition [307 — 309]. The editions compared [309, 310]. 
 The Liber Pontificalis founded on the Liberian and Leonine Catalogues 
 [310, 311]. History of the Leonine Catalogue [311 — 318]. The papal 
 frescoes [318 — 320]. Names and order of bishops in the Liber Pontificalis 
 derived from the Liberian Catalogue [321]. Term-numbers from the Leonine 
 Catalogue [321]. A Syriac papal catalogue [322 — 325]. (5) Historical 
 Restdts. The one original list of the first twelve episcopates [325, 326]. 
 This list the list of Hegesippus preserved in Epiphanius [327 — 333]. The 
 two documents in the hands of Eusebius : (i) A Catalogue [333]. (ii) A 
 Chronicle [334]. Lipsius' theory [334 — 337]. This Chronicle the Chrono- 
 graphy of Julius Africanus, perhaps based on Bruttius [337 — 339]. Afri-
 
 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 canus' papal chronology taken from Hegesippus [339]. Hegesippus' list, 
 its sources and contents [340, 341]. Its accuracy to be tested by inde- 
 pendent dates [341, 342]. Date of Clement's episcopate [343]. His 
 position in the various catalogues [343, 344]. Three divisions in the 
 episcopal list up to Constantine, and mutual relation of Eastern and Western 
 catalogues [344, 345]. 
 
 6. THE LETTER OF THE ROMANS TO THE CORINTHIANS. 346—405 
 
 The date [346—358]. The authorship [358 — 361]. The genuineness 
 and integrity [361 — 365]. The ecclesiastical authority [366 — 378]. The 
 purpose and contents [378 — 381]. The liturgical ending [382 — 396]. The 
 doctrine [396 — 400]. The printed text and editions [400 — 405]. 
 
 The letters ascribed to S. Clement. 406 — 420 
 
 The First Epistle to the Corinthians [406]. The Second Epistle to 
 the Corinthians [406]. The Two Epistles on Virginity [407 — 414]. The 
 Epistle to James the Lord's brother [414, 415]. A second Epistle to James 
 [415, 416]. Popularity of these letters [416—418]. Other letters forged for 
 the False Decretals [419]. 'The two letters of Clement,' meaning of the 
 expression [419]. Lost letters once circulated in Clement's name [420]. 
 
 AN AUTOTYPE OF THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 421—474 
 
 INDEX. 475-496
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 *T ITERATURE', says Goethe, 'is the fragment of fragments. 
 
 J ^ Only a very small portion of what was uttered was written 
 
 down, and of what was written down only a very small portion sur- 
 vives '.' This is preeminently true of early Christian literature. The 
 Christian teachers in primitive ages were evangelists, not authors, 
 preachers, not historians. The written literature was only the casual 
 efflorescence of the spoken. Literary distinction and posthumous fame 
 were the last thoughts which could have had any place in their minds. 
 They were too intensely occupied with the present and the immediate 
 to spare a glance for the more remote future. When the heavens might 
 part asunder at any moment, and reveal the final doom, it was a matter 
 of infinitely little consequence how after-ages — if after-ages there should 
 be — would estimate their written words. 
 
 Moreover time has pressed with a heavy hand upon such literature 
 as the early Church produced. The unique position of the Apostles and 
 Evangelists might shield their writings from its ravages ; but the litera- 
 ture of the succeeding generation had no such immunity. It was too 
 desultory in form and too vague in doctrine to satisfy the requirements 
 of more literary circles and a more dogmatic age. Hence, while 
 Athanasius and Basil and Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine and 
 Ambrose, were widely read and frequently transcribed, comparatively 
 little attention was paid to those writings of the first and second 
 centuries which were not included in the sacred Canon. The literary 
 remains of the primitive ages of Christianity, which to ourselves are of 
 priceless value, were suffered to perish from neglect — a few fragments 
 here and there alone escaping the general fate, like the scattered 
 Sibylline leaves in the old story. 
 
 ^ Spriiche in Prosa, Goethe's Werke III. p. 196. 
 CLEM. I
 
 2 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 The epithet 'apostolic' (a^oo-roXtKos) does not occur in the canonical 
 writings, but is found first, as might have been expected, in the vocabu- 
 lary of the succeeding generation, when the Apostles could be regarded 
 in the light of history. Its first occurrence is in Ignatius, who tells his 
 correspondents that he writes to them 'after the apostolic manner' 
 {Trail, inscr. iv diroa-ToXiKiZ xapa'<T^pt), where he seems to refer to the 
 epistolary form of his communication. At the close of the second 
 century and beginning of the third its use is very frequent. It is often 
 found in conjunction with and in contrast to other similarly formed 
 adjectives, such as KuptaKos, Trpoc^T^rtKo's, cuayycXiKos, and the like. More 
 especially it is used in three different connexions, (i) JFrili/igs are 
 called 'apostolic' Thus one passage from an epistle of S. Paul is quoted 
 as 77 dirodToXiKrj ypo-^rj by one father (Clem. Alex. Coh. ad Gait, Op. i. 
 p. 2), and another is designated to aVoo-roXtKov by another (Orig. de 
 Princ. iii. 8, Op. i. p. 115; comp. In Jercm. Horn. v. § 4, Op. iii. 
 p. 150, Tou aTToaroXiKOU prjTOV, C. Cels. ii. 65 rots dTro(TTo\iKoi<; Xoyots). 
 The books of the New Testament accordingly are divided into 'the 
 evangelic ' and ' the apostolic ' (Iren. Haer. i. 3. 6 Ik twv cuayyeXtKwi' 
 Koi Tojv aTTocTToXtKojv; comp. Orig. de Oral. 29, Op. 1. p. 259, airocrT. koI 
 (.vayy. amyvcuV/xara, ib. Comni. in Maiih. X. § 12, Op. III. p. 455); and in 
 this division the Acts falls among the ' apostolica ' (TertuU. adv. Marc. 
 V. 2). (ii) Churches are likewise designated 'apostolic,' where they 
 could trace their origin to an Apostle as their founder. This is more 
 especially the case with the Smyrnsean Church, which derived its lineage 
 through Polycarp from S. John, and with the Roman, which in like 
 manner claimed descent from S. Peter through Clement {de Praescr. 32). 
 Such churches were called in the language of TertuUian 'ecclesiae 
 apostolicae' or 'ecclesiae matrices' {de Praescr. 21, 22; comp. adv. 
 Mare. i. 21, iv. 5), and sometimes 'apostolicae' alone {de Praescr. 32). 
 (iii) Lastly, individual men are likewise so designated. Thus TertuUian 
 divides the writers of the four gospels into two classes, Matthew and John 
 being 'apostoli' but Luke and Mark 'apostolici' or 'apostolici viri' {adv. 
 Marc. iv. 2, 3, de Praescr. 32). Thus again in the Smyrnjean Letter 
 giving an account of Polycarp's death, this father is called (§ 16) 
 StSao-KaXos oTroo-ToXtKos, and similarly Irenseus styles him aVoo-ToXiKos 
 7rpc(r/3uT£pos {Ep. ad Florin, in Euseb. H. E. v. 20); while Clement 
 of Alexandria (see below, p. 5) designates Barnabas d aVoo-ToXiKos 
 ^apvd^a.%. In such cases it generally signifies direct personal connexion 
 with Apostles, but it need not necessarily imply so much. It may be a 
 question for instance whether TertuUian {de Cam. Christ. 2), when he 
 addresses Marcion, 'si propheta es, praenuntia aliquid; si apostolus.
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 3 
 
 praedica publice; si apostolicus, cum apostolis senti; si tantum Chris- 
 tianus es, crede quod traditum est,' refers to any claims put forward by 
 this heretic to direct communication with Apostles'. 
 
 Though the familiar sense of the term 'Apostolic Fathers' is based 
 on this ancient use of the word ' apostolicus,' yet the expression itself 
 does not occur, so far as I have observed, until comparatively recent 
 times. Its origin, or at least its general currency, should probably be 
 traced to the idea of gathering together the literary remains of those 
 who flourished in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, and who 
 presumably therefore were their direct personal disciples. This idea 
 first took shape in the edition of Cotelier during the last half of the 
 seventeenth century (a.d. 1672). Indeed such a collection would have 
 been an impossibility a few years earlier. The first half of that century 
 saw in print for the first time the Epistles of Clement (a.d. 1633), 
 and of Barnabas (a.d. 1645), to say nothing of the original Greek of 
 Polycarp's Epistle (a.d. 1633) and the Ignatian Letters in their genuine 
 form (a.d. 1644, 1646). The materials therefore would have been too 
 scanty for such a project at any previous epoch. In his title-page how- 
 ever Cotelier does not use the actual expression, though he approximates 
 to it, 'SS. Fatricm qui temporibus Apostolicis flonierunt opera' ; but the 
 next editor, Ittig (1699), adopts as his title Patres Aposiolid,djnd thence- 
 forward it becomes common. 
 
 After the history of the term itself, which I have thus briefly 
 sketched, a few words may fitly be allowed a place here by way of 
 introduction to the present work under the following heads : (i) The 
 writings comprised under the designation; (ii) The external form of 
 these writings ; (iii) Their internal character and spirit ; (iv) Their rela- 
 tion to the Apostolic teaching and to the Canonical Scriptures; and 
 lastly; (v) Their currency and importance at different epochs. 
 
 (i) JVntiiigs so designated. 
 
 The term itself, as we have seen, is sufiicienlly elastic. It might 
 denote more generally those fathers whose doctrinal teaching was in 
 accord with the Apostles, or with a more restricted meaning those who 
 were historically connected with the Apostles. Common consent 
 however has agreed to accept it in this latter sense and to confine 
 
 ^ Free use is made in this paragraph, some time ago for Smith and Wace's Diet. 
 and throughout the chapter, of an article of Christ. Biogi: I. p. 147 sq. 
 on the Apostolic Fathers which I wrote 
 
 I — 2
 
 4 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 it to those who are known, or may reasonably be presumed, to have 
 associated with and derived their teaching directly from some Apostle, 
 or at least to those who were coeval with the Apostles. Accordingly it 
 will embrace more or fewer names according to the historical views 
 of the writer who employs it. 
 
 Three names preeminently challenge acceptance among the ranks 
 of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. In none 
 of these cases does there seem to be reasonable ground for hesitation. 
 • Though the identification of Clement, the writer of the letter to the 
 Corinthians, with the person mentioned by S. Paul {Phil. iv. 3) is less 
 than probable, though the authority of the Clementine romance is 
 worthless to establish his connexion with S. Peter, yet the tradition 
 that he was the disciple of one or both of these Apostles is early, 
 constant, and definite ; and it is borne out by the character and con- 
 tents of the epistle itself Again, in the case of Ignatius, though the 
 tradition which represents him as a disciple of S. John rests only on 
 the authority of late writings, like the spurious Antiochene Acis\ yet 
 his early date and his connexion with Antioch, a chief centre of 
 apostolic activity, render his personal intercourse with Apostles at 
 least probable. Lastly, Polycarp's claim to the title seems indis- 
 putable, since his own pupil Irenceus states that he was a scholar of 
 the beloved disciple, and that the writer himself had heard from his 
 master many anecdotes of the Apostle, which he had carefully stored 
 up in his memory". 
 
 Other aspirants to a place in this inner circle will not so easily 
 establish their claim. Thus, at an earlier stage the works of Dionysius 
 THE Areopagite would have asserted their right to rank among the 
 writings of the Apostolic Fathers ; but these are now universally con- 
 demned as spurious. The same is the case with certain apocryphal 
 works, which for this reason may be neglected from our consideration. 
 The Shepherd of Hermas again owes its place among the writings 
 of the Apostolic Fathers to another cause. The case here is not one of 
 fraud, but of misapprehension, not of false impersonation, but of mis- 
 taken identity. It was supposed to have been written by the person of 
 this name mentioned by S. Paul (Rom. xvi. 14)^; whereas a seemingly 
 authentic tradition ascribes it to the brother of Pius, who was bishop of 
 Rome about the middle of the second century \ Again, the claim of 
 
 1 See Ign. and Polyc. I. pp. 29, 390, ■* Canon Murat. p. 58, ed. Tregelles ; 
 
 II. pp. 448, 473 sq. Catal. Liberian. p. 635, ed. Mommsen ; 
 
 - ^Q& Ign. and Polyc. \. ^. i,ii,%(\. Anon. adv. Marc. iii. 294 in Tertull. 
 
 ^ So Origen ad loc, Op. iv. jd. 683. Op. il. p. 792, ed. Oehlcr.
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 5 
 
 Papias to be considered an Apostolic Father rests on the supposition 
 that he was a disciple of S. John the Evangelist, as Irenaeus apparently 
 believes {Haer. v. 33. 4); but Eusebius has pointed out that the infer- 
 ence of Irenseus from the language of Papias is more than questionable, 
 and that the teacher of Papias was not the Apostle S. John, but the Pres- 
 byter of the same name {H. E. iii. 39). Again, the anonymous Epistle to 
 DiOGNETUS derives its claim from an error of another kind. It is founded 
 on an expression occurring towards the close, which has been inter- 
 preted literally as implying that the writer was a personal disciple of one 
 or other of the Apostles'. But, in the first place, the context shows that 
 this literal interpretation is unwarranted, and the passage must be 
 explained as follows ; ' I do not make any strange discourses nor indulge 
 in unreasonable questionings, but having learnt my lessons from 
 Apostles, I stand forward as a teacher of the nations.' And secondly, 
 this is no part of the Epistle to Diognetus proper {§§ i — 10), but belongs 
 to a later writing, which has only been accidentally attached to this 
 epistle owing to the loss of some leaves in the manuscript. This latter 
 fact is conclusive. If therefore this epistle has any title to a place 
 among the Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by internal evi- 
 dence. But, though the internal character suggests an early date, yet 
 there is no hint of any historical connexion between the writer and the 
 Apostles. Again, the Epistle of Barnabas occupies a unique position. 
 If the writer had been the companion of S. Paul bearing the same 
 name, then he would be more properly called not an ' apostolic man,' 
 as he is once designated by Clement of Alexandria, but an 'Apostle,' as 
 this same father elsewhere styles him^ in accordance with the language 
 of S. Luke (Acts xiv. 14). But if the writer be not the 'Apostle' Barnabas, 
 then we have no evidence of his personal relations with the Apostles, 
 though the early date of the epistle, which seems to have been written 
 during the epoch of the Flavian dynasty, would render such connexion 
 far from improbable. Lastly ; the recently discovered work, the Teaching 
 OF THE Apostles, is second in importance to none of the writings enume- 
 rated in this paragraph, and perhaps may be dated as early as any. 
 Yet it is difficult to say what the writer's position was with reference to 
 those properly called Apostles, though he claims to reproduce their 
 teaching, and though in his ordinances he mentions as his contempo- 
 raries certain persons bearing the apostolic title^ 
 
 ■"^ § II OX) i,kvtx cfj.L\Q ov5i irapaXoyus BapcdjSay, Strom, ii. 6 (p. 445) o a7ro- 
 
 XiyrQ), aXXd airoaToXuv yevo/xevo^ ij.adrp-rjs crroXos BapvdjSas, comp. /^. ii. 7 (p. 447). 
 yivo/xai diSdaKoKos iOuuv. ^ Doctr. Diiod. Apost. xi. 3 ttSs 5^ 
 
 - Slroin. ii. 20 (p. 489) 6 arroffToAt/cds ctTrdcrToXos epx'^Mfos k.t.X.
 
 6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Thus besides the epistles of the three Apostohc Fathers properly so 
 called, which are comprised in the first and second parts of the present 
 work, it has been the practice of editors to include in their collections 
 several other early Christian writings. For this practice there is good 
 reason. Though the designation 'Apostolic Fathers' may be seriously 
 strained to admit these writings, yet it is highly convenient to have, 
 gathered together in one whole, the Church literature which belongs 
 to the sub-apostolic times and thus bridges over the chasm which 
 separates the age of the Apostles from the age of the Apologists. 
 
 (ii) Their external form. 
 
 All the genuine writings of the three Apostolic Fathers are episto- 
 lary in form. When Ignatius, in an expression already quoted (p. 2), 
 describes his own letters as ' written after the apostolic manner,' he 
 gives a description which applies equally well to Clement and Polycarp. 
 They are all modelled upon the Canonical Epistles, more especially 
 upon those of S. Paul. Like the Canonical letters they are called forth 
 by pressing temporary needs, and in no case is any literary motive 
 apparent. A famous teacher writes, in the name of the community 
 over which he presides, to quell the dissensions in a distant but friendly 
 church. An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom pours forth a few 
 parting words to the Christian congregations with whom he has been 
 brought in contact on his journey. A bishop of a leading church, 
 having occasion to send a parcel to another brotherhood at a distance, 
 takes the opportunity of writing, in answer to their solicitations, a few 
 plain words of advice and instruction. Such is the simple account of 
 the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, respectively. 
 
 Even when we extend the term 'Apostolic Fathers,' so as to include 
 the two other writings which have the next claim to the title, this same 
 form is preserved. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Letter to 
 Diognetus are no departure from the rule. But though the form is 
 preserved, the spirit is different. They no longer represent the natural 
 outpouring of personal feeling arising out of personal relations, but are 
 rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, the aim of the one being 
 polemical, of the other apologetic. In this respect they resemble rather 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, than the letters of S. Paul. 
 
 The other writings, which find a place in collections of the Apostolic 
 Fathers, diverge from this normal type. The Teachifig of the Apostles is 
 a primitive book of Church discipline and ordinances; the Shepherd oi
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 7 
 
 Hermas is the first Christian allegory; while the Expositions of Papias 
 were among the earliest forerunners of commentaries, partly explanatory, 
 partly illustrative, on portions of the New Testament. 
 
 (iii) TJieir internal character and spirit. . 
 
 ' The Apostolic Fathers,' it has been justly said, ' are not great 
 writers, but great characters'.' Their style is loose; there is a want of 
 arrangement in their topics and an absence of system in their teaching. 
 On the one hand they present a marked contrast to the depth and 
 clearness of conception with which the several Apostolic writers place 
 before us different aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title to 
 a special inspiration is vindicated. On the other they lack the scien- 
 tific spirit which distinguished the fathers of the fourth and fifth 
 centuries, and enabled them to formulate the doctrines of the faith as 
 a bulwark against lawless speculation. But though they are deficient 
 in distinctness of conception and power of exposition, ' this inferiority ' 
 to the later fathers 'is amply compensated by a certain naivete and 
 simplicity which forms the charm of their letters. If they have not 
 the precision of the scientific spirit, they are free from its narrowness ^' 
 There is a breadth of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of personal 
 responsibility, a fervour of Christian devotion, which are the noblest 
 testimony to the influence of the Gospel on characters obviously ver}' 
 diverse, and will always command for their writings a respect wholly 
 disproportionate to their literary merits. The gentleness and serenity 
 of Clement, whose whole spirit is absorbed in contemplating the har- 
 monies of nature and of grace ; the fiery zeal of Ignatius, in whom the 
 one over-mastering desire of martyrdom has crushed all human passion; 
 the unbroken constancy of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent 
 in maintaining the faith once delivered to the saints — these are lessons 
 which can never become antiquated or lose their value. 
 i This freshness and reality is especially striking in the three cases 
 just named, where we are brought face to face with the personality of the 
 writers ; but the remark applies likewise, though in different degrees, to 
 those other writings of the group, which are practically anonymous. 
 The moral earnestness and the simple fervour of the Shepherd of 
 Hermas and of the Teaching of the Apostles will arrest the attention at 
 once. The intensity of conviction, which breathes in the Epistle to 
 
 1 De Pressense Trots Premiers Siecles ii. p. 384. 
 ^ lb. p. 411.
 
 8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Diognetus, is nowhere more conspicuous tlian in the lofty utterance — 
 recaUing the very tones of the great Apostle himself — in which the 
 writer contrasts the helpless isolation and the universal sovereignty 
 of the Christian'. Only in the Epistle of Barnabas is the moral and 
 spiritual element overlaid by a rigid and extravagant allegorism ; yet 
 even here we cannot fail to recognise a very genuine underlying faith. 
 Of the Expositio7is of Papias we have not sufficient data to express 
 an opinion. It would be unfair to the writer to judge him from the 
 few extant fragments, consisting chiefly of anecdotes, which do not 
 leave a favourable impression of his theological depth. 
 
 (iv) Their relation to the Apostolic teaching and the Canofi. 
 
 If we had to describe briefly the respective provinces of the three 
 great Apostolic Fathers, we might say that it was the work of Clement 
 to co-ordinate the different elements of Christian teaching as left by 
 the Apostles ; and of Ignatius to consoHdate the structure of ecclesi- 
 astical polity as sketched out by them ; while for Polycarp, whose 
 active career was just beginning as theirs ended, and who lived on 
 for some half century after their deaths, was reserved the task of 
 handing down unimpaired to a later generation the ApostoHc doctrine 
 and order thus co-ordinated and consolidated by his elder contempo- 
 raries — a task for which he was eminently fitted by his passive and 
 receptive character'. 
 
 The writings of all these three fathers lie well within the main 
 stream of Catholic teaching. They are the proper link between the 
 Canonical Scriptures and the Church Fathers who succeeded them. 
 They recognise all the different elements of the Apostolic teaching, 
 though they combine them in different proportions. ' They prove 
 that Christianity was Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety of 
 forms in one faith. They show that the great facts of the Gospel 
 narrative, and the substance of the Apostolic letters, formed the basis 
 and moulded the expression of the common creed^' 
 
 But when we turn to the other writings for which a place has been 
 claimed among the Apostolic Fathers the case is different. Though the 
 writers are all apparently within the pale of the Church, yet there is a 
 tendency to a one-sided exaggeration, either in the direction of Judaism 
 or of the opposite, which stands on the verge of heresy. In the 
 
 1 § 5 iraTploas oUouaiv iSias, aXX' ilij - See /^ipt. am/ Polyc. I. p. 45S sq. 
 
 irdpoiKoi, K.T.\. "' Westcott History of the Canon p. 55.
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 9 
 
 Epistle of Barnabas and in the Letter to Diognetus the repulsion to 
 Judaism is so violent that one step further would have carried the 
 writers into Gnostic or Marcionite duaHsm. On the other hand, in the 
 Teaching of the Apostles, in the Shepherd of Hermas, and possibly in 
 the Expositions of Papjas (for in this last instance the inferences drawn 
 from a few scanty fragments must be precarious), the sympathy with the 
 Old Dispensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive features of the 
 Gospel are somewhat obscured by the shadow of the Law thus projected 
 upon them. In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both extremes alike 
 are avoided. 
 
 The crucial test of this central position occupied by them is their 
 relation to the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul. These two great names 
 were adopted as the watchwords of antagonistic heresies in the latter 
 half of the second century, and even earlier. Some passages in the 
 ApostoHc history itself gave a colour to this abuse of their authority 
 (Gal. ii. II sq., i Cor. i. 12 sq.). Hence an extreme school of 
 modern critics has explained the origin of the Catholic Church as the 
 result of a late amalgamation between these two opposing elements, 
 after several generations of conflict, in which each lost its more 
 exaggerated features. This theory can be upheld only by trampling 
 under foot all the best authenticated testimony. The three Apo- 
 stolic Fathers more especially are a strong phalanx barring the way. 
 The two Apostles are directly named by Clement (i Cor. 5) and 
 by Ignatius {Rom. 4), as of equal authority ; while the remaining father, 
 Polycarp, though as writing to a Church founded by this Apostle 
 {Phil. 3) he mentions S. Paul alone by name, yet adopts the language 
 and the thoughts of S. Peter again and again. Thus we have the 
 concurrent testimony of Rome, of Syria, of Asia Minor, to the 
 co-ordinate rank of the two great Apostles in the estimate of the 
 Christian Church at the close of the first and beginning of the 
 second century. 
 
 The relation of these writers to the Canonical Scriptures of the New 
 Testament may be briefly summed up as follows: (i) They assign 
 a special and preeminent authority to the Apostles, while distinctly 
 disclaiming any such exceptional position for themselves. This is the 
 case with Clement (i Cor. 5, 47), and Ignatius {Rom. 4), speaking of 
 S. Peter and S. Paul, and with Polycarp {Pliil. 3), speaking of S. Paul, 
 these being the only Apostles mentioned by name in their writings. 
 (2) On the other hand, there is no evidence that these fathers 
 recognised a Canon of the New Testament, as a well-defined body 
 of writings. The misinterpretation of a passage in Ignatius {Philad. 8),
 
 lO EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 which has been supposed to imply such a recognition, is dealt with in its 
 proper place and shown to be an error'. (3) As a rule the Apostolic 
 Fathers do not quote the New Testament Scriptures by name. The 
 exceptions are just what we should expect to find. Clement, writing to 
 the Corinthians, mentions S. Paul's injunctions to this same church on 
 a kindred occasion (§ 47); Ignatius, addressing the Ephesians, speaks 
 of their having been initiated in the mysteries of the faith with 
 S. Paul, and remarks on the large space which they occupy in his 
 letters (§ 12); lastly Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, calls atten- 
 cion to the instructions which S. Paul had given them by letter, and 
 mentions his praising them to other churches (§ 3, 11). Besides these 
 passages there is only one other exception (Polyc. Phil. 11, 'sicut Paulus 
 docet'), and this is possibly due to a transcriber. But while (with 
 these exceptions) there is no direct reference to the books of the New 
 Testament, yet fragments of most of the Canonical Epistles are 
 embedded in the writings of these fathers, whose language moreover is 
 thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction. The usual formula of 
 Scriptural quotation, 'as it is written' (ws yeypaTTTat), is still confined to 
 the Old Testament. The only real exception to this rule is Barnab. 4, 
 where our Lord's words, as recorded in Matt. xxii. 14, are introduced 
 in this way. The passage in Polyc. Phil. 12, not extant in the Greek, 
 where a combined quotation of Ps. iv. 4 and Ephes. iv. 26 is prefaced 
 by the words 'ut his scripturis dictum est,' can hardly be regarded in this 
 light, even if we could feel quite certain that the original was correctly 
 represented in the Latin. (4) Lastly : there is not a single Evangelical 
 quotation which can be safely referred to any apocryphal source. The 
 two exceptions to this rule, which were at one time adduced from 
 Barnabas, have both vanished in the fuller light of criticism. In § 4 the 
 Latin text reads ' sicut dicit filius Dei,' but the recovery of the Greek 
 original, ws irpeTrn viois 0eov, shows that we have here a corruption of 
 'sicut decet filios Dei,' and thus the quotation altogether disappears. 
 The second supposed example in this same writer (§ 7) is due to 
 a misinterpretation of the formula ^r/o-tv, 'he saith,' which here 
 introduces not a quotation but an interpretation, 'he meaneth,' according 
 to the usage elsewhere in this same epistle (§ 10, 11). The passages in 
 Ignatius, which seem to be taken from apocryphal writings, may 
 perhaps more probably be ascribed to oral tradition. They are discussed 
 in their proper places'. At all events, though Ignatius incidentally 
 refers to a large number of facts in the Evangelical history, they all are 
 
 1 /^n. and Polyc. I. p. 388, 11. p. ■z;! - See Ign. and Polyc. I. p. 38S sq., 
 
 sq. 11. pp. 294 sq., 299 sq.
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. II 
 
 found in the Canonical Gospels'. Even the supposed apocryphal 
 quotation in Smyrn. 4 has its counterpart in Luke xxiv. 39, being 
 an independent report of the same saying. So far as we are able 
 to judge, his range of knowledge in the province of evangelical history 
 was practically coextensive with our own. This absence of any 
 unmistakeable traces of a New Testament Apocrypha in the Apostolic 
 Fathers is the more remarkable, because the references to pre-Christian 
 apocryphal writings are not unfrequent, as for example several 
 prophetical passages quoted by Clement, and the book of Eldad 
 and Modad mentioned by name in Hermas. 
 
 In this investigation I have said nothing about Papias, for he 
 requires a separate treatment. But the main result would be the 
 same. Though he illustrated the Gospel narratives with very many 
 oral traditions, there is no evidence that he had any other Avritten 
 sources of information before him besides those which we possess in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 (v) Their currency and importance. 
 
 For reasons which have been suggested already, the writings of the 
 Apostolic Fathers were consigned to comparative neglect for many 
 centuries. To Eusebius, the historian of the early Church, these 
 Christian remains of the primitive ages had yielded the most valuable 
 results; but no later writer inherited his mantle. Ages of dogmatic 
 definition and conflict succeeded. The interest in the early struggles 
 of the Church with heathendom had given way to the interest in the 
 doctrinal combats then raging within the Church herself; and owing to 
 their lack of dogmatic precision these early writings contained little or 
 nothing of value for the combatants. Here and there a passage — 
 more especially in Ignatius — might be made to serve the purpose of a 
 disputant ; but these were the rare exceptions. In the West this neglect 
 reached its climax. Those Latin fathers, who were well acquainted with 
 Greek, directed their knowledge of the language to other channels. 
 Jerome seems never to have read any of the three Apostolic Fathers. 
 Rufinus translated the spurious Clementine writings, the Recognitions 
 and the Letter to James, but entirely neglected the genuine Epistle to 
 the Corinthians. The medieval Latin translations did something for 
 Ignatius and Polycarp, but Clement's Epistle was altogether forgotten. 
 
 ^ The embellishments [Ephes. 19) of the star seen by the shepherds ought perhaps 
 to be excepted.
 
 12 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Yet his personal fame was great, not In the West only, but throughout 
 Christendom. 
 
 The Reformation brought a great change. The exigencies of the 
 crisis turned the attention of both the contending parties to questions 
 of Church order and polity ; and the first appeal was naturally to those 
 writers who lived on the confines of the Apostolic age. Happily the 
 supply followed quickly upon the demand. The discovery and publi- 
 cation of large portions of the Apostolic Fathers in the first half of the 
 seventeenth century was opportune, and the literature thus recovered 
 was discussed with eager interest. In the present century the contro- 
 versy has taken another turn, but the writings of the earliest Christian 
 ages are still the battle-field. The attack has been directed against 
 the authenticity and early date of the Canonical writings; and again 
 assailants and defenders alike have sought weapons from the armoury of 
 these primitive writings. Never has the interest in the Apostolic Fathers 
 been so keen as during the last half century; and in this period again 
 large accessions have been made to the available materials by a suc- 
 cession of fresh discoveries. The publication of the Syriac Ignatius by 
 Cureton in 1845, and more fully in 1849, led the way. Almost simul- 
 taneously with his later work, in 1849, appeared Petermann's edition of 
 the Armenian Ignatius, which, though not a new discovery, was then 
 for the first time rendered available to scholars and supplied a factor 
 of the highest moment in the solution of the Ignatian question. These 
 were followed by the lost ending of the Clementine Homilies, recovered 
 and given to the world by Dressel in 1853. Then came the publi- 
 cation of the Codex Lipsiensis and the accompanying transcript by 
 Anger in 1856, and of the Codex Sinaiticus by Tischendorf in 1862, 
 thus giving for the first time nearly the whole of Hermas and the be- 
 ginning of Barnabas in the original Greek. About the same time, large 
 additional materials for the Greek and Latin texts of the Apostolic 
 Fathers — notably a second Latin Version of Hermas hitherto unnoticed 
 — and for the literature connected therewith, were contributed to the 
 common stock by Dressel in his edition in 1857, Within two or three 
 years also followed the yEthiopic Hermas edited by A. d'Abbadie in i860. 
 Then, after a longer interval, Bryennios published for the first time a 
 text of the two Epistles of Clement entire in 1875, and this was 
 followed immediately by the discovery of a Syriac Version, likewise 
 complete, of these same two Epistles, of which I was able by the aid 
 of Bensly to give the first full account in 1877. Mention should also 
 be made of the Coptic additions to the Ignatian matter published for 
 the first time partly by Ciasca in 1883 and partly by myself in 1885;
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 13 
 
 nor does this list exhaust the accessions to the apparatus criticus of 
 these fathers which have been made during the period under review. 
 To crown all came the Teaching of the Apostles, a hitherto unknown 
 work of the sub-apostolic age, of which the editio princeps was given 
 to the world by Brj^ennios in 1883. In this summary I have not 
 included other highly important publications, like the PliUosophicmena, 
 published in 1851, which, though not directly connected with the 
 Apostolic Fathers, throw great light on these primitive ages of the 
 Church, 
 
 This rapid accumulation of fresh materials has furnished abundant 
 fuel to feed and sustain the interest in the Apostolic Fathers, which the 
 chief theological controversy of the age had aroused. During the last 
 half-century they have received an amount of attention which goes far 
 to compensate for many ages of neglect in the past. Within these 
 fifty years some twenty editions have appeared — a larger number than 
 during the two preceding centuries — besides monographs, versions, and 
 treatises of various kinds ; and no signs can be discerned of the interest 
 flagging.
 
 2. 
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 CLEMENT, a noble Roman citizen, was connected by birth with 
 the family of the Caesars. His father Faustus was a near relation 
 and a foster brother of the reigning emperor, and had married one 
 Mattidia, likewise Caesar's kinswoman. From this union had sprung two 
 elder sons, Faustinus and Faustinianus', who were twins, and our hero 
 Clement, who was born many years after his brothers. At the time 
 when Clement first comes before our notice, he is alone in the world. 
 Many years ago, when he was still an infant, his mother had left home 
 to escape dishonourable overtures from her husband's brother, and had 
 taken her two elder sons with her. Not wishing to reveal his brother's 
 turpitude to Faustus, she feigned a dream which warned her to leave 
 home for a time with her twin children. Accordingly she set sail for 
 Athens. After her departure her brother-in-law accused her to her 
 husband of infidelity to her marriage vows. A storm arose at sea, the 
 vessel was wrecked on the shores of Palestine, and she was separated 
 from her children, whom she supposed to have been drowned. Thus 
 she was left a lone woman dependent on the charity of others. The 
 two sons were captured by pirates and sold to Justa the Syrophoenician 
 woman mentioned in the Gospels, who educated them as her own 
 children, giving them the names Aquila and Nicetes. As they grew up 
 they became fellow-disciples of Simon Magus, whose doctrines they 
 imbibed. Eventually however they were brought to a better mind by 
 the teaching of Zacchaeus, then a visitor to those parts; and through his 
 influence they attached themselves to S. Peter, whom they accompanied 
 from that time forward on his missionary circuits. They were so 
 engaged at the moment when the narrative, to which we owe this 
 account of their career, presents them to our notice. 
 
 1 These are the names in the Homilies. father is Faustinianus, while the brothers 
 On the other hand in the Recognitions the are Faustinus and Faustus.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 15 
 
 Their father Faustus, as the years rolled on and he obtained no 
 tidings of his wife and two elder children, determined after many fruit- 
 less enquiries to go in search of them himself Accordingly he set sail 
 for the East, leaving at home under the charge of guardians his youngest 
 son Clement, then a boy of twelve years. From that time forward 
 Clement heard nothing more of his father and suspected that he had 
 died of grief or been drowned in the sea. 
 
 Thus Clement grew up to man's estate a lonely orphan." From his 
 childhood he had pondered the deep questions of philosophy, till they 
 took such hold on his mind that he could not shake them off. On the 
 immortality of the soul more especially he had spent much anxious 
 thought to no purpose. The prevailing philosophical systems had all 
 failed to give him the satisfaction which his heart craved. At length — it 
 was during the reign of Tiberius Caesar — a rumour reached the imperial 
 city, that an inspired teacher had appeared in Judrea, working miracles 
 and enlisting recruits for the kingdom of God. This report determined 
 him to sail to Judaea. Driven by stress of wind to Alexandria and 
 landing there, he fell in with one Barnabas, a Hebrew and a disciple of 
 the Divine teacher, and from him received his first lessons in the Gospel. 
 From Alexandria he sailed to Csesarea, where he found Peter, to whom 
 he had been commended by Barnabas. By S. Peter he was further 
 instructed in the faith, and from him he received baptism. He attached 
 himself to his company, and attended him on his subsequent journeys. 
 
 At the moment when Clement makes the acquaintance of S. Peter, 
 the Apostle has arranged to hold apubHc discussion with Simon Magus. 
 Clement desires to know something about this false teacher, and is 
 referred to Aquila and Nicetes, who give him an account of Simon's 
 antecedents and of their own previous connexion with him. The public 
 discussion commences, but is broken off abruptly by Simon who escapes 
 from Csesarea by stealth. S. Peter follows him from city to city, providing 
 the antidote to his baneful teaching. On the shores of the island 
 of Aradus, Peter falls in with a beggar woman, who had lost the use of 
 her hands. In answer to his enquiries she tells him that she was the 
 wife of a powerful nobleman, that she left home with her two elder 
 sons for reasons which she explains, and that she was shipwrecked and 
 had lost her children at sea. Peter is put off the right scent for the 
 time by her giving feigned names from shame. But the recognition is 
 only delayed. Clement finds in this beggar woman his long-lost mother, 
 and the Apostle heals her ailment. 
 
 Aquila and Nicetes had preceded the Apostle to Laodicea. When 
 he arrives there, they are surprised to find a strange woman in his
 
 1 6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 company. He relates her story. They are astounded and overjoyed. 
 They declare themselves to be the lost Faustinas and Faustinianus, and 
 she is their mother. It is needless to add that she is converted and 
 baptised. After her baptism they betake themselves to prayer. While 
 they are returning, Peter enters into conversation v/ith an old man 
 whom he had observed watching the proceedings by stealth. The old 
 man denies the power of prayer. Everything, he says, depends on a 
 man's nativity. A friend of his, a noble Roman, had had the horoscope 
 of his wife cast. It foretold that she would prove unfaithful to him and 
 be drowned at sea. Everything had come to pass in accordance with 
 the prediction. Peter's suspicions are roused by the story; he asks 
 this friend's name, and finds that he was none other than Faustus the 
 husband of Mattidia. The reader's penetration will probably by this 
 time have gone a step farther and divined the truth, which appears 
 shortly afterwards. The narrator is himself Faustus, and he had repre- 
 sented the circumstances as happening to a friend, in order to conceal 
 his identity. Thus Clement has recovered the last of his lost relatives, 
 and the ' recognitions ' are complete. One other incident however is 
 necessary to crown the story. Faustus is still a heathen. But the 
 failure of Mattidia's horoscope has made a breach in the citadel of his 
 fatalism, and it is stormed by S. Peter. He yields to the assault and is 
 baptised. 
 
 This romance of Clement's life was published within two or three 
 generations of his death — at all events some years before the close of 
 the second century. It is embodied in two extant works, the Cle- 
 mentine Hojnilies, and the Clementine Recognitions, with insignificant 
 differences of detail. Yet it has no claim to be regarded as authentic; and 
 we may even question whether its author ever intended it to be accepted 
 as a narrative of facts. 
 
 But though we may without misgiving reject this story as a pure 
 fiction, discredited by its crude anachronisms, yet in one respect it 
 has guided us in the right direction. It has led us to the doors of 
 the imperial palace, where we shall have occasion to stay for a while. 
 Our investigations will bring us from time to time across prominent 
 members of the Flavian dynasty ; and a knowledge of the family gene- 
 alogy is needed as a preliminary. 
 
 The founder of the Flavian family was T. Flavius Petro', a native 
 of the second-rate provincial town Reate, who had fought in the civil 
 
 ^ See Sueton. Vcspas. i, who is the authority for tlic main facts in this paragraph.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 17 
 
 < 
 
 n 
 
 xs 
 p 
 
 Crt - 
 
 p' 
 D 
 
 B 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 p 
 
 3 
 c 
 
 
 3 
 
 , 
 
 >i 
 
 H 
 
 ft- 
 
 
 y 
 
 ^ 
 
 0' 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 ?t 
 
 
 
 
 **- 
 
 n 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 s- 
 
 fi> 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 ft 
 
 p 
 " 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 <- 
 
 ft 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 •>*.* 
 
 *>*, 
 
 VO 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 a" 
 
 
 3 
 
 "15 
 
 
 *<2 
 
 ^ 3 
 
 oi 
 
 Xd 
 
 ^^ 
 
 to 
 
 >< 
 
 t-H 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 5?: 
 
 >T| ft 
 
 fe^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 "^ 
 
 < 
 
 r^ _ 
 
 ft^ 
 
 ft" 
 
 
 > 
 
 C/2 
 
 i"1 
 
 
 j/a (a) 
 Sabin 
 
 Si 
 
 ft 
 
 i 
 
 00 
 
 > 
 en 
 
 </i 
 
 1= 
 
 1 
 
 3' 
 
 3 
 
 r~r 
 
 NUS Quatuoi 
 
 S > 
 
 St- o 
 ft 
 
 d 
 (« 
 
 00 o 
 
 N 7 
 
 ^. ON J 
 
 ft 
 
 b 
 
 op 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 
 ft 
 
 ON 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 r 
 
 c 
 
 in 
 
 <■ 
 
 W 
 
 tfi 
 
 CO 
 I— I 
 
 > 
 
 Z 
 C 
 
 - ft oS ■ 
 
 ft c/: 
 
 P 
 
 ^3 s: 
 
 ^ >< 
 
 
 ft. 
 
 
 ;5 
 
 >3 
 
 CLEM.
 
 1 8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 wars on the side of Pompeius, but after the battle of Pharsalia laid 
 down his arms and went into business. His son Sabinus was a pure 
 civilian. Apparently a thrifty man like his father before him, he 
 amassed some money and married a lady of superior rank to himself, 
 Vespasia PoUa, by whom he had three children, a daughter who died 
 an infant in her first year' and two sons who both became famous in 
 history — the elder, T. Flavius Sabinus, who held the City prefecture 
 for several years, and the younger, T. Flavius Vespasianus, who attained 
 to the imperial throne. 
 
 T. Flavius Sabinus, the elder brother, was prefect of the City at 
 the time of the Neronian persecution and retained this office with 
 one short interruption until his death". The name of his wife is 
 not known. Having been deprived of the City prefecture by Galba 
 and restored by his successor, he was put to death by Vitellius on 
 account of his near relationship to the rival aspirant to the impe- 
 rial throned He left two sons, T. Flavius Sabinus and T. Flavius 
 Clemens. The elder, Sabinus, married Julia the daughter of the 
 emperor Titus*. He held the consulate in a.d. 82, and was put to 
 death by Domitian, because on his election to this office the herald 
 had inadvertently saluted him as emperor instead of consul ^ The 
 
 ^ Sueton. Vespas. 5 'puella nata non does not appear to have had any other 
 
 perannavit.' children. 
 
 - On his tenure of the prefecture see ^ Sueton. Domit. 10 ' Flavium Sabinum 
 
 Borghesi G^nvres III. p. 327 sq, ix. p. alterum e patruelibus [occidit], quod euni 
 
 264 sq. He was appointed to this office comitiorum consularium die destinatum 
 
 by Nero, deprived by Galba, and restored perperam praeco non consulem ad popu- 
 
 again under Otho (Plutarch. Otho 5). lum sed imperatorem pronunciasset. ' The 
 
 Tacitus Hist. iii. 75 writes, ' septem annis herald might have stumbled the more 
 
 quibus Moesiam, duodecim quibus prae- easily, because the emperor was his col- 
 
 fecturam urbis obtinuit,' but this is incon- league in the consulship, 
 
 sistent with his statement elsewhere {Ann. Philostratus (1. c.) implies that the em- 
 
 xiv. 42), that Pedanius Secundus the pre- peror's object was to get possession of the 
 
 feet of the City was assassinated in a.d. murdered man's wife Julia, his own niece. 
 
 61. Sabinus seems to have been his im- She had been offered to him in marriage 
 
 mediate successor, and Borghesi therefore earlier, but declined. Afterwards he is 
 
 proposes to read either ' totidem ' for said to have had guilty relations with 
 
 ' duodecim ' or vii for xii. her (Sueton. Dotiiit. 22, Dion Cass. 
 
 * Tacit. Zf^w/. iii. 74, Sueton. Fz/f//. 15. Ixvii. 3), though he did not actually 
 
 ■* Philostr. Vit. Apoll. vii. 7 (p. 284) marry her, as Philostratus' language 
 
 "La^lvov d.TreKToi'ws eva rCiv eavrov ^vy- (rj-yero) might suggest. After her death 
 
 yevQi', 'lovXiav ijyeTo, i] di 'lovXia yvvij she was deified *by him. Perhaps he 
 
 /xev ^v Tou wecpovevij.ivov Ao/xeTiavov 5i acted from mixed motives. The murder 
 
 d5e\(pi5T}, Ilia rCiv Tirov Ovyar^puv. The does not appear to have taken place im- 
 
 last clause is loosely worded, as Titus mediately after the herald's blunder.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 19 
 
 younger brother Clemens married Domitilla, the daughter of Domitian's 
 sister. Of her I shall have to speak presently. With this married 
 couple we are more especially concerned, as they appear — both husband 
 and wife — to have been converts to Christianity, and are intimately 
 connected with our subject. 
 
 T. Flavins Vespasianus, the younger son of the first mentioned 
 Sabinus, became emperor in due time and reigned from a.d. 69 to 
 A.D. 79. He married Flavia Domitilla, a daughter of one Flavins 
 Liberalis, a quaestor's clerk and a native of Ferentum '. From her name 
 she would seem to have been some relation of her husband, but this 
 is not stated. She is the first of three persons in three successive 
 generations bearing the same name, Flavia Domitilla, mother, daughter, 
 and grand-daughter. By her Vespasian appears to have had seven 
 children ^ but four must have died in infancy or childhood. Only 
 three have any place in history — two sons, T. Flavins Vespasianus 
 and T. Flavins Domitianus, the future emperors, known respectively 
 as Titus and Domitian, and a daughter Domitilla. Both the \vife 
 Domitilla and the daughter Domitilla died before a.d. 69, when 
 Vespasian ascended the imperial throne^. Either the mother or the 
 daughter — more probably the latter — attained to the honours of apo- 
 theosis, and appears on the coins as diva domitilla. This distinction 
 had never before been conferred on one who died in a private station, 
 but it served as a precedent which was followed occasionally \ 
 
 The emperor Titus was twice married ^ By his second wife he 
 
 ^ Sueton. Vespas. 3. fied Domitilla was not the wife, but the 
 
 - See the inscription given below, p. daughter of Vespasian. In this case the 
 
 114, with the note upon it. name Augusta here given to her would 
 
 3 Sueton. Vespas. 3. have a parallel in Julia Augusta the 
 
 ** In C. I. L. V. 2829 mention is made of daughter of Titus. If however the diva . 
 
 a SACERDOS . DIVAE . DOMITILLAE, and DOMITILLA . AVG. is the wife of Ves- 
 
 coins bear the inscription diva . domi- pasian, then probably the other form of 
 
 TILLA . AVG . (Eckhel VI. p. 345 sq, inscription found on coins memoriae . 
 
 Cohen I. 337). This deified Uomitilla domitillae refers to the daughter, as 
 
 is generally supposed to be the wife of Eckhel takes it. So far as I can see, 
 
 Vespasian. So for instance Eckhel (1. c). it is just possible to refer all the in- 
 
 But Statins Silv. i. i. 97, imagining the scriptions on the genuine coins to the 
 
 apotheosis of Domitian, writes ' Ibit in daughter, as the passage in Statins sug- 
 
 amplexus natus, fraterque, paterquc, et gests, though the connexion sometimes 
 
 soror,' where his sister Domitilla is men- points rather to the mother. Those coins 
 
 tioned among the inhabitants of heaven bearing such inscriptions as domitil- 
 
 and his mother is not. For this reason lae . avg . matri . etc. are spurious. 
 Mommsen [Staatsrecht 11. p. 794 sq, ^ Sueton. Tit. 4. Ilis first wife was 
 
 note) maintains confidently that this dei- Arrecina Tertulla, daughter of the Ar- 
 
 2 — 2
 
 20 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 left a daughter Julia, who, as we have seen, became the wife of her 
 father's first cousin, the third Sabinus'. The emperor Domitian took 
 to wife Domitia Longina. A son, the offspring of this marriage, died 
 in infancy, was received into the ranks of the gods, and appears on 
 the coins as divvs caesar^ There are reasons also for believing that 
 another child was born of this union ; but if so, it did not survive 
 long'l The sister of the two emperors, Flavia Domitilla, likewise 
 was married. Her husband's name is not recorded, but she left a 
 daughter called after her. This third Flavia Domitilla, the grand- 
 daughter of Vesimsian, was wedded, as I have already mentioned, to 
 her mother's first cousin Flavius Clemens, and became famous in 
 Christian circles. 
 
 Of this union between Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla two 
 sons were born. They were committed by the emperor Domitian to 
 the tuition of the distinguished rhetorician Quintilian^; and we learn 
 
 recinus Clemens who was prefect of the 
 prtetorium under Gaius, and sister of the 
 Arrecinus Clemens who held the same 
 office under Domitian (Tac. Hist. iv. 68) 
 and was put to death by this tyrant 
 (Sueton. Domit. ii). Tacitus (/. c.) 
 describes the brother as ' domui Vespa- 
 siani per affinitatem innexum." Not only 
 does her father's and brother's name 
 Clemens occur elsewhere in the Flavian 
 pedigree, but her own name Tertulla 
 likewise. Her first name is diversely 
 written Arricidia, Arretina, etc., in dif- 
 ferent texts. The correct form is decided 
 in an inscription in which she is men- 
 tioned (Orelli-Henzen 5429) ; see De- 
 Vit's Forcellini Onofiiast. s. v. Arrecina. 
 The mother of Julia was Titus' second 
 wife Marcia Furnilla. 
 
 ^ See above, p. 18, note 4. 
 
 2 Sueton. Domit. 3 ' Uxorem suam 
 Domitiam, ex qua in secundo suo consu- 
 latu filium tulerat, alteroque anno con- 
 salutaverat ut Augustam etc' The se- 
 cond consulship of Domitian was as early 
 as A.D. 73, some 8 or 9 years before he 
 became emperor. But ' altero anno ' 
 ought to mean ' in the second ' or ' fol- 
 lowing year,' and yet the incident implies 
 that he was already Augustus. Either 
 
 therefore there is some mistake in the 
 figure, or Eckhel {Dodr. Num. vi. p. 
 400) may be right in supposing that Sue- 
 tonius means the second consulate after he 
 came to the throne, i.e. a.d. 82, when he 
 was consul for the 8th time. Friedlander 
 however without misgiving places it A.D. 
 73 {Sittcngesch. in. p. 392). The birth 
 and apotheosis of this son are alluded to 
 in Mart. Epigr. iv. 3 (written a.d. 88), 
 in Stat. Silv. i. i. 97 (written A.D. 89 
 or 90), and in Sil. Ital. Pun. iii. 629. 
 Domitia appears on the coins as Divi . 
 
 CAESARIS . MATER (Eckhel VI. p. 401, 
 
 Cohen I. p. 459 sq.). There must be 
 some mistake about the coins described 
 by Cohen i. p. 461, for cos. vi is not 
 chronologically reconcilable with domi- 
 
 TIANVS AVG. 
 
 ^ At all events there was an expecta- 
 tion of another child at a later date, a.d. 
 89 or 90, soon after the death of Julia, 
 Mart. Epigr. vi. 3 (see Friedlander Sit- 
 tcngesch. III. pp. 381, 392, and his note 
 on the passage). Eckhel (vi. p. 400^1 refers 
 this passage to the son who was deified, 
 but this is chronologically impossible. 
 
 ^ Quintil. Ins tit. Orat. iv. Prooem. 
 given below, p. 112.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 21 
 
 incidentally that the influence of their father Flavius Clemens procured 
 for their tutor the honour of the consular fasces'. When they were 
 little children, the emperor had designated them as his successors in 
 the imperial purple, and had commanded them to assume the names 
 Vespasianus and Domitianus". They appear to have been still very 
 young at the time of Domitian's death ; and as we hear nothing more 
 of them, they must either have died early or retired into private life. 
 More than a hundred and seventy years later than this epoch, one 
 Domitianus, the general of the usurper Aureolus (a.d. 267), is said 
 to have boasted that he was descended ' from Domitian and from 
 Domitilla'^ If this boast was well founded, the person intended was 
 probably the son of Clemens and Domitilla, the younger Domitian, 
 whom the historian confused with his more famous namesake the 
 emperor. A glance at the genealogical tree will show that no one 
 could have traced his direct descent both from the emperor Domitian 
 and from Domitilla; for the Domitilla here mentioned cannot have 
 been the wife of Vespasian*. Moreover, there is no record of the 
 emperor Domitian having any children except one, or perhaps more 
 than one, who died in earliest infancy. 
 
 Who then was this Clement of Rome, the assumed writer of the 
 Epistle to the Corinthians and the leading man in the Church of 
 Rome in the ages immediately succeeding the Apostolic times? Re- 
 cent discoveries in two different directions — the one literary, the other 
 archaeological — have not only stimulated this enquiry but have furnished 
 more adequate data for an answer to it. 
 
 In the first place, the publication of the lost ending to the genuine 
 epistle (a.d. 1875) ^^.s enabled us to realize more fully the position 
 
 ^ Alison. Orat. Act. ad Gratian. 31 
 ' Quintilianus consularia per Clementem 
 ornamenta sortitus, honestamenta nominis 
 potius videtur quam insignia potestatis 
 habuisse.' To this Juvenal probably al- 
 ludes, Sat. vii. 197 'Si fortuua volet, ties 
 de rhetore consul,' as Quintilian is men- 
 tioned in his context. 
 
 ^ Sueton. Domit. 15, quoted below, 
 p. 1 1 1 sq. This Vespasianus is probably 
 the oyecnACIANGC . N60)TepOC com- 
 memorated on a Smyrn^an coin (Cohen 
 I. p. 462), unless the future emperor Titus 
 before his accession be meant. 
 
 ^ Trebell. Poll. Tyr. Tris^. 12, quoted 
 below, p. 113. 
 
 * This seems impossible on two ac- 
 counts ; ( I ) There could be no reason for 
 mentioning the eldest Domitilla, the wife 
 of Vespasian, as she was not famous in 
 any way, whereas the youngest Domitilla, 
 her grand-daughter, had a wide reputa- 
 tion as shown by ancient inscriptions and 
 Christian records alike ; {2) If the histo- 
 rian had intended this eldest Domitilla, 
 he would have mentioned not her son 
 Domitian but her husband Vespasian, as 
 the forefather of Domitianus the general.
 
 22 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 of the writer. The liturgical prayer in the concluding part, the notices 
 respecting the bearers of the letter, and the attitude assumed towards 
 the persons addressed, all have a bearing upon this question. Then 
 secondly, the recent excavations in the Cemetery of Domitilla at Rome 
 have thrown some light on the surroundings of the writer and on the 
 society among which he lived. The archaeological discovery is hardly 
 less important than the literary ; and the two combined are a valuable 
 aid in solving the problem. 
 
 Before attempting to give the probable answer to this question, it 
 may be well to dispose of other solutions which have been offered from 
 time to time. 
 
 I. Origen, without any misgiving, identifies him with the Clement 
 mentioned by S. Paul writing to the Philippians (iv. 3) as among those 
 'fellow labourers whose names are in the book of life". This was a very 
 obvious solution. As Hermas the writer of the Shepherd was identified 
 with his namesake who appears in the salutations of the Epistle to the 
 Romans', so in like manner Clement the writer of the Epistle was 
 assumed to be the same with the Apostle's companion to whom he 
 sends greeting in the Epistle to the Philippians. It is not improbable 
 that others may have made this same identification before Origen. 
 At all events many writers from Eusebius onward adopted it after 
 him^ But we have no reason to suppose that it was based on any 
 historical evidence, and we may therefore consider it on its own merits. 
 So considered, it has no claim to acceptance. The chronological 
 difficulty indeed is not insurmountable. A young disciple who had 
 rendered the Apostle efficient aid as early as a.d. 61 or 62, when 
 St Paul wrote to the Philippians, might well have been the chief ruler 
 of the Roman Church as late as a.d. 95 or 96, about which time 
 Clement seems to have written the Epistle to the Corinthians, and 
 might even have survived the close of the first century, as he is 
 reported to have done. But the locality is a more formidable objec- 
 tion. The Clement of S. Paul's epistle is evidently a member of the 
 Philippian Church ; the Clement who writes to the Corinthians was 
 head of the Roman community, and would seem to have lived the 
 whole or the main part of his life in Rome. If indeed the name had 
 been very rare, the identification would still have deserved respect 
 notwithstanding the difference of locality ; but this is far from being the 
 case. Common even before this epoch, especially among slaves and 
 
 ^ In Joann. vi. § 36, Op. TV. p. 153 ^ See above, p. 4. 
 
 (ed. Delarue). ^ See Philitpians, p. j68, note 4.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 23 
 
 freedmen, it became doubly common during the age of the Flavian 
 dynasty, when it was borne by members of the reigning family', 
 
 2. A wholly different answer is given in the romance of which 
 I have already sketched the plot. Though earlier than the other 
 authorities which give information about Clement, it is more mani- 
 festly false than any. Its anachronisms alone would condemn it. The 
 Clement who wrote the epistle in the latest years of Domitian could 
 not have been a young man at the time of Christ's ministry, nearly 
 seventy years before. Moreover it is inconsistent with itself in its 
 chronology. While Clement's youth and early manhood are placed 
 under Tiberius, the names of his relations, Mattidia and Faustinus, 
 are borrowed from the imperial family of Hadrian and the Antonines. 
 The one date is too early, as the other is too late, for the genuine 
 Clement. 
 
 3. A third solution identifies the writer of the epistle with Flavius 
 Clemens, the cousin of Domitian, who held the consulship in the year 
 95, and was put to death by the emperor immediately after the expi- 
 ration of his term of office. This identification never occurred to any 
 ancient writer, but it has found much favour among recent critics and 
 therefore demands a full discussion. To this question it will be neces- 
 sary to return at a later point, when it can be considered with greater 
 advantage. At present I must content myself mth saying that, in 
 addition to the other difficulties with which this theory is burdened, 
 it is hardly conceivable that, if a person of the rank and position of 
 Flavius Clemens had been head of the Roman Cliurch, the fact would 
 have escaped the notice of all contemporary and later writers, whether 
 heathen or Christian. 
 
 4. Ewald has propounded a theory of his own". He beHeves 
 that Clement the bishop was not Flavius Clemens himself, but his 
 son. No ancient authority supports this view, and no subsequent 
 critic, so far as I am aware, has accepted it. This identification is 
 based solely on a parallelism with the story in the Homilies and 
 RecogJiitions. As Clement's father Faustus (Faustinianus) is there de- 
 scribed as a near kinsman of Tiberius '\ so was Flavius Clemens a 
 near kinsman of Domitian. As Mattidia, the wife of Faustus, is 
 
 1 The number of persons bearing this itself is still incomplete and without an 
 
 name in one volume alone (v) of the index. 
 
 Corpus Inscriptionu7)i Latinarum is over - Gesch. d. Volkes Israel \\l. p. 297 sq. 
 
 fifty, in another (x) it is between forty ■* Horn. xii. 8, xiv. 6, 10, comp. iv. 7; 
 
 and fifty. These refer to different parts Recogn. vii. 8, ix. 35. 
 of Italy. The portion comprising Rome
 
 24 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 stated herself to have been a blood relation of Tiberius', so was 
 Flavia Domitilla, the wife of Flavius Clemens, a blood relation of 
 Domitian. The parallelism might have been pressed somewhat farther, 
 though Ewald himself stops here. Lipsius, though using the parallel 
 for another purpose, points out that Faustus in this romance is repre- 
 sented as having two sons besides Clement, just as Flavius Clemens 
 is known to have had two sons, and that in this fiction these two are 
 said to have changed their names to Aquila and Nicetes, just as in 
 actual history the two sons of Flavius Clemens are recorded to have 
 taken new names, Vespasianus and Domitianus". This parallel however, 
 notwithstanding its ingenuity, need not occupy our time ; for the 
 identification which it is intended to support is chronologically im- 
 possible. The two sons of Flavius Clemens were boys under the 
 tuition of Quintilian when this rhetorician wrote his great work (about 
 A.D. 90). They are described by Suetonius as young children when 
 their father was put to death (a.d. 95 or 96), or at all events when 
 they were adopted by Domitian as his successors ^ Indeed this will 
 appear from another consideration, independently of the historian's 
 testimony. Their grandmother was the sister of Titus and Domitian, 
 born A.D. 41 and a.d, 51 respectively. It has been assumed that 
 she was younger than either, because her name is mentioned after 
 her brothers'*; but this assumption is precarious. At all events she 
 died before a.d. 69, leaving a daughter behind her. Having regard 
 to these facts, we cannot with any probability place the birth of this 
 daughter, the third Flavia Domitilla, before a.d. 60 or thereabouts : 
 so that her sons must have been mere striplings, even if they were 
 not still children, at the time when their father died and when the 
 Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthians was written. But 
 the writer of this epistle was evidently a man of great influence and 
 position, and it is a fair inference that he had passed middle life, 
 even if he was not already advanced in years. Ewald's theory there- 
 fore may safely be discarded. 
 
 5. A fifth answer is supplied by the spurious Acts of Nereus and 
 Achilleus^, which are followed by De Rossi". These persons are there 
 
 ^ Horn. xii. 8, Recogn. vii. 8. the time of their adoption by Domitian. 
 
 - Chro7iol.d. Rom. Bisch. p. 153. ■* ii3.%Qnc\Q\ex myahrl). f. Prot. Theol. 
 
 ■' '6\i(t\.o\\. Domit. 15 (see below, p. Ill viii. p. 72; see Sueton. Vespas. 3 'ex 
 
 sq). His expression 'etiam turn parvulos' hac libcros tulit Titum et Domitianum 
 
 is commonly referred to the time of their et Domilillam.' 
 
 father's death. This is perhaps the more ^ See below, p. 42. 
 
 probable reference, but it might refer to ^ Bull. diArcheol. Crist. 1865, p. 20 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 25 
 
 related to have reminded Clement the bishop that ' Clement the consul 
 was his father's brother.' He is thus represented to be the grandson 
 of Sabinus the City prefect, and son of Sabinus the consul ; for no 
 other brother of Flavins Clemens is mentioned elsewhere except Fla- 
 vius Sabinus the consul. Indeed the language of Suetonius seems 
 to imply two sons, and two only\ of the elder Sabinus. Moreover this 
 answer is open to the same chronological objection as the last, though 
 not to the same degree. As these Acts are manifestly spurious and 
 cannot date before the fifth or sixth century, and as the statement is 
 unconfirmed by any other authority, we may without misgiving dismiss 
 it from our consideration. 
 
 Hitherto the object of our search has eluded us. Our guides have 
 led us to seek our hero among the scions of the imperial family itself 
 But the palace of the Caesars comprised men of all grades ; and con- 
 sidering the station of fife from which the ranks of the Christians were 
 mainly recruited, we should do well to descend to a lower social 
 level in our quest. 
 
 The imperial household occupied a large and conspicuous place 
 in the life of ancient Rome. The extant inscriptions show that its 
 members formed a very appreciable fraction of the whole population 
 of the city and neighbourhood. Not only do we find separate colum- 
 baria, devoted solely to the interment of slaves and freedmen of a 
 single prince or princess, as Livia or Claudius for instance ; but epitaphs 
 of servants and dependants of the imperial family are strewn broadcast 
 among the sepulchral monuments of the suburbs. Obviously this con- 
 nexion is recorded as a subject of pride on these monumental in- 
 scriptions. The 'verna' or the 'servus' or the 'libertus' of Caesar or 
 of Caesar's near relations did not wish the fact to be forgotten. Hence 
 the extant inscriptions furnish a vast amount of information, where 
 extant literature is comparatively silent. The most elaborately or- 
 ganized of modern royal establishments would give only a faint idea 
 of the multiplicity and variety of the offices in the palace of the 
 Caesars^. The departments in the household are divided and sub- 
 divided ; the offices are numberless. The ' tasters ' are a separate class 
 of servants under their own chief Even the pet dog has a functionary 
 assigned to him. The aggregate of imperial residences on or near 
 
 ^ Sueton. Doviit. lo ' Flavium Sabi- comp. also Orelli-Henzen Inscr. i. 488, 
 
 num a/i'^r^/w e patnielibus.' in. 245, C.I.L.vi. p. iii3.sq, where 
 
 ^ See the discussion on 'Citsai's Ihe Roman inscriptions relating to the 
 
 Household ' in Philippiaits p. 171 scj. ; subject are given.
 
 26 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the Palatine formed a small city in itself; but these were not the 
 only palaces even in Rome. Moreover the country houses and estates 
 of the imperial family all contributed to swell the numbers of the 
 ' domus Augusta.' But, besides the household in its more restricted 
 sense, the emperor had in his employ a countless number of officials, 
 clerks, and servants of every degree, required for the work of the 
 several departments, civil and military, which were concentrated in 
 him, as the head of the state. 
 
 Only a small proportion of these numerous offices were held 
 by Romans. The clever, handy, versatile Greek abounded every- 5 
 where. If the Quirites looked with dismay on an invasion which 
 threatened to turn their own Rome into a Greek city, assuredly the 
 danger was not least on the Palatine and in its dependencies. But 
 the Greeks formed only a small portion of these foreign ' dregs", 
 which were so loathsome to the taste of the patriotic Roman. We 
 have ample evidence that Orientals of diverse nations, Egyptians, 
 Syrians, Samaritans, and Jews, held positions of influence in the court 
 and household at the time with which we are concerned. They had 
 all the gifts, for which the multifarious exigencies of Roman civiliza- 
 tion would find scope. 
 
 It is just here, among this miscellaneous gathering of nationahties, 
 that we should expect Christianity to effect an early lodgment. Nor 
 are we disappointed in our expectation. When S. Paul writes from 
 his Roman captivity to Philippi about midway in Nero's reign, the 
 only special greeting which he is commissioned to send comes from 
 the members 'of Csesar's household' (iv. 22). We may safely infer 
 from the language thus used that their existence was well known to 
 his distant correspondents. Obviously they were no very recent con- 
 verts to Christianity. But we may go further than this. I have given 
 reasons elsewhere, not absolutely conclusive indeed but suggesting a 
 high degree of probability, that in the long list of greetings which four 
 years earher (a.d. 58) the Apostle had sent to the Roman Church, we 
 have some names at least of servants and dependants of the imperial 
 family-. 
 
 More than thirty years had rolled by since the Epistle to the 
 Romans was sent from Corinth, when Clement wrote his letter to the 
 Corinthians in the name of the Roman Christians and from Rome. 
 For a quarter of a century or more the Roman Church had enjoyed 
 comparative peace, if not absolute immunity from persecution^. During 
 
 ^ Juvenal Sat. iii. 61 'Quamvis quota " P/iilippians -p. 171 sq. 
 
 portiofaocisAchaei'; comp.Lucr.vii. 405. ' See Ig7i. and I'olyc. i. p. 15.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 27 
 
 the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and in the early years of Domitian, 
 there is every reason to beHeve that Christianity had made rapid ad- 
 vances in the metropohs of the world. In its great stronghold — the 
 household of the Caesars — more especially its progress would be felt. 
 Have we not indications of this in Clement's letter itself? 
 
 At the close of the epistle mention is made of the bearers of the 
 letter, two members of the Roman Church, Claudius Ephebus and 
 Valerius Bito, who are despatched to Corinth with one Fortunatus 
 (§ 65). In an earlier passage of the epistle (§ 63) these delegates are 
 described as 'faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us 
 (the Roman Christians) from youth unto old age unblameably (ai/Spas 
 TTiOTTOvs Kol (TO)(jipovas ttTTO J/60TTJT0S ttvacTTpae^evTas ews yrjpovi a/Ae/ATrrcos 
 Iv T^fjuv).' Now the date of this epistle, as determined by internal and 
 external evidence alike, is about a.d. 95 or 96 ; and, as old age could 
 hardly be predicated of persons under sixty, they must have been 
 born as early as the year 35, and probably some few years earlier. 
 They would therefore have been young men of thirty or there- 
 abouts, when S. Paul sent his salutation to the Philippians. It is 
 clear likewise from Clement's language that they had been converted 
 to Christianity before that time. But their names, Claudius and 
 Valerius, suggest some important considerations. The fourth Cffisar 
 reigned from a.d. 41 to a.d. 54, and till a.d. 48 Messalina was his 
 consort. Like his two predecessors, Tiberius and Gaius, he was a 
 member of the Claudian gens, while MessaUna belonged to the Vale- 
 rian. Consequently we find among the freedmen of the Caesars and 
 their descendants both names, Claudius (Claudia) and Valerius (Valeria), 
 in great frequency. Moreover they occur together, as the names of 
 parent and child (C. I. L. vi. 4923), 
 
 D. M. 
 
 CLAVDIAE . AVG . LIB . NEREIDI 
 
 M . VALERIVS . FVTIANVS 
 
 MATRI . CARISSIMAE 
 
 D . M . 
 
 M . VALERIO , SVNTROPHO 
 
 FVTIANVS 
 
 LIB , OPTIMO, 
 
 or of husband and wife (C. /. L. vi. 8943), 
 
 VALERIA . HILARIA 
 
 NVTRIX 
 
 OCTAVIAE . CAESARIS . AVGVSTI 
 
 IIIC . REQVIESCIT . CVM 
 
 TI . CLAVDIO . FRVCTO . VIRO . SVO . CARISSIMO, 
 
 where the Octavia, whom this Valeria nursed, is the ill-fated daughter
 
 28 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 of Claudius and wife of Nero. To these should be added another 
 inscription (C / L. x. 2271), 
 
 D. M. 
 CLAVDI . GEMELLI 
 
 ANNIS . XIX 
 
 VALERIVS . VITALIS 
 
 HERES . B . M . 
 
 not only for the connexion of the names Claudius and Valerius, but 
 because Vitalis (elsewhere written BitaUs C. I. L. vi. 4532, where like- 
 wise it is mentioned in the same inscription with a Valeria) may 
 possibly be connected with Vito (Bito) '. 
 
 The same combination likewise occurs in C. I. L. vi. 4548, 
 
 CLAVDIAE . PIERIDI . ET 
 FILIAE . EIVS 
 r M . VALERIVS 
 
 SECVNDIO . FEC. 
 
 as also in C. I. L. vi. 15 174, 
 
 DIIS . MAN . SACR. 
 TI . CLAVDI . ONESIMI . FEC. 
 
 VALERIA . ATHENAIS 
 CONIVGI . SVO . KARISSIMO, 
 
 and again in C. I. L. vi. 15304, 
 
 DIIS. MANIBVS 
 
 TI . CLAVDII . TI . F . QVI 
 
 VALERIANI 
 
 VIXIT . ANN . Villi . MENS . VI 
 
 D . VALERIVS . EVTYCHES, 
 
 and likewise in C. I. L. vl 1535 i, 
 
 CLAVDIAE. AMMIAE 
 
 L . VALERIVS . GLYCON . FEC. 
 
 COIVGI . CARISSIMAE. 
 
 1 We have this combination ' Clau(hus meet with 'Valerius Vitalis' in VIII. 2562 
 
 Vitalis' again in vi. 9151, 9152, in con- (15) and 'Valeria Vitalis' in vi. 4674, 
 
 nexion with a freedman of the emperor while 'Bitalis' and 'Valeria' appear in 
 
 (comp. X. 8397). So also 'Claudia Vi- the same inscription vi. 4532. The 
 
 talis,' VI. 15654, 15655. In like manner names 'Vitus' (Bitos) and 'Vitalis' (Bi- 
 
 X. 2261 TI . CLAVDio . liiTONi, though rdXtos) are uscd of the Same pcrson in the 
 
 BITO is not a common name {C. I. L. v. spurious Ignatian Epistles, Philipp. 14, 
 
 6913, 8110(56), IX. 85). Similarly we Hero %.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 29 
 
 Probably many other examples also might be found, exhibiting this 
 same combination of names. The connexion of persons bearing the 
 name Valerius, Valeria, with the household of Messalina is patent in 
 several cases, either from the context of the inscription or from the 
 locality in which it is found (see C. I. L. vi. p. 909). Of the Jewish 
 origin of many slaves and freedmen of the imperial palace I have 
 already spoken. This appears in the case of one clavdia sabbathis 
 (C. /. L. VI. 8494), who erects a monument to her son described as a 
 'slave of our Caesars'. The name here clearly betrays its Jewish origin, 
 and indeed we find it in other places borne by Jews\ Elsewhere 
 likewise we meet with evidence of the presence of Jews among slaves 
 and dependants of the Valerian gens". All these facts combined seem 
 to invest the opinion which I have ventured to offer, that these messen- 
 gers who carried the Roman letter to Corinth were brought up in the 
 imperial household, with a high degree of probability ^ When S. Paul 
 wrote from Rome to the Philippians about a.d. 62, they would be, as we 
 have seen, in the prime of life ; their consistent course would mark them 
 out as the future hope of the Roman Church; they could hardly be 
 unknown to the Apostle; and their names along with others would be 
 present to his mind when he dictated the words, 'They that are of 
 Caesar's household salute you.' The Claudia of 2 Tim. iv. 21 likewise 
 was not improbably connected with the imperial palace. 
 
 Hitherto we have not risen above the lower grades in the social 
 scale. But it is the tendency of religious movements to work their way 
 upwards from beneath, and Christianity was no exception to the general 
 
 1 Boeckh C. I. G. 9910 cnBa^c . K6I- is mentioned. The form of expression 
 0ei . caBBatic. AlCApxcoN (comp. Gar- {<y^v koX ^opTovvdra)), which dissociates 
 rncci Disserl. Archdol. 11. p. 189), where him from the other two, suggests that he 
 I,a^pdTis is a man's name, as belonging was a Corinthian, as I have pointed out 
 to a ruler of a synagogue (see also ti. p. in my note on the passage (§ 65). If 
 182 2ai3dT£os). In C. /. G. 9723 it is a not, the name might be ilkistrated by 
 Christian name ; and elsewhere we meet <^- ^- L. V. 4103 Tl . CLAVDivs . ti . l[ib]. 
 with 2a^i3drtos,2a/3/3aT/o,De Rossi ye^?;;;. FORTVNATVS, or by C. I. L. vi. 15082 
 Sotterr. i. p. 326, ill. pp. 173, 288, and Ti . clavdio.avg.l.fortvnato, where 
 Tav. xviii. 57. this cognomen is not only connected with 
 
 2 We find the Jewish names, L vale- the name of one of his fellow-messengers 
 RIVS baricha, l. valerivs zabda, but likewise with the imperial household. 
 L. VALERIVS ACHIBA, as freedmen of For the combination of 'Fortunatus' 
 one L. Valerius, in an inscription on the with 'Claudius' see also C. 1. L. v. 7281, 
 Appian way (Canina Via Appiai.T^.iii^). ^"^- 15067, 15070— 15081, IX. 338, 4255, 
 
 =» Along with Claudius Ephebus and 4995- For its connexion with the other 
 Valerius Bito a third person, Fortunatus, name Valerius, see below, p. 62, note i.
 
 30 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 rule. Starting from slaves and dependants, it advanced silently step ' 
 by step, till at length it laid hands on the princes of the imperial house'. 
 Even before S. Paul's visit to Rome the Gospel seems to have num- 
 bered at least one lady of high rank among its converts^ Pomponia 
 Graecina, the wife of Plautius the conqueror of Britain, was arraigned of 
 'foreign superstition' before the Senate and handed over to a domestic 
 tribunal, by which however she was acquitted ^ Many years earlier her 
 friend Julia, the daughter of Drusus, had been put to death by the 
 wiles of Messalina^. From that time forward she cherished a life-long 
 grief, and never appeared in public except in deep mourning. These 
 
 ^ This is a convenient place to refer 
 to two articles by Hasenclever, entitled 
 Christliche Proselyten der hohcrcn Stiinde 
 ini ersten y ahrhundert in Jahrb. f. Pro- 
 test. Thcol. viii. p. 34- — 78, p. 230 — 271. 
 They go over the whole ground and are 
 well worth reading, though not free from 
 inaccuracies. 
 
 - Tac. Ann. xiii. 32 'Pomponia Grae- 
 cina, insignis femina, Plautio qui ovans se 
 de Brittaniis rettulit nupta ac supersti- 
 tionis extemae rea, mariti judiciopermissa; 
 isque prisco instituto.propinquis coram, de 
 capite famaque conjugis cognovit et inson- 
 tem nuntiavit. Longa huic Pomponiae 
 aetas et continua tristitia fuit ; nam post 
 Juliam Drusi filiam dole Messalinae inter- 
 fectam per quadraginta annos non cultu 
 nisi lugubri, non animo nisi maesto egit ; 
 idque illi imperitante Claudio impune, 
 mox ad gloriam vertit.' 
 
 •' Wandinger (p. 30 sq.) appears to me 
 to give the most probable account of the 
 trial before the domestic tribunal. As 
 Judaism was a religion recognised by 
 ' Roman law, and as Christianity was not 
 yet distinguished from Judaism, Pom- 
 ponia was entitled to an acquittal on the 
 purely religious ground. But rumours 
 were already abroad, which accused the 
 Christians of flagitious and impure orgies 
 in secret, and the participation in these 
 was the matter referred to the domes- 
 tic tribunal. The domestic court was 
 charged with the cognizance of this very 
 class of crimes, more especially of the 
 
 violation of the marriage vow. On this 
 ancient institution see Dionys. Hal. Ant. 
 ii. 25 a/jLapTavovcra 5^ ri diKacTrriv rhv 
 aSiKovfxevov eXafxftave Kal rod ney^Oovs tjjs 
 Tifiupias Kijpiov ravTa 5k oi ffvyyeveis fxerd 
 Tov dvdpbs idlKa^of eu oh rjv (pdopa ad)- 
 fiaros K.T.X., M. Cato in Aul. Gell. //oct. 
 X. 23 ' Vir cum divortium facit, mulieri 
 judex pro censore est... si quid perverse 
 taetreque factum est a muliere, multitatur ; 
 si vinum bibit, si cum alieno viro probri 
 quid fecit, condempnatur,' Tac. Ann. ii. 
 50 'adulterii graviorem poenam depre- 
 catus, ut exemplo majorum propinquis 
 suis ultra ducentesimum lapidem remo- 
 veretur suasit,' Sueton. 7>A 35 'Matronas 
 prostratae pudicitiac.ut propinqui more 
 majorum de communi sententia coerce- 
 rent, auctor fuit.' 
 
 '• Sueton. Clmid. 29 'Julias, alteram 
 Drusi, alteram Germanici filiam, crimine 
 incerto nee defensione ulla data occidit ' ; 
 comp. Senec. Apocol. 10, where Augustus 
 is made to say, ' ut duas Julias proneptes 
 meas occideret, alteram ferro, alteram 
 fame.' Of these two Julias, who were 
 put to death by Claudius, the former was 
 the friend of Pomponia Graecina. She 
 appears also to have been a relation; 
 for Drusus was descended from Pom- 
 ponius Atticus, the friend of Cicero (Tac. 
 Ann. ii. 43). On her death see (besides 
 the passage of Tacitus quoted in note 2) 
 Dion Cass. Ix. 18, Tac. Ann. xiii. 43, 
 Incert. Octav. 970 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 31 
 
 two traits combined — the seriousness of demeanour and the imputation 
 of a strange religion — had led many modern critics of repute to suppose 
 that she was a convert to Christianity'. This surmise, which seemed 
 probable in itself, has been converted almost into a certainty by an 
 archaeological discovery of recent years*. 
 
 The earliest portion of the catacombs of Callistus, the so-called crypt 
 of Lucina, shows by its character and construction that it' must have 
 been built in the first century of the Christian Church. Its early date 
 appears alike in the better taste of its architecture and decorations and 
 in its exposure above ground. But in this crypt a sepulchral inscription 
 has been found belonging to the close of the second or beginning of the 
 third century, unquestionably bearing the name Pomponius Grsecinus", 
 though somewhat mutilated; while other neighbouring monuments record 
 the names of members of the Pomponian gens or of families allied to it. 
 It is clear therefore that this burial place was constructed by some 
 Christian lady of rank, probably before the close of the first century, for 
 her fellow-religionists; and that among these fellow-religionists within a 
 generation or two a descendant or near kinsman of Pomponia Grsecina 
 was buried. De Rossi, to whom we owe this discovery and the inferences 
 drawn from it, himself goes a step farther. The name Lucina does not 
 occur elsewhere in Roman history, and yet the foundress of this 
 cemetery must have been a person of rank and means, to erect so 
 costly a place of sepulture and to secure its immunity when erected. 
 He suggests therefore that Lucina was none other than Pomponia 
 Grgecina herself, and that this name was assumed by her to com- 
 memorate her baptismal privileges, in accordance with the early 
 Christian language which habitually spoke of baptism as an 'enlighten- 
 ing' (^cuTtcr/nos). Without following him in this precarious identification, 
 which indeed he puts forward with some diffidence, we shall still find in 
 his archaeological discoveries a strong confirmation of the conjecture, to 
 
 ^ So Merivale Hist, of Rom. vi. p. 272 
 sq. ; %^^ Philippians ■\^. i\. Monographs 
 on this subject are Friedlander De Pomp. 
 Graecin. super stitionis externae rea 1868, 
 and Wandinger /"ijw/^w/a G7-aeciiia 1873. 
 It is also fully discussed in Hasenclever 
 p. 47 sq. Friedlander's tract was written 
 without any knowledge of De Rossi's 
 discoveries, and he disputed the Christi- 
 anity of Pomponia. After making ac- 
 quaintance with these discoveries he 
 speaks differently {Sittengesch. Roms iii. 
 
 P- 534)- Wandinger writes to refute Fried- 
 lander's tract. Among recent writers, 
 Hausrath Neiitest. Zeiigesch. ill. p. 300, 
 and Schiller Rihn, Kaiserz. i. p. 446, still 
 speak doubtfully. 
 
 ^ De Rossi Rom. Sotten: i. p. 306 sq., 
 II. p. 280 sq, 360 sq ; comp. ib. ii. Anal. 
 Geol. Archit. p. 10 sq. 
 
 ' See the plate Roni. Sofferr. 11. Tav. 
 xlix, n[o]Mna)Nioc rpn[K]e[iNo]c, 
 where however some of the letters not 
 included in brackets are much mutilated.
 
 32 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 which the notice in Tacitus had given rise, that Pomponia was a 
 Christian'. 
 
 The death of her friend JuHa took place in a.d. 43"; the charge of 
 'foreign superstition' was brought against her in a.d. 57; and she her- 
 self must have died about a.d. S^^, for she is stated to have worn her 
 mourning for her friend forty years. We are thus brought into the 
 reign of Domitian. But some reasons exist for supposing that she was 
 related to the Flavian family. In the Ads of SS. Nereus and Achilleus 
 (May 12) we are told that Plautilla was sister of Flavius Clemens 
 the consul, and mother of Domitilla the virgin". This statement is ac- 
 cepted by De Rossi and others. Plautilla would thus be the daughter 
 of Vespasian's brother, Sabinus the City prefect; and, as his wife's 
 name is not otherwise known, De Rossi weds him to a supposed 
 daughter of Aulus Plautius and Pomponia Grsecina, whom he designates 
 Plautia, and who thus becomes the mother of Plautilla °. This theory 
 however is somewhat frail and shadowy. The Acts of Nereus and 
 
 ^ By a process wliich I am unable to 
 follow, Hasenclever (p. 47 sq) arrives at 
 the conclusion that at the time of her trial 
 Pomponia was only a proselytess to Ju- 
 daism, but that she afterwards became a 
 Christian. He sees an allusion to this 
 change in the final sentence of the notice 
 in Tacitus, ' idque illi imperitante Claudio 
 impune, mox ad gloriam vertit,' referring 
 the last clause to her deeds of charity as 
 a Christian which gave her a gi-eat repu- 
 tation even among the heathen (p. 63). 
 Surely the sentence means nothing more 
 than that her constancy to Julia's me- 
 mory somehow escaped punishment during 
 the lifetime of the tyrant by whom her 
 friend was murdered, and obtained its 
 proper meed of praise, when men's tongues 
 were untied by his death. 
 
 ^ Dion Cass. Ix. 18. The sequence of 
 events requires a.d. 43, not a.d. 44, as 
 Hasenclever (p. 49) gives it. 
 
 * Hasenclever (pp. 61, 63) places her 
 death in a.d. 97 or 98, on the authority 
 of Tacitus, apparently reckoning the 
 forty years from the date of her trial ; 
 but this is evidently not the historian's 
 meaning. 
 
 4 Bolland. Ad. Sanct. Mail iii. p. 8 
 
 ' Hujus [dementis consulis] soror Plau- 
 tilla nos [Nereum et Achilleum] in famu- 
 los comparavit... et nos simul secum et 
 cum fdia Domitilla sancto baptismate 
 consecravit.' The passage is given in 
 full below, p. III. 
 
 One Plautilla, described as ' nobilissima 
 matrona...apostolorum ferventissima di- 
 lectrix et religionisdivinae cultrix,' appears 
 in the Passio Pmtli (De la Eigne Magn. 
 Bibl. Vet. Fatr. i. p. 75 sq) of the pseudo- 
 Linus, where she lends S. Paul the veil 
 wherewith he binds his eyes. She plays 
 the same part for S. Paul, which Ve- 
 ronica does for our Lord. Nothing is 
 said of her family connexions. As the 
 author of the Acts of Nereus and Achil- 
 leus was acquainted with the work of 
 this spurious Linus (see Lipsius Apo- 
 kryph. Apostelgesch. 11. i. p. 106, 200 sq), 
 he probably derived the name thence. 
 On the Plautilla legend see Lipsius ib. 
 PP- 95 sq, 158, 170 sq. He does not 
 seem to me to have given adequate rea- 
 sons for his view that this legend, though 
 absent from some recensions, formed 
 part of the original Passio Pauli. 
 
 5 Bull, di Archcol. Crist. 1865, p. 
 20 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 33 
 
 Achilleus are, as I have already stated, late and devoid of authority'; 
 the existence of Domitilla the virgin, as distinguished from Domitilla the 
 wife of Flavius Clemens, is highly questionable; and Plautia herself, 
 who does not appear outside this theory, is a mere critical postulate 
 to account for the name of Plautilla. Still it remains possible that the 
 Plautilla of these Acts was not a pure fiction ; and in this case De 
 Rossi's handling of the pedigree, which thus links together the Pom- 
 ponian and Flavian families, is at least plausible. A connexion of 
 another kind between these families is a matter of history. The two 
 brothers, Sabinus and Vespasian, both served under Aulus Plautius in 
 Britain as his lieutenants". 
 
 But, whether from the upward moral pressure of slaves and freedmen 
 in the household itself or through the intercourse with friends of a 
 higher social rank like Pomponia Graecina, the new religion before 
 long fastened upon certain members of the imperial family itself with 
 tragic results. The innate cruelty of Domitian had a merciless and 
 unscrupulous ally in his ever growing jealousy. Any one who towered 
 above his fellows in moral or intellectual stature, or whose social or 
 official influence excited his suspicions, was at once marked out for 
 destruction. Philosophers and men of letters, nobles and statesmen, 
 ahke were struck down. Ladies of rank were driven into banishment^ 
 In such cases the most trivial charge was sufficient to procure condem- 
 nation. The adoption of an unrecognized religion or the practice of 
 foreign rites was a convenient handle. I have spoken elsewhere of 
 the persecution against the Jews in this reign and of its indirect conse- 
 quences to the Christians'. But the Jewish religion at all events was 
 tolerated by the law. The profession of Christianity enjoyed no such 
 immunity. A charge was brought by the emperor against Flavius 
 Clemens and Flavia Domitilla his wife^ — the former his first cousin, 
 the latter his niece. A childless monarch, he seems to have scanned 
 his own relations with especial jealousy. The brother of Flavius 
 Clemens, a man of consular rank, had been put to death by Domitian 
 some years before. Clemens himself was the emperor's colleague 
 
 1 See above, p. 24, and below, p. 42 sq. caedes, tot nobilissiviariiiii feniinarum 
 
 Lipsius places them as far back as the exsilia et fugas,' where the connexion 
 
 5th century, and they cannot well be suggests that Tacitus had prominently 
 
 dated earlier ; Quell en d. Rom. Feints- in his mind Domitian's treatment of 
 
 sage p. 151 sq, Apokr. Apostelgesch. il. Clemens and Domitilla. 
 
 i. p. 107. ■* See Ignat. and Polyc. i. p. 11 sq. 
 
 - Dion Cass. Ix. 20. ^ The authorities for this incident are 
 
 * Tacit. Agric. 45 'tot consiilarium given in full below, p. 104 sq. 
 
 CLEM. 3
 
 34 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 in the consulship, and had only just resigned his office \ when he 
 found himself the victim of his cousin's maHgnity. His two children 
 had been designated by the emperor as his successors in the purple, 
 and bidden to assume the names Vespasianus and Domitianus ac- 
 cordingly^ The charge against him, so Suetonius reports, was the 
 flimsiest possible. Dion Cassius tells us more explicitly that the 
 husband and wife alike were accused of atheism', and connects this 
 charge with the adoption of Jewish rites and customs. This combi- 
 nation can hardly point to anything else but the profession of Chris- 
 tianity*. Judaism, as distinguished from Christianity, will not meet 
 the case*, both because Judaism was a religion recognized by law and 
 because ' atheism ' would be out of place in this case. Indeed 
 the authorities used by Eusebius — notably Bruttius — seem to have 
 
 ^ Dion Cassius says UTTareuoj/To, 'while 
 he was consul,' but Suetonius ' tantum 
 non in ipso ejus consulatu '. He was 
 'consul ordinarius ' with Domitian in a.d. 
 95 ; and the two statements may be 
 reconciled by supposing that he died in 
 the year which was named after his con- 
 sulate, though he had retired to make 
 way for a ' suffectus.' Domitian died on 
 Sept. 1 8, A.D. 96, and Suetonius appa- 
 rently speaks of the interval after the 
 execution of Clemens as eight months 
 {Domit. 15 ' continuis octo mensibus'); 
 see Imhoi Domit iaf I Its p. 116. If there- 
 fore he was executed in a.d. 95, it must 
 have been quite at the close of the year. It 
 does not seem to me necessary to interpret 
 the eight months rigidly with Lipsius 
 (Chron. pp. 153, 161), so as to place his 
 death in January 96. 
 
 - See above, pp. 21, 24, and below 
 pp. 42, 112. 
 
 ' Domit. 14 eTrrjvix^V 5^ aficpolv ^-/kXt]- 
 jiia dOeorriTos v(p^ -^s Kai clXKol es to. twv 
 'lovSaiwv idrj e^o/cAXovres iroWol Karedi- 
 KdcrdTjaav. 
 
 For the charge of 'atheism' brought 
 against the Christians see the note on 
 Ignat. Trail. 3. 
 
 ^ The combination of the two charges 
 is accepted by Gibbon Decline and Fall 
 c. xvi, as showing that they were Chris- 
 
 tians. So too Baur Paiilus p. 472, and 
 most writers. Renan, Les Evangiles p. 
 226 sq, treats them as only Christians 
 in a very vague way. 
 
 ^ Gratz {Geschichte der Judeti iv. p. 
 120, 435 sq ; comp. Motiatsschr. f. Gesch. 
 u. Wiss. d. Jiidenth. April 1869, p. 169) 
 would make him a convert to Judaism. 
 He connects the account of Clemens with 
 a story in the Talmud [Gittin 56b, Abodah 
 Sarah 1 1 a) of one Onkelos son of Calo- 
 nicus or Cleonicus D1p''31?p, or of Calo- 
 nymus or Cleonymus DICJI/p (for it is 
 differently written in the two passages), and 
 nephewof the emperor Titus, who was con- 
 verted to Judaism ; and he supposes this to 
 represent the name Clemens. The story 
 however has nothing else in common with 
 the account of Fl. Clemens, and the hero is 
 not this Calonicus (Calonymus) himself, 
 but his son Onkelos. The two Talmudic 
 passages will be found in F. C. Ewald's 
 Abodah Sarah p. 77 sq. There is in- 
 deed the bare possibility that this Tal- 
 mudic legend has grown out of the ac- 
 count of Clemens as given for example 
 by Dion Cassius, but it cannot have any 
 value in determining the actual facts. 
 Other Talmudic stories, in which Gratz 
 finds a reference to Clemens and Domi- 
 tilla, are even more foreign to the sub- 
 ject.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 35 
 
 stated this distinctly, at least of the wife. Clemens himself was put 
 to death; Domitilla was banished to one of the islands, Pontia or 
 Pandateria'. Of the husband Suetonius speaks as a man of 'utterly 
 contemptible indolence.' This inactive temperament may have been 
 partially hereditary ; for his father Sabinus, the City prefect, is said 
 to have been deficient in energy ^ But it is much more likely to have 
 been the result of his equivocal position. He would be debarred by 
 his principles from sharing the vicious amusements which were popular 
 among his fellow countrymen, and he must have found himself checked 
 again and again in his political functions by his religious scruples. To 
 be at once a Roman consul and a Christian convert in this age was 
 a position which might well tax the consistency of a sincere and 
 upright man. The Christian apologists in these early times are 
 obliged constantly to defend themselves against the charge of indiffer- 
 ence to their political and civil duties ^ 
 
 But any shadow of doubt, which might have rested on the Chris- 
 tianity of Clemens and Domitilla after the perusal of the historical 
 notices, has been altogether removed (at least as regards the wife) 
 by the antiquarian discoveries of recent years. 
 
 Among the early burial places of the Roman Christians was one 
 called the Coemeteriian Domitillae. This has been identified beyond 
 question by the investigations of De Rossi with the catacombs of the 
 Tor Marancia near the Ardeatine Way*. With characteristic patience 
 and acuteness the eminent archsologist has traced the early history of 
 this cemetery; and it throws a flood of light on the matter in question ^ 
 
 ^ Dion banishes her to Pandateria ; 
 Eusebius, following Bruttius, to Pontia. 
 This discrepancy is discussed below, 
 p. 49 sq. 
 
 ^ Tacit. Hist. ii. 63 ' Sabinus suopte 
 ingenio mitis, ubi formido incessisset, fa- 
 cilis mutatu' etc, iii. 59 'Sabinus inha- 
 bilem labori et audaciae valetudinem 
 causabatur,' iii. 65 'melior interpretatio 
 mitem virum abhorrere a sanguine et 
 caedibus,' iii. 75 'in fine vitae alii segnem, 
 multi moderatum et civium sanguinis par- 
 cum credidere.' The expression which 
 Suetonius applies to his son is ' con- 
 temptissimae inertiae.' 
 
 '* Tertull. Apol. 42 'infructuosi in ne- 
 gotiis dicimur,' against which charge 
 he defends the Christians at length ; 
 
 see also Minuc. Fel. Octav. 8 'latebrosa 
 et lucifuga natio, in publicum muta, 
 in angulis garrula. ' Some difficult pro- 
 blem confronted the Christian at every 
 turn in connexion with his duties to the 
 state ; see Neander Hist. I. p. 274 sq. 
 
 ■* On what grounds Hasenclever (p. 
 261) can call this identification 'more 
 than questionable,' I cannot understand 
 in the face of the evidence. Yet Lip- 
 sius [Apokr. Apostelgesch. 11. i. p. 205, 
 note 2) says the same. By the way 
 Hasenclever calls it 'Tor Mancia,' and 
 has misled Lipsius. 
 
 ^ De Rossi's investigations will be 
 found in the Bullettino di Archeologia 
 Cristiana 1865, pp. 17 sq, 33 sq, 41 
 sq, 89 sq ; 1874, pp. 5 sq, 68 sq, 
 
 3—2
 
 36 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Inscriptions have been discovered which show that these catacombs are 
 situated on an estate once belonging to the Flavia Domitilla who was 
 banished on account of her faith. Thus one inscription records that 
 the plot of ground on which the cippus stood had been granted to P. 
 Calvisius Philotas as the burial place of himself and others, ex . m- 
 DVLGENTIA . FLAViAE . domitill[ae]. Another monumental tablet is put 
 up by one Tatia in the name of herself and her freedmen and freed- 
 women. This Tatia is described as [nvJtrix . septem . lib[erorvm] . 
 
 DIVI . VESPASIAN[i . ATQUe] . FLAVIAE . DOMITIL[lae] . VESPASIANI . NEP- 
 
 Tis, and the sepulchre is stated to be erected eivs . beneficio, i.e. by the 
 concession of the said Flavia Domitilla, to whom the land belonged. 
 
 A third inscription runs as follows... filia. flaviae. domitillae 
 
 [vespasi]ani . neptis . FECIT . GLYCERAE . L . This last indeed was not 
 found on the same site with the others, having been embedded in the 
 pavement of the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome : but there is some 
 reason for thinking that it was transferred thither at an early date with 
 other remains from the Cemetery of Domitilla. Even without the con- 
 firmation of this last monument however, the connexion of this Christian 
 cemetery with the wife of Flavius Clemens is established beyond any 
 reasonable doubt. And recent excavations have supplied further links 
 of evidence. This cemetery was approached by an above ground 
 vestibule, which leads to a hypogaeum, and to which are attached 
 chambers, supposed to have been used by the custodian of the place 
 and by the mourners assembled at funerals. From the architecture and 
 the paintings De Rossi infers that the vestibule itself belongs to the 
 first century. Moreover the publicity of the building, so unlike the 
 obscure doorways and dark underground passages which lead to other 
 catacombs, seems to justify the belief that it was erected under the pro- 
 tection of some important personage and during a period of quiet such 
 as intervened between the death of Nero and the persecution of 
 Domitian. The underground vaults and passages contain remains 
 which in De Rossi's opinion point to the first half of the second century. 
 Here also are sepulchral memorials, which seem to belong to the time 
 of the Antonines, and imply a connexion with the Flavian household. 
 Thus one exhibits the m.onogram of a flavilla; another bears the in- 
 scription (j)A . cABeiNoc . KAi . TiTiANH . AAeA(})oi ; a third, <pK . nTOAeMAioc . 
 
 122 sq; 1875, pp. 5 sq, 46 sq; 1877, Domitilla and its surroundings will form 
 
 p. 128 sq; 1878, p. 126 sq; 1879, pp. the main subject of the 4th volume of 
 
 5sq, 139 sq; 1880, pp. 69, 169 sq; 1881, Roma Sotterranea, which has not yet ap- 
 
 p. 57 sq: comp. Roma Sotterranea I. peared. 
 p, 186 .sq, 266 sq. The Cemetery of
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 Z1 
 
 np.KAi oyAni . KONKOpAiA. As regards the second, it will be remem- 
 bered that the father of Flavius Clemens and brother of Vespasian bore 
 this name T. Flavius Sabinus ; and De Rossi therefore supposes that 
 we have here the graves of actual descendants, grandchildren or great 
 grandchildren, of this Flavius Sabinus, through his son Flavius Clemens 
 the Christian martyr. In illustration of the name Titiane' again, he 
 remarks that three prefects of Egypt during the second century bore the 
 name Flavius Titianiis, and that the wife of the emperor Pertinax was a 
 Flavia Titiana. We may hesitate to accept these facts as evidence 
 that the persons in question were actual descendants of the imperial ' 
 house; but if not, the names will at all events point to connexions or 
 retainers of the family. The restoration of another inscription, 
 [sepvlc]rvm [flavi]orvm, which is followed by a cruciform anchor and 
 therefore points to a Christian place of sepulture, may indeed be correct, 
 but it is far too uncertain to be accepted as evidence. 
 
 Connected also with this same cemetery from very early times was 
 the cultus of one Petronilla\ Here, between the years 390 and 395", 
 Pope Siricius erected over her tomb a spacious basilica mth three 
 aisles, of which very considerable remains have been laid bare by recent 
 explorations. The tomb itself was a very ancient sarcophagus bearing 
 the inscription^ 
 
 AVR . PETRONILLAE . FILIAE . DVLCISSIMAE . 
 
 This Petronilla for some reason or other was the patron saint of the 
 Carlovingian kings of France. To commemorate the alliance between 
 king Pepin and the Papacy, the reigning pope Stephen 11 undertook 
 to translate the remains of S. Petronilla to the Vatican ; and this pledge 
 was fulfilled by his brother and immediate successor Paul i (a.d. 758). 
 Her new resting-place however at the Vatican was not a recent erec- 
 tion, but an imperial mausoleum, already some centuries old, as De 
 Rossi has shown \ This Church of S. Petronilla, and with it the ancient 
 
 ^ For the discovery of the basilica of 
 S. Petronilla and for her cultus within 
 the Cemetery of Domitilla, as also for 
 the memorials of SS. Nereus and Achil- 
 leus within the same cemetery, see Bull, 
 di Archcol. Crist. 1874, pp. 5 sq, 68 sq, 
 122 sq, 1875, p. 5 sq. 
 
 ■^ These limits of time are established by 
 the position of the dated monuments ; see 
 De Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1874, 
 p. 27 sq, 1875, p. 46. 
 
 ^ For the sarcophagus and its inscrip- 
 tion, for the translation of the remains, 
 and for the church at the Vatican, see 
 Bull, di Archcol. Crist. 1878, p. 125 sq, 
 
 1879, P- 5sq, P- 139 sq- 
 
 •* Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1878, p. 
 139 sq. A grouiid plan of the ancient 
 basilica of S. Peter, with the buildings 
 connected with it, including this Church 
 of S. Petronilla, is given in Duchesne's 
 Liber Pontifical is \. p. 192.
 
 i8 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 sarcophagus which had been transferred from the Cemetery of Domitilla, 
 perished in the ruthless and wholesale vandalism, which swept away 
 the original basilica of Constantine with other priceless memorials of 
 early Christendom, to make room for the modern Church of S. Peter in 
 the sixteenth century. This Petronilla in legendary story was called 
 the daughter of S. Peter. Some modern critics have sought to explain 
 this designation by a spiritual fatherhood, just as the same Apostle speaks 
 of his 'son Marcus' (i Pet. v. 13). But the legend has obviously 
 arisen from the similarity of the names Petros, Petronilla', and thus it 
 implies a natural relationship. The removal of her sarcophagus to the 
 Vatican, and the extraordinary honours there paid to her, are only 
 explicable on this supposition. Of this personage De Rossi has given a 
 probable account. It had been remarked by Baronius, that the name 
 Petronilla is connected etymologically not with Petros but with Pe- 
 tronius ; and De Rossi calls attention to the fact, which has been 
 mentioned already', that the founder of the Flavian family was 
 T. Flavins Petro. This Petronilla therefore, whom the later legend 
 connects with S. Peter, may have been some scion of the Flavian house, 
 who, hke her relations Fl. Clemens and Fl. Domitilla, became a convert 
 to Christianity. The name Aurelia suggests a later date than the 
 Apostolic times, and points rather to the age of the Antonines than to 
 the age of S. Peter. If, as seems to have been the case, it was given in 
 its contracted form avr., this indicates an epoch, when the name had 
 already become common, being borne by the imperial family, just as 
 under similar circumstances we have cl. for clavdivs and fl. for 
 FLAVivs^ Even the simple fact of a conspicuous tomb bearing the 
 name Petronilla, and the dedication to a ' darling daughter ', would 
 have been a sufficient starting-point for the legend of her relationship 
 to S. Peter, when the glorification of that apostle had become a 
 dominant idea*. 
 
 1 Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1865, p. 22, 
 1879, p. 141. De Rossi seems still to 
 attach weight to the opinion that Petro- 
 nilla was a spiritual daughter of S. Peter; 
 but he himself has deprived this hypo- 
 thesis of its raison d'etre by pointing out 
 the true derivation of the name. The 
 spiritual relationship is a mere invention 
 of modern critics, following Baronius 
 (ann. 69, § xxxiii). To this writer it 
 was an offence that a daughter should 
 
 to the apostleship, and he argues against 
 the natural relationship accordingly. The 
 old legend had no such scruple. 
 
 ^ See above, p. 16. 
 
 ^ Bnll. di Archeol. Crist. 1879, PP* 
 147, 155. These considerations, as fa- 
 vouring a later date, suggest a misgiving 
 to De Rossi whether S. Petromlla can 
 have been a personal disciple of S. 
 Peter, as his theory requires. 
 
 ^ The Acts of S. Petronilla are incor- 
 
 have been born to S. Peter after his call porated in those of SS. Nereusand Achil-
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 39 
 
 Of the connexion of Nereus and Achilleus, the legendary chamber- 
 lains of Domitilla, with this basilica of Petronilla, I shall have occasion 
 to speak presently. Still more interesting is the slab bearing the name 
 AMPLiATVS, as raising the question whether this may not be the very 
 person named in S. Paul's salutations to the Romans'; but, except 
 that the form of the letters and the character of the surroundings 
 betoken a very early date, and thus furnish additional evidence that 
 this locality was a primitive burial-place of the Christians", it has no 
 direct bearing on the question before us. The name itself is common. 
 
 The account which I have given will suffice as an outline of the 
 principal facts which De Rossi has either discovered or emphasized, 
 and of the inferences which he has drawn from them, so far as they 
 bear on my subject. He has also endeavoured to strengthen his 
 position by other critical combinations ; but I have preferred to pass 
 them over as shadowy and precarious. Even of those which I have 
 given, some perhaps will not command general assent. But the main 
 facts seem to be established on grounds which can hardly be ques- 
 tioned ; that we have here a burial place of Christian Elavil of the 
 second century ; that it stands on ground which once belonged to 
 Flavia Domitilla; and that it was probably granted by her to her 
 dependents and co-religionists for a cemetery. There is reason for 
 believing that in the earliest ages the Christians secured their places 
 of sepulture from disturbance under the shelter of great personages, 
 whose property was protected by the law during their life time, and 
 whose testamentary dispositions were respected after their deaths 
 
 With the blood of Clemens the cup of Domitian's iniquities over- 
 flowed. The day of retribution came full soon. His hand had long 
 been reeking with the noblest blood of Rome; but his doom was 
 sealed, when he became a terror to men in humbler walks of life*. 
 His own domestics no longer felt themselves safe from his jealous 
 suspicions. Among these the conspiracy was hatched, which put an 
 
 leus, for which see below, p. 41. See 
 also Aci. SS. Bolland. Mail xxxi, vii. p. 
 413 sq, this being her own day. Comp. 
 Lipsius Apokr. Apostdgesch. 11. i. p. 203 
 sq. 
 
 ^ xvi. 8, where the weight of authority 
 is in favour of 'Ampliatus' rather than 
 the contracted form ' Amplias.' 
 
 * See Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1881, 
 p. 57 sq. De Rossi has promised (p. 74) 
 
 to discuss this question in the 4th volume 
 of Roma Sottcrranca. 
 
 ^ De Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 
 1864, p. 25 sq, Rom. Sottcrr. I. p. 102 sq. 
 
 * Juv. Sat. iv. 153 'Periit postquam 
 Cerdonibus esse timendus Coeperat; hoc 
 nocuit Lamiarum caede madenti,' where 
 Cerdo seems to be used as a slave's name 
 (see Mayor's note).
 
 40 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 /' 
 
 end to his ]ife\ It is worth observing that both Suetonius and 
 Philostratus connect his fate directly with his treatment of Clemens 
 and Domitilla. The chief assassin at all events was one Stephanus, 
 a steward and freedman of Uomitilla". This is stated by all our 
 authorities. Carrying his left arm bandaged as if it were broken, he 
 went in to the emperor's presence with a dagger concealed in the 
 wrappings, engaged his attention with a pretended revelation of a 
 conspiracy, and while Domitian was reading the document, plunged 
 the dagger into his body. The wound was not fatal. Domitian 
 grappled with the assassin in mortal conflict, tried to wrench the 
 dagger from his hand, and with gashed fingers strove to tear out his 
 eyes. Meanwhile the other accomplices, gladiators and servants of the 
 household, entered. The tyrant was despatched by seven wounds, 
 but not before Stephanus had been slain in the fray. The motives 
 which led Stephanus to play the assassin's part are differently stated. 
 Suetonius says that he had been accused of peculation. The account 
 of Philostratus puts another complexion on his act. He compares the 
 feat to the glorious achievements of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. 
 The emperor had desired Domitilla to wed another man only three 
 days after he had murdered her husband^; the assassination was an 
 act of vengeance for this indecent refinement of cruelty. Bandaged 
 as I have described, he went up to Domitian and said ' I wish to 
 speak to you. Sire, on an important matter.' The emperor took him 
 ! aside. ' Your great enemy Clement,' continued Stephanus, ' is not 
 dead, as you suppose, but is I know where, and he is arraying him- 
 self against you.' Saying this, he smote him. Then ensued the 
 death struggle, which he describes in language closely resembling the 
 narrative of Suetonius, though obviously not taken from this author. 
 The two representations of Stephanus' motive are not irreconcilable, 
 and may perhaps be accepted as supplementary the one to the other. 
 Philostratus' account of the words uttered by Stephanus, when he dealt 
 the blow, cannot, I think, be a pure fiction. The reference to Clement, 
 
 ■^ For Domitian's death see Sueton. 
 Domit. 17, Dion Cass. Ixvii. 15 — 18, 
 Philostr. Vit. Apoll. viii. 25. 
 
 ^ Sueton. I.e. 'Stephanus Domitillae 
 procurator... consilium operamque obtu- 
 lit,' Dion I.e. 'Lri<pa.vov eppwij-eviarepov 
 tQv aWoiv ovra eiaiTre/jixf/ep [6 llapdevi,os} 
 K.T.\. (where however his relation to 
 Domitilla is not stated), Philostr. /.e. 
 ^Te4>avos...a.ii€\ev6epos t^j yvi>ai.K6s [Ao- 
 
 fjuriWas] k.t.X. So too Georg. Syncell. 
 p. 650 (ed. Bonn.) roirov [rod ^\-qixevTos\ 
 ^T€(pau6s TLS Twv aiTeKevdipuiv th rrj irpos 
 TOP OiairoT-qv euvoig. KX-^fnevra k.t.X. In 
 TertuU. Aj>o/. 35 the reading 'Stephanis' 
 for 'Sigeriis' is purely conjectural and 
 quite unnecessary. 
 
 ^ See the passage as quoted below, 
 p. 112 sq ; where the meaning of the ex- 
 pression is dfopos (poLTav is considered.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 4 1 
 
 as still living, has a Christian ring. If it does not report the language 
 actually used by Stephanus over his victim, it doubtless represents the 
 thoughts aroused by the incident in the minds of Christians at the 
 time. Philostratus might well have derived his account from some 
 Christian source. But was Stephanus himself a Christian ? If so, the 
 still untamed nature of the man, goaded by the menace of personal 
 danger or stung to a chivalrous resentment of his mistress' wrongs, 
 asserted itself against the higher dictates of his faith. There is no 
 ground for charging Domitilla herself with complicity in the plot'. 
 
 The tyrant's death brought immediate relief to the Christians. As 
 the victims of his cruelty, and indirectly as the avengers of his wrong- 
 doings, they might for the moment be regarded even with favour. A 
 late writer, who however seems to have drawn from some earlier 
 source, tells us that the senate conferred honours on Stephanus, as 
 'having delivered the Romans from shame".' If so, the honours must 
 have been posthumous, for he himself had passed beyond the reach of 
 human praise or blame. The dead could not be revived, but the exiles 
 were restored to their homes^ Domitilla would find herself once more 
 in the midst of her dependants, free to exercise towards them a kindly 
 generosity, which was nowhere more appreciated by ancient sentiment 
 than in the due provision made for the repose of the dead. In this 
 respect she seems not to have confined her benefactions to her co- 
 religionists, but to have- provided impartially likewise for her domestics 
 who still remained pagans ^ But her banishment was not forgotten. 
 The sufferings of herself, if not of her husband, were recorded by one 
 Bruttius — whether a heathen or a Christian historian, I shall consider 
 presently — who would seem to have been in some way allied with her 
 family ^ Even after the lapse of three centuries Paula, the friend of 
 
 ^ As Kensin does, Les £vangiles p. 2()j, of the grandsons of Jude that he not 
 
 where quite a fancy picture is drawn ; only set them free but also 'by an in- 
 
 ' Venger son marl, sauver ses enfants, junction stopped the persecution of the 
 
 compromis par les caprices d'un monstre Church.' But this is inconsistent with the 
 
 fantasque, lui parut un devoir,' with more representations of all other writers, both 
 
 to the same effect. heathen and Christian, who ascribe the 
 
 ^ Georg. Syncell. I.e. ; see below, restitution of Domitian's victims to his 
 
 p. iiosq. successor Nerva; e.g. Dion Ixviii. i, 
 
 ^ TertuUian {Apol. 5) speaks as if Do- Plin. Paneg. 46, Ep. iv. 9, Melito in 
 
 mitian himself had recalled the exiles (see Euseb. H. E. iv. a6, Lactant. dc Alort. 
 
 below, p. 105). This father must, I imag- Pers. 3, Euseb. H. E. iii. 10. 
 
 ine, have had in his mind the story which ■* See for instance the inscription on 
 
 Hegesippus tells (Euseb. H.E. iii. 19; one Hector, quoted below, p. 113. 
 
 see below, p. 107), how Domitian was so ^ See below, p. 47. 
 impressed with the poverty and simplicity
 
 42 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Jerome, was shown in the island of Pontia the cells in which she 'suffered 
 a protracted martyrdom \' This language however is a flourish of 
 rhetoric, since she cannot have remained an exile more than a few 
 months, except by her own choice. What became of her two young 
 sons, Vespasianus and Domitianus, who had been destined to the 
 imperial purple, we know not. Their Christian profession, by dis- 
 countenancing pohtical ambition, would disarm suspicion, and they 
 would be suffered to live unmolested as private citizens. Mention has 
 been made already of a Domitian who appears in history some genera- 
 tions later, and may have been a descendant of one of them^ 
 
 But before we pass away from this subject a question of some 
 interest bars our path and presses for a solution. Besides the Domitilla 
 of history, the wife of Flavins Clemens, of whom I have already spoken, 
 ecclesiastical legend mentions another Domitilla, a virgin niece of this 
 matron, as an exile to one of the islands and a confessor for the faith. 
 Were there then really two Domitillas — aunt and niece — who suffered 
 in the same way^? Or have we here a confusion, of which a reasonable 
 explanation can be given ? 
 
 The story of Domitilla the virgin, as related in the Acts of Nereus 
 and Achilleus, runs as follows* : 
 
 Domitilla, the daughter of Plautilla and niece of Clemens the consul, 
 was betrothed to one Aurelian. The preparations had already been 
 made for the wedding, when her chamberlains Nereus and Achilleus, 
 converts of S. Peter, succeeded in persuading her to renounce Aurelian 
 and to prefer a heavenly bridegroom to an earthly. So Domitilla re- 
 
 ^ Hieron. Epist. cviii. 7; see the pas- verfolgting. p. 5. Most writers however, 
 
 sage quoted below, p. 108. following Scaliger, receive only one Do- 
 
 " See above, p. 21. mitilla; e.g. Lardner Testimonus c. xxvn 
 
 ^ It is not surprising that the ecclesi- {Works vii. p. 344 sq), Zahn Hermas 
 
 astical tradition which recognizes two p. 49 sq, Rena.n Evang-iies p. 227, Aube 
 
 Domitillas, the matron and the virgin, Persecutions de PEglise p. 178 sq, p. 427 
 
 should have decided the opinion of most sq, Lipsius Chronologie p. 154 sq, Hasen- 
 
 Roman Catholic writers. So Tillemont clever /. c. p. 231 sq, and so commonly. 
 
 Mhnoires li. p. 124 sq, De Rossi Bull, di For the most part they accept Dion's 
 
 Arched. Crist. 1865, p. 17 sq, 1875, p. 69 statement that this Domitilla was the 
 
 s(l,2i.-ndL'Do\x\c&\. Rapports deP£gliseChre- wife of Clemens, but Lipsius (p. 155) 
 
 tienne avec T^tat Remain p. 40 sq. Funk prefers the authority of Bruttius (?) and 
 
 is an exception ( Theolog. Quartalschr. regards her as his niece. 
 
 LXi. p. 562 sq, 1879). 'I'^^o Domitillas •* See the BoUandist Act. Sanct. Mail 
 
 are also maintained by ImhofZ?ow?V/a««^ iii. p. 4 sq ; comp. Aube Persecutions 
 
 p. 116, and by Wieseler ya-^ri^. /. Deut- p. 429 sq, Lipsius Apokr. Apostelgesch. 
 
 sche Theol. xxii. p. 404, comp. Christen- II. i. p. 106 sq, p. 200 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 43 
 
 ceives the veil at the hands of her cousin Clement the bishop. Aurelian, 
 enraged at being thus rejected, instigates Domitian to banish her to the 
 island of Pontia for refusing to sacrifice. She is accompanied thither 
 by Nereus and Achilleus. They there have an altercation with two 
 disciples of Simon Magus, Furius and Priscus, who denounce the ill- 
 treatment of their master by S. Peter. The question is referred to 
 Marcellus, a former disciple of Simon Magus and a son of Marcus the 
 City prefect. He writes a long letter in reply, relating how he had 
 been converted by S. Peter's miracles; and he adds an account of the 
 death of Petronilla, S. Peter's daughter, with her companions \ Here 
 again it was a question between marriage and virginity, and Petronilla 
 had chosen the latter, though at the cost of martyrdom. But before 
 Marcellus' letter arrived at its destination, Nereus and Achilleus had 
 been put to death by the machinations of Aurelian. Their bodies were 
 brought back to Rome and buried in the plot of Domitilla by one 
 Auspicius their disciple. Information of these facts is sent to Rome to 
 Marcellus by Eutyches, Victorinus, and Maro, likewise their disciples. 
 
 ^ The story of S. Petronilla, as told by 
 Marcellus in these Acts, is as follows : 
 
 Petronilla was bed-ridden with paraly- 
 sis. Titus remonstrated with S. Peter 
 for not healing his daughter. He replied 
 that her sickness was for her good, but 
 that, as an evidence of his power, she 
 should be cured temporarily and should 
 wait upon them. This was done ; she 
 rose and ministered to them, and then 
 retired again to her bed. After her 
 discipline was completed, she was finally 
 healed. Her beauty attracted Flaccus 
 the Count, who came with armed men 
 to carry her away and marry her by 
 force. She asked a respite of three days. 
 It was granted . On the third day she died. 
 Then Flaccus sought her foster-sister 
 Felicula in marriage. Felicula declined, 
 declaring herself to be a ' virgin of Christ.' 
 For this she was tortured and put to 
 death. 
 
 With this story should be compared 
 the notice in Augustine (c. Adiiii. 17, 
 Op. VIII. p. 139), who tells us that the 
 Manicheans, while rejecting the account 
 of the death of Ananias and Sapphira in 
 the Acts, yet read with satisfaction in their 
 
 own apocryphal books a story ' ipsius 
 Petri filiam paralyticam sanam factam 
 precibus patris, et hortulani filiam ad 
 precem ipsius Petri esse mortuam,' and 
 alleged ' quod hoc eis expediebat ut et 
 ilia solveretur paralysi et ilia moreretur.' 
 There is likewise an allusion to S. Peter 
 smiting his daughter with paralysis, be- 
 cause her beauty had become a stumbling- 
 block, in Acta Philippi pp. 149, 155 
 (Tischendorfs Apocalypses Apocryphae 
 1866). 
 
 The legend of S. Petronilla then, as 
 told in the Acts, appears to be due to a 
 combination of two elements ; (i) The 
 story in the Manichean writings that 
 S. Peter miraculously healed his daughter 
 (whose name is not given) of the palsy. 
 This story seems to be suggested by the 
 incident in Mark i. 29 sq, Luke iv. 38 sq. 
 (2) The discovery of a sarcophagus in 
 the Cemetery of Domitilla with the in- 
 scription AVR . PETRONILLAE . FILIAE . 
 DVLCissiMAE. The identification with 
 S. Peter's daughter would naturally arise 
 out of this inscription, which was sup- 
 posed to have been engraved by the 
 Apostle's own hand.
 
 44 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 These three again are denounced by Aurelian, and put to death by the 
 emperor Nerva for refusing to offer sacrifice. Hereupon Aurehan 
 fetches Domitilla from Pontia to Terracina, where she falls in with two 
 other maidens Euphrosyne and Theodora, who were betrothed to two 
 young men Sulpitius and Servilianus. She persuades them to follow her 
 example, and to repudiate the marriages which awaited them. In this 
 case the intended bridegrooms likewise acquiesce, and are converted to 
 Christianity. Aurehan now attempts to overpower her by violence, but 
 is seized with a fit and dies before two days are over. His brother 
 Luxurius avenges his death. Sulpitius and Severianus are beheaded; 
 while Domitilla, Euphrosyne, and Theodora, are burnt to death in their 
 cells. 
 
 These Acts are evidently late and inauthentic. The details of the 
 story betray their fictitious character, and are almost universally re- 
 jected. But the question still remains whether the main fact — the 
 virginity and persecution of a niece of Flavius Clemens — may not be 
 historical. This opinion is maintained by many who reject the story as 
 a whole; and it receives some countenance from statements in earlier 
 and more authentic writers. 
 
 Domitilla, the wife of Flavius Clemens, whom Domitian banished, 
 when he put her husband to death, is stated by Dion to have been a 
 relation of Domitian, but he does not define her relationship'. We 
 infer however from Quintilian that she was his sister's daughter^; and this 
 is confirmed by inscriptions, which more than once name one Domitilla 
 as vESPASiANi NEPTis^ This point therefore we may consider as 
 settled. Philostratus, a much inferior authority, as read in his present 
 text, says that she was Domitian's sister, but either he has blundered or 
 (as seems more probable) his transcribers have carelessly substituted 
 a.8e\(f)r'iv for dSeX(f>i.8rjv*. His sister she cannot have been ; for the only 
 
 ^ Ixvii. 14 Kal avT-!)v auyyevfj iavrov, 
 see below, p. 104. 
 
 - He calls her children 'sororis suae 
 iiepotes,' 'the grandchildren of his sis- 
 ter,' speaking of Domitian. Though at 
 a much later date 'nepos,' 'neptis,' came 
 to be used in the sense 'nephew,' 'niece' 
 (e.g. Beda H.E. iii. 6 'nepos ex sorore 
 Acha'), no decisive example of this sense 
 is produced till a later age. Such pas- 
 sages as Sueton. Caes. 83, Spartian. 
 Hadr. 2, C. I. L. iii. 6480, are wrongly 
 alleged for this meaning. When we find 
 
 these words in connexion with 'avun- 
 culus' {C.I. L. III. 3684, 4321), we must 
 remember that 'avunculus' sometimes 
 denotes 'a great uncle.' 
 
 ^ See below, p. 114. 
 
 * Vit. A poll. viii. 25 KX'! fievTa...^ ttjp 
 a.Se\<prii' ttiv iavTou iSedwKei, The whole 
 passage is given below, p. 1 1 2 sq. We have 
 the choice of substituting either dSeX- 
 (pidiju or e^a8^\(f>r]v, for both would mean 
 the same relationship in the language of 
 this age. The former is the more pro- 
 bable, since the missing letters might
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 45 
 
 daughter of Vespasian who grew up to womanhood had died before 
 her father'. 
 
 On the other hand Eusebius, speaking of the defeat of Flavins 
 Clemens, says nothing at all about a wife of Clemens, but mentions a 
 niece (a sister's daughter) of Clemens, as being exiled at the same time. 
 In other words the banished Domitilla of Eusebius bears the same 
 relationship to Clemens, which the banished Domitilla of contemporary 
 authorities and of the Roman historian bears to Domitian. Have we 
 not here the key to the confusion ? 
 
 easily slip out, when the word was still 
 written in uncials. 
 
 It may be well here once for all to 
 distinguish those terms implying relation- 
 ship, which are liable to confusion, (i) 
 dvf\f/i6s. The word is carefully defined 
 by Pollux Onom. iii. 2. 8. It denotes 
 /i)-s^ cousins, the children whether of two 
 brothers or of two sisters or of brother 
 and sister. Though amavi^ioi is more 
 precise, it signifies nothing more {ovhkv 
 irXeov tQv avexl/Mv). The children of 
 avexpiol are dv€\l/La8oi (or dvc^Ladai.), se- 
 cond cousins. The children of dvexl/LaooT 
 are k^avi\pi.oi. For more on dve^ios see the 
 note to Col. iv. 10. {2) ade\(pLdovs, d8e\- 
 (pi8y. This signifies a son or daughter 
 of a sister or brother, a 7iepheiv or a 
 niece. Thus Octavianus (Augustus) is 
 called 6 rijs aSeX^tS^s w6s of Julius ; Plu- 
 tarch. Marc. Anton. 11. He was his 
 grand-nephew. Thus also Julia the 
 daughter of Titus is tiSeX^tS^ of Domi- 
 tian; Dion Cass. Ixvii. 3, Philostr. Vil. 
 Apoll. vii. 7. Thus again in Josephus 
 the two childless wives of Herod are 
 called in Antiq. i. i. 3 dde\<poO irats Kal 
 dve^id, but in Bell. yud. i. 28. 4 avt-^pid re 
 Kol dde\(pid7]. (3) e^doe\(pos, i^aOe\<pri. 
 These are treated by Phrynichus (p. 306, 
 Lobeck) as synonymes of dvexfios, dueipid, 
 and are denounced by him as solcecisms ; 
 efaSeX^os dTro8ioiroiJ.Tn)T^ov , dvei^/ibs 5^ pT]- 
 riov. This account of their meaning 
 however is not borne out by usage. The 
 words indeed are of Hellenistic origin, 
 but in the earliest examples and for 
 
 some centuries they signify nefheiu, niece, 
 not cotisins, and are therefore synonymes 
 of d5eX0t5oCij, dde\(pL8rj. Thus in Tobit 
 i. 22 (comp. xi. 17) e|a5eX(^os is a brother's 
 son. Again in Justin Dial. 49 (p. 268) 
 the relationship of Herodias' daughter to 
 Herod is described by r-ijs e^aSeXcp-rjs av- 
 Tov, where the reading r-^s e| d5e\<f)TJs avrov 
 cannot stand on any showing. Again 
 in Jos. Ant. xx. 10 the relationship of 
 Onias who founded the temple near Helio- 
 polis to the high priest his namesake re- 
 centl)' deceased is described in the words, 
 6 'Octas d Tov rereXevTr] KOTOS 'Oviov e^d- 
 5eX0oy, while we learn elsewhere that he 
 was his brother's son {Antiq. xii. 5. i, 
 xiii. 3. i). This is also the sense in which 
 Eusebius uses the term, as appears from 
 the parallel passages. In the History 
 Domitilla's relationship to Flavins Cle- 
 mens is described by e^ doeX(^^s 7e7oi'iira 
 <l>Xaowoii KXTjyuevros, but in the Chronicle 
 by e^ad^\(pr] i'XaovtovKX-fjfj.evTos. For the 
 accent of e^ddeXcpos see Chandler Greek 
 Accoituation p. 127. 
 
 In later writers there is much confu- 
 sion, and all the three words dve\l/tol, 
 ddeXtpidoT, e^ddeX^oi, are found in both 
 senses. Hence the error in the A. V. of 
 Col. iv. 10, where d dvexf/ibs HapvdjSa is 
 translated ' sister's son to Barnabas.' 
 
 ^ Sueton. Vespas. 3 'Ex hac [uxore] 
 liberos tulit [Vespasianus] Titum et Domi- 
 tianum et Domitillam. Uxori ac filiae 
 superstes fuit, atque utranique adhuc pri- 
 vatusamisit.' Vespasian came to the throne 
 A.D. 69.
 
 46 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Eusebius gives his authority. He refers in the Chro7iicle to one 
 Bruttius or Brettius. In the History on the other hand he does not 
 mention any name, but states in general terms that even historians un- 
 connected with the Christian faith (/<at tov^ a-TroOev tov KaO' t^/aois X6yov 
 (TvyypacjieU) had not shrunk from recording the persecution under Domi- 
 tian and the martyrdoms resulting from it. We may infer however from 
 the context, as well as from the parallel passage in the Chronicle, that 
 he had in his mind chiefly, though perhaps not solely, this same chroni- 
 cler Bruttius \ 
 
 Who then was this Bruttius? When did he live? Was he a 
 heathen or a Christian writer ? He is cited as an authority three times 
 by Malalas^ The first passage relates to the legend of Danae, which 
 Bruttius explains in a rationalistic sense, and where he identifies Picus 
 with Zeus. In the second passage, referring to the conquests of Alex- 
 ander, he describes him as subduing ' all the kingdoms of the earth,' 
 while in the context there is an obvious allusion to the prophecy of 
 Daniel. The third contains the notice of the banishment of the 
 Christians under Domitian with which we are more directly concerned. 
 Thus Bruttius in his chronography covered the whole period from the 
 beginnings of history to the close of the first Christian century at least. 
 The Bruttian family attained their greatest prominence in the second 
 century ^ One C. Bruttius Praesens was consul for the second time 
 in A.D. 139; and among the friends and correspondents of the younger 
 Pliny* we meet with a Praesens, who doubtless belonged to this same 
 
 ^ It maybe a question whether Eusebius ^ Yox the Bruttian gens see De-Vit 
 
 was not acquainted with Dion (Hasen- Onomast. Lex. Forcell. I. p. 764 sq. The 
 
 clever p. 258) ; but there is no indication relationships given in my text are not 
 
 that he was thinking of him here. in all respects absohitely ascertained, as 
 
 - Joann. Malalas pp. 34, 193, 262 (ed. there maybe some doubt about the iden- 
 
 Bonn.). The last passage is given in full tification of the different persons bearing 
 
 below, p. 109. The writer is called d the name C. Bruttius Praesens; but the 
 
 aocpwTaTos ^ovttlos laTopiKbs xpof O7pd0os, only point of importance is quite certain, 
 
 Borrtos 6 ffo(pd]raTos, and Bwrrtos d aotpos namely, that the second C. Bruttius I'rae- 
 
 Xpopoypd(pos, in the three passages respec- sens who was twice consul was the father 
 
 tively. The comparison of the last passage of L. Bruttius Crispinus the consul (C. 
 
 with Eusebius shows that Bruttius is /. L. vi. 7582) and of Bruttia Crispi- 
 
 meant, and that the forms therefore are na the empress {C. I. L. x. 408, Capitol, 
 
 corrupt in the existing text of Malalas. M. Atiton. 27). His wife's name Cris- 
 
 This appears also from the fact that the pina is given in another inscription 
 
 first reference is found likewise in the (C. /. L. viii. no). In this way the 
 
 Chron. Pasch. p. 69 (ed. Bonn), where Praesentes and Crispini of the Bruttian 
 
 the authority is given as 6 aocpuraros gens are closely related. 
 'BpovTTLOS 6 laTopiKbs Kai xpovoypdcpos. ■* Epist. vii. 3.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 47 
 
 family and may have been this same person. Critics not uncom- 
 monly, following Scaliger, identify Pliny's friend with the chrono- 
 grapher mentioned by Eusebius and Malalas, but for this identification 
 there is no sufficient ground. A second C. Bruttius Praesens, appa- 
 rently a son of the former, was also twice consul a.d. 153 and 180. He 
 was the father of L. Bruttius Crispinus, whose name appears in the 
 consular fasti for a.d. 187, and of Bruttia Crispina, who became consort 
 of the emperor Commodus. A third C. Bruttius Praesens, who held 
 the consulate in a.d. 217, seems also to have been his son'. The family 
 continued to hold a distinguished position after this date, for we find 
 the name more than once in the consular lists ^ The chronographer 
 might have been any one of the persons already named, or he might 
 have been an entirely different person, perhaps some freedman or 
 descendant of a freedman attached to the house. The extant inscrip- 
 tions suggest that there was a numerous cHentele belonging to this 
 family ^ It is a curious coincidence, if it be nothing more, that De 
 Rossi has discovered, in immediate proximity to and even within the 
 limits of the Cemetery of Domitilla, the graves of certain members 
 of the Bruttian clan, especially one brvttivs Crispin vs*. There is 
 indeed no direct indication that these were Christian graves, but the 
 locality suggests some connexion, or at least explains how Bruttius the 
 chronographer should have taken a special interest in the career of 
 Domitilla. But was not this Bruttius himself a Christian * ? Eusebius 
 
 1 C. I. L. IX. 4512. with the name clemen[s]. One Q . brit- 
 
 - One C. Bruttius Crispinus is consul Tivs . Clemens also appears in an inscrip- 
 
 A.D. 224, and one C. Bruttius Praesens tion found at Puteoli (x. 2177). Inanother 
 
 A.D. 246. For this last see ^//^f^«. Epigr. (vi. 7583) one C. Bruttius bears the same 
 
 IV. p. 185, v. p. 610. surname Telesphorus as an early pope, 
 
 ^ See for Rome the MoTtumentum who was martyred in the last years of Ha- 
 
 Bruttiorurn in C. I. L. vi. 7582 sq, also drian. With this last compare C. I. L. 
 
 VI. 13640 sq; and compare the indices vi. 13649,0. brvtivs . barochas . et . 
 
 to volumes IX, x, relating to Italy. clavdia . telesphoris, where the 
 
 * C, I. L. VI. 7589 brvttie . mer- name Barochas points to an Eastern 
 
 CA[til]le .q.v.a.v.m.x.d. origin. 
 
 x[...] et . BRVTTio . crispi[no . q] . V . ^ Lardner Testimonies c. xii {Works 
 
 A . v . M . nil . D . xxii . FiLi[is . VII. p. 103) writes, ' I suppose no one 
 
 carissiJmis . ROMANv[s . ET .] GENICE . will hesitate to allow that Bruttius was an 
 
 pa[ren]tes . fecer[vnt], where Brut- heathen historian.' So Tillemont Mem. 
 
 tins Crispinus is evidently a child of II. p. 117, De Rossi Bull. 1875, p. 74, 
 
 servile descent, though he bears the Zahn Hernias p. 53, Lipsius Chronol. 
 
 cognomen Crispinus of his family's pa- pp. 154, 159, Hasenclever p. 257, and 
 
 tron (see below, p. 61, note). Inanother this is the almost universal view. On 
 
 of these inscriptions (no. 5786) we meet the other hand Volkmar ( 77;f(7/^^. ya/?r/;. 
 
 with c . brvttivs c . l . in connexion 1856, p. 301 sq) makes him a Christian
 
 48 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 indeed, as we have seen, in his Ifisfory s\)e2iks, generally of his authorities 
 for the persecution under Domitian as unconnected with Christianity, 
 while we learn from his Chronicle that the most important of these 
 authorities was Bruttius. It would appear then that he regarded 
 Bruttius as a heathen, though this inference is not absolutely certain. 
 But was he well acquainted with the facts? Had he the work of 
 Bruttius before him, or did he only quote it at second hand ? I believe 
 that the latter alternative is correct. We have seen that Malalas three 
 times refers to Bruttius as his authority. It is highly improbable that he 
 at all events should have been directly acquainted with the work of 
 Bruttius ; and the conjecture of Gutschmidt that he derived his in- 
 formation from Julius Africanus seems very probable'. But, if Malalas 
 owed this notice of the persecution of Domitian to Africanus, why may 
 not Eusebius also have drawn it from the same source ? He was cer- 
 tainly well acquainted with the chronography of Africanus, whom he 
 uses largely in his Chro?iide and of whose writings he gives an account 
 in his History'. On the other hand he never mentions Bruttius except 
 in the Chronicle, and there only in this single passage relating to 
 Domitilla. \ 
 
 This consideration must affect our answer to the question whether 
 Bruttius was a heathen or a Christian writer. Eusebius, as we have 
 seen, seems to have set him down as a heathen ; but, if he was un- 
 acquainted with the work itself, his opinion ceases to have any value. 
 The references in jMalalas appear to me to point very decidedly to a 
 Christian writer^ The first is an attempt to explain heathen mythology 
 by Euhemeristic methods, a common and characteristic expedient in 
 the Christian apologists and chronographers^ The second evidently 
 treats the empire of Alexander as fulfilling the prophecy of the third 
 beast, the leopard, in Daniel*. We cannot indeed feel sure that the 
 
 writer, as do C. jMiiller [Fragm. Hist. correct, it gives, as a terminus ad quern 
 
 Grace, iv. p. 352), and Erbes {Jahrb. f. for the date of Bruttius, a.d. 221, when 
 
 Prot. Theol. 187S, p. 715). Q(\z&x [Sextiis the work of Africanus was published. 
 
 Julius Africanus i. p. 282), if I under- - H. E. vi. 31, comp. i. 6, 7 ; also Eel. 
 
 stand him rightly, takes up an interme- Proph. iii. 26 (pp. 151 sq, 158). See 
 
 diate position. He supposes that the Gelzer i. p. 23sq. 
 
 passage relating to the persecution under ^ See above p. 46, note 2. 
 
 Domitian was a later Christian fiction ■* See the notes on Act. Mart. Ignat. 
 
 appended to a genuine chronography Rom. 3 sq, passim. 
 
 written by a heathen writer. For this * p. 193 as irapSaXts eKeWev opfirjaas 
 
 conjecture there seems to be no ground. 'A\4^av5pos: comp. Dan. vii. 6 (lxx) 
 
 ^ Gutschmidt's opinion is given in idewpow driplov dWo ucrel TrdpSaKiv. The 
 
 Lipsius r.^r(7;/(?/. p. 155, note. If this be expression 'all the kingdoms of the earth'
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 49 
 
 more obvious references to Daniel were not due to Africanus or to 
 Malalas himself, but the part of Bruttius is inseparable from the rest. 
 The direct reference to the Christians in the tliird passage needs no 
 comment. Thus Bruttius would appear to have been a precursor of 
 Africanus and Eusebius, as a Christian chronographer. 
 
 But, if the notice had already passed through two hands- before it 
 reached Eusebius, the chances of error are greatly increased. Now it 
 is a suspicious fact (which I have already noticed), that in Eusebius the 
 niece Domitilla, the virgin of ecclesiastical legend, bears exactly the 
 same relationship to Clement which the aunt Domitilla, the widow of 
 authentic history, bears to Domitian in classical authorities. Must we 
 not- suspect then, that by some carelessness the relationship has been 
 transferred from the one to the other? Our suspicions are deepened, 
 when we examine the form of the notice. The Armenian of the 
 CJironide, as given by Petermann, is much confused ; but the sense is 
 doubtless correctly rendered by Jerome ' et Flaviam Domitillam Flavii 
 dementis consulis ex sorore neptem in insulam Pontianam relegatam,' 
 while the form is probably preserved, at least in its main character 
 l)y Syncellus, Kai 4>Xaouta Ao/xertAArt i^a^€X<fir] K\7//jtei/Tos ^Xaoviov 
 vTraTtKuv...el<; vr/aov HovTLav c^^vyaScueTat. The error might be rectified 
 by the repetition of a single letter, i^aSeXcfir] 77 KXrlfjievTus, ' a niece, the 
 7ai/e of Clement', the person to whom she stood in the relation of 
 i$aSiXcf>r} being explained by the context', or the name of Domitian 
 having been omitted by a clerical blunder owing to the similar letters, 
 so that the sentence would run $Aaouia Ao/xert'AAa [Aojueriavoi}] c^a- 
 SeX(f>7) 7) KA-/7/x,evTos k. t. A. Or again, the mistake might be explained 
 by an ambiguity of expression, as thus ; Kal tt;V ywaxKo. (PXaoviav Ao/ixe- 
 TiAAav, e$a8lXcjir]v ovaai' avrov, (^uyaSeuei, after a notice of the death of 
 the husband Clemens". 
 
 But, besides the difficulty of the relationship, there remains the 
 difference of locality. Dion makes Pandateria her place of exile, while 
 Eusebius and Christian writers banish her to Pontia. These were two 
 neighbouring islands in the Tyrrhene sea''. They were both used as 
 places of exile for members of the imperial family during the first 
 
 is followed immediately by 'as the ex- Hertnas p. 50, note 3. 
 
 ceedingly wise Bottius (Bruttius) hath re- ^ Straljo v. p. 233 ITai'Sarep/a re kox 
 
 corded'. l^ovria ov ttoXi) drr' dWrjXwi' Ste'xoi'cai. 
 
 ^ See Philippians p. 22 sq, where the Hence they are constantly mentioned to- 
 
 solution of the two Domitillas given in gether; e.g. Strabo ii. p. 123, Varro 
 
 the text is suggested. R. R. ii. 5, Suet. Calig. 15, Mela ii. 7, 
 
 ^ For this last suggestion see Zahn Plin. N. //. iii. 6, Ptolem. iii. i. 79. 
 
 CLEM. 4
 
 50 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 century. To the former were banished Julia the daughter of Augustus, 
 Agrippina the wife of Germanicus, and Octavia the wife of Nero ; to 
 the latter, Nero the son of Germanicus was exiled by Tiberius, and the 
 sisters of Caligula by their brother'. The two are constantly mentioned 
 together, and a confusion would be easy. Though Dion's account of 
 this transaction is generally the more authentic, yet I am disposed to 
 think that on this point he has gone wrong. Bruttius, who is the 
 primary authority for Pontia, seems to have lived before Dion, and 
 may perhaps be credited with a special knowledge of Domitilla's 
 career. This locality likewise is confirmed by the fact that three 
 centuries later Jerome's friend Paula, visiting the island of Pontia, was 
 shown the cells which Domitilla occupied in her exile". Not much 
 stress however can be laid on such a confirmation as this. The 
 cicerone of the fourth century was at least as complaisant and in- 
 ventive as his counterpart in medieval or modern times. 
 
 It should be observed that neither Eusebius nor Jerome says any- 
 thing about the virginity of this Domitilla, which oecupies so prominent 
 a place in the later legend. It is a stale incident, which occurs in 
 dozens of stories of female martyrdoms^. Yet in this instance it is 
 not altogether without a foundation in fact. Philostratus relates of 
 the historical Domitilla, that Domitian attempted in vain to force her 
 to a second marriage immediately after the death of Clemens. As 
 the true Domitilla thus cherishes the virginity of widowhood, so the 
 legendary Domitilla retains the virginity of maidenhood, despite the 
 commands of the same tyrant"*. 
 
 The existence of this younger Domitilla depends on Eusebius 
 alone. All later writers — both Greek and Latin — have derived their 
 information from him. If he breaks down, the last thread of her 
 frail life is snapped. But strong reasons have been given for sus- 
 pecting a blunder. The blunder however is evidently as old as 
 Eusebius himself (as the comparison of his two works shows) and 
 cannot have been due to later copyists of his text. He may have 
 inherited it from Africanus or Africanus' transcribers, or he may have 
 originated it himself The true history of the relations of Nereus and 
 
 1 For the imperial exiles in Pandateria - See below, p. io8. 
 
 see Tac. Ann. i. 53, xiv. 63, Sueton. Tib. ' See for instance the case of S. 
 
 53, Calig. 15, Dion Cass. Iv. ro; for those Csecilia; Ign. ami Polyc. i. p. 500. 
 
 in Pontia or Pontile (for there was a ■* See Hasenclever p. 235. On a chaste 
 
 group of three islands, of which Pontia widowhood, regarded as a second vir- 
 
 wasthe chief), Sueton. Tib. 54, Calig. 15, ginity, see the note on Ignat. Siuyrn. 13. 
 Dion Cass. lix. 22.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 51 
 
 Achilleus to Domitilla is beyond the reach of recovery without fresh 
 evidence. The later legend, as we have seen, makes them her cham- 
 berlains. This however seems to have been unknown to Damasus 
 (a.d. 366 — 384), whose inscription', placed in the Cemetery of Domi- 
 tilla, implies that they were soldiers of the tyrant who refused to be 
 the instruments of his cruelty, and resigned their military honours in 
 consequence. Of their connexion with Domitilla it says nothing. 
 Perhaps this connexion was originally one of locality alone. There 
 were, we may conjecture, two prominent tombs bearing the names 
 NEREVS and achillevs^ in this Cemetery of Domitilla; and a romance 
 writer, giving the rein to his fancy, invented the relation which ap- 
 pears in their Acts. Whether this Nereus was the same with or 
 related to the Nereus of S. Paul's epistle (Rom. xvi. 15), it were vain 
 to speculate. Exactly the same problem has presented itself already 
 with regard to AmpHatus, who was likewise buried in this cemetery. 
 
 ^ The inscription (see Bull, di Archeol. 
 Crist. 1874, p. 20 sq) runs thus; 
 Militiae nomen dederant saevumque gere- 
 
 bant 
 Officium, pariter spectantes jussa tyranni, 
 Praeceptis pulsante metu servire parati. 
 Mira fides rerum, subito posuere furorem ; 
 Conversi fugiunt, duels impia castra relin- 
 
 quunt, 
 Projiciunt clypeos faleras telaque cruenta; 
 Confessi gaudent Christi portare triumfos. 
 Credite per Damasum, possit quid gloria 
 
 Christi. 
 
 It will be seen at once that the heroes 
 of this inscription have nothing in com- 
 mon with the heroes of the Piollandist 
 Acts except their names. The inscrip- 
 tion is preserved in full in old manuscripts, 
 and a fragment of it was found by De 
 Rossi in the Cemetery of Domitilla. 
 
 ^ A marble column has been dis- 
 covered, which apparently was one of 
 four supporting the ciborium, and on 
 whicii is a sculpture of a martyr with the 
 name acillevs over his head. The 
 lower part of a corresponding column 
 has likewise been found with the feet of 
 a figure, but the main part of the sculp- 
 ture and the superscription are wanting. 
 It was doubtless nerevs. The style of 
 
 the sculpture points to the 4th or the be- 
 ginning of the 5th century. See Bull, di 
 Archeol. Crist. 1875 p. 8 sq, with plate iv 
 for the same year. 
 
 The names, Nereus and Achilleus, like 
 other designations of Greek heroes and 
 deities, suggest that the bearers were in 
 the humbler walks of life, slaves or freed- 
 men, or common soldiers, or the like. In 
 C. I. L. VI. 4544 I find one nerevs . 
 
 NAT . GERMAN . PEVCENNVS . GERMA- 
 NICIANVS . NERONIS . CAESARIS, a slave 
 
 of the imperial family. A native of 
 Germany, he had been first a slave of 
 Germanicus and was afterwards trans- 
 ferred to his son Nero. In C. I. L. vi. 
 I -299-2, 12993, are persons bearing the 
 name M. Aur. Achilleus and T. Aur. 
 Achilleus; and in C. I. L. VI. 1058 (pp. 
 206, 207) there are two city watches, M. 
 Valerius Achillaeus and C. Valerius 
 Achilleus, these last of the time of 
 Caracalla. The Latin proper name is 
 sometimes Achilles ( ='Axt\Xeus), but 
 rather more frequently Achilleus ( = 'A- 
 xCKKa.o'i, and sometimes written Achil- 
 laeus), the two vowels making separate 
 syllables. The martyr's name, so far as 
 I have observed, is always the quadri- 
 syllable Achilleus.
 
 52 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Having solved the question of the two Domitillas, we find ourselves 
 confronted with a similar problem affecting the persons bearing the 
 name Clemens. Clement the consul and Clement the bishop — should 
 these be identified or not ? Until recent years the question was never 
 asked. Their separate existence was assumed without misgiving. But 
 latterly the identification has found considerable favour. A recent 
 German writer can even say that ' later Protestant theology almost 
 without exception has declared itself for the identification' '. I suppose 
 the remark must be confined to German theological critics ; for I 
 cannot find that it has met with any favour in England or France^ Even 
 as restricted to Germans, it seems to be much overstated. But a view 
 which reckons among its supporters Volkmar and Hilgenfeld and 
 has been favourably entertained by Lipsius and Harnack, not to 
 mention other writers, has achieved considerable distinction, if not 
 popularity^. On this account it claims a consideration, to which it 
 would not be entitled by its own intrinsic merits. 
 
 ^ Hasenclever p. 255. When Hasen- 
 clever asserts that ' the identity of the 
 bishop and the consul was originally 
 maintained in the Roman Church and 
 adopted into the Liber Pontificalis and 
 Roman Breviary,' and contrasts with 
 this supposed earlier opinion the later 
 view of the Roman Church, separating 
 the two Clements, of which he speaks as 
 gaining ground since Baronius and Tille- 
 mont, till it has almost become an article 
 of faith, he seems to me to use language 
 which is altogether misleading. Clement 
 the bishop, as represented in the Liber 
 Pontificalis and the Roman Breviary, is 
 certainly not Clement the consul. He 
 has not a single characteristic feature in 
 common with him. Not even his con- 
 nexion with the imperial family is recog- 
 nized. He is the son of Faustinus, 
 whereas the consul was the son of Sa- 
 binus. He is the fellow-labourer of S. 
 Paul greeted in the Philippian letter, 
 whereas the consul must have resided at 
 Rome and can only have been a mere 
 child, even if he were born, when the 
 apostle wrote. He is banished by Tra- 
 jan, whereas the consul died some years 
 before Trajan came to the throne. He 
 
 is put to death in the Chersonese, whereas 
 the consul suffered in Rome. In fact 
 there is not the smallest approach to an 
 identification in these Roman books. 
 They merely assign to Clement the 
 bishop some traits borrowed from the 
 Clementine romance and from the later 
 legend, while they ignore Clement the 
 consul altogether. 
 
 ^ Thus Renan {^Les £,vangiles p. 311 
 sq) says strongly, but not too strongly, 
 ' il faut ecarter absolument ... Timagina- 
 tion de certains critiques modernes qui 
 ne veulent voir dans I'eveque Clement 
 qu'un personnage fictif, un dedoublement 
 de Flavius Clemens.' See also Aube 
 Persecutions p. 164 sq. 
 
 * If we set aside Baur, whose position 
 is quite different, and of whose specula- 
 tions I shall have to speak presently 
 (p. 55, note 2), the first writer I be- 
 lieve, who suggested this theory of the 
 identity, was R. A. Lipsius De Clem. 
 Rom. Epist. p. 184 sq (1855), but he 
 was careful to put it forward as a conjec- 
 ture and nothing more. In his Ckronol. 
 p. 156 sq (1869) he again discusses this 
 identification more fully, and still leaves 
 it an open question. Soon after the
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 53 
 
 The two personalities, wliich this theory seeks to combine, are 
 definite and well authenticated. On the one hand there is the consul, 
 a near relative of the emperor, who was put to death towards the 
 close of Domitian's reign on some vague charge. These facts we have 
 on strictly contemporary authority. The nature of the charge is more 
 particularly defined by a later historian Dion in a way which is strictly 
 consistent with the account of the contemporary Suetonius, and which 
 points, though not with absolute certainty, to Christianity. More- 
 over it is distinctly stated that his wife suffered banishment for the same 
 crime. But recent archaeological discovery has made it clear that she 
 at all events was a Christian. This Clement then died by a violent 
 death ; and, if a Christian, may be regarded as a martyr. On the other 
 hand there is a person of the same name holding high official position, 
 not in the Roman State, but in the Roman Church, at this same time. 
 His existence likewise is well authenticated, and the authentication is 
 almost, though not quite, contemporary. In the tradition which pre- 
 vailed in the Roman Church a little more than half a century later, 
 when Irenseus resided in Rome, he is represented as the third in the 
 succession of the Roman episcopate after the Apostles S. Peter and 
 S. Paul. Consistently with this notice, an epistle, which bears traces 
 of having been written during or immediately after the persecution of 
 Domitian, has been assigned to him by an unbroken tradition. He 
 is mentioned as the writer of it by Dionysius of Corinth, who 
 flourished about a.d. 170, and who represents the city to which the 
 letter was addressed'. His hand in it is also recognized by two other 
 writers of the same age, Hegesippus and Irenseus'. Probably not 
 
 earlier work of Lipsius, Volkmar {Theo- 
 log. Jahrb. 1856, p. 304) with charac- 
 teristic courage accepted it as an estab- 
 lished fact. It was adopted likewise by 
 Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extr. Can. Rec. i. 
 p. xxvii sq, ed. i, 1866 (p. xxxii sq, 
 ed. 2, 1876), comp. Zeitschr. /. IViss. 
 Theol. XII. p. 233 sq (1869), and has 
 also been eagerly maintained by Erbes 
 Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. IV. p. 690 sq, 
 (1878) and by Hasenclever ib. viii. p. 
 ■250 sq (1882). On the other hraid it 
 has been not less strenuously opposed by 
 Zahn Hernias p. 49 sq. (1868), by Wie- 
 seler Jahrb. f. Deutsch. Theol. 1878, 
 p. 375, and by Funk I'heolog. Quar- 
 talschr. XLl. p. 531 sq, 1879, who makes 
 
 it the subject of a special article. Har- 
 nack, Patr. Apost. I. i. p. Ixi sq., ed. 1 
 (1876), holds his judgment in suspense. 
 On the whole I cannot find that the facts 
 justify Hascnclever's expression. In cri- 
 ticism, as in politics, the voice of the 
 innovators, even though they may not be 
 numerous, cries aloud, and thus gives an 
 impression of numbers; while the conser- 
 vative opinion of the majority is unheard 
 and unnoticed. 
 
 ^ Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. 
 The passage is given below, p. 155. 
 
 - For Hegesippus, see below, p. 154, 
 and for Irenseus, p. 156. The bearing of 
 their testimony on the authorship of the 
 letter will be discussed at a later point.
 
 54 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 without reference to this letter, he is described by one who professes 
 to have been his contemporary, Hernias the author of the Shepherd, 
 as the foreign secretary of the Roman Church'. Partly no doubt 
 owing to this same cause, he had become so famous by the middle 
 of the second century, that a romance was written in Syria or Palestine 
 giving a fictitious account of his doings and sayings ^ But he was not 
 a martyr. Some centuries later indeed a story of his martyrdom was 
 invented ; but the early Church betrays no knowledge of any such 
 incident. The silence of Irengeus who devotes more space to Clement 
 than to any other Roman bishop and yet says nothing on this point, 
 though he goes out of his way to emphasize the martyrdom of Teles- 
 phorus, would almost alone be conclusive. 
 
 Hitherto we have seen nothing which would suggest an identification, 
 except the fact that they both bore the same name Clemens, and both 
 lived in Rome at the same time. In every other respect they are as 
 wide apart, as it was possible for any two persons to be under the 
 circumstances. 
 
 Yet the mere identity of names counts for little or nothing. Was 
 not Pius the Christian bishop contemporary with Pius the heathen 
 emperor, though no other namesake occupied the papal chair for more 
 than thirteen centuries and none known by this name ever again 
 mounted the imperial throne ? Did not Leo the First, pope of Rome, 
 flourish at the same time with Leo the First, emperor of Rome, both 
 busying themselves in the great doctrinal questions of the day? Was 
 not one Azariah high priest, while another Azariah was king, in Jeru- 
 salem, though the name does not ever occur again in the long roll 
 either of the sacerdotal or of the regal office ? Was not one Honorius 
 pope ' alterius orbis,' while another Honorius was pope of Rome, though 
 the see of Canterbury was never again occupied by a namesake and 
 the see of Rome only after half a millennium had past ? But indeed 
 history teems with illustrations ^ Yet the examples of duplication, 
 which I have given, were a thousand times more improbable on any 
 
 ^ Hermas Fts. ii. 4. 3 ■n-iij.\pei ovv KX??- 
 jU7;s ets rds ^^w 7r6\ets, iKelvifi yap eiriT^- 
 TpawTai. The bearing of this notice on 
 the personaHty and date of S. Cltment 
 will be considered hereafter. 
 
 - See the outline of the stoiy in the 
 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions 
 given above, p. 14 sq. 
 
 ■'' To a bishop of Durham it occurs to 
 quote Hist. Diinelm. Script. Tres Ap- 
 
 pendix p. xiv 'Ego Willielmus Dei 
 gratia Dunelmensis episcopus...in prae- 
 sentia domini mei regis Willielmi,' Wil- 
 liam I of Durham being contemporary 
 with William I of England. We may 
 further note that the last William bishop 
 of Durham (1S26— 1836) was contem- 
 porary with the last William king of 
 England (1830 — 1837).
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 55 
 
 mathematical doctrine of chances than the coincidence of the two 
 Clements in the respective positions assigned to them — this being an 
 extremely common name. 
 
 Only one authority, if it deserves the name, seems to confuse the 
 two. The Clementine romance, which we find incorporated in the 
 existing Homilies and Recognitions, and to which I have already al- 
 luded, must have been written soon after the middle of the second 
 century. The hero Clement, the future bishop of Rome, is here 
 represented as sprung from parents who were both scions of the 
 imperial house'. Does not this look like a counterpart of Flavius 
 Clemens and Domitilla^? But what is the value of this coincidence? 
 This romance probably emanates from a distant part of the world. 
 The local knowledge which it possesses is confined to the easternmost 
 shores of the Mediterranean. Of Rome and of Roman history it 
 
 ^ See above, p. 23 sq. 
 
 - Baur, Paidus p. 471 sq, main- 
 tained, as Cotelier (on Recogn. vii. 8) had 
 pointed out long before him, that the 
 ' fundus fabulae,' as regards the imperial 
 relationships ascribed to Clement the 
 bishop in the romance, was to be sought 
 in the accounts of Flavius Clemens. So 
 far he was probably right. But his own 
 solution has long been abandoned, and 
 only deserves a passing notice. The 
 steps of his argument may be given as 
 follows. 
 
 (i) The germ of the Christian legend 
 of Clement the Roman bishop is the ac- 
 count of Flavius Clemens, as he appears 
 in the secular historians — a member of 
 the imperial family converted to Chris- 
 tianity in the primitive ages. (2) The 
 Clement of Phil. iv. 3 points to Flavius 
 Clemens ; for the reference must be con- 
 nected with the iiiention of the prtetorium 
 and of Ccesar's household in other parts 
 of this same Epistle (i. i, iv. 22). Thus 
 the writer intends to represent him as a 
 member of the imperial family and as a 
 disciple of S. Paul. (3) The story in the 
 Clementine romance is another represen- 
 tation of this same personage. Mere the 
 imperial relationship is distinctly stated. 
 But in accordance with the general ten- 
 
 dency of this writing he is here described 
 as a disciple of S. Peter. In order so to 
 represent him, without violating chrono- 
 logy, the author makes him a relative 
 not of Domitian but of Tiberius. As 
 this romance was the product of Roman 
 Christianity, its origin gives it a special 
 value. (4) The writer of the Philippian 
 letter has not been careful in like manner 
 to mend or explain the chronology. In 
 representing one who was converted to 
 Christianity under Domitian as a ffvuep- 
 76s of S. Paul in the reign of Nero, he 
 has fallen into an anachronism. There- 
 fore the Epistle to the Philippians is a 
 forgery. 
 
 Of Baur's theory respecting Clement, I 
 have spoken more at length elsewhere 
 {Philippians p. 169 sq.). It is sufficient 
 to say here that his two main positions 
 have broken down, (i) His condemna- 
 tion of the Philippian Epistle as spurious 
 has been rejected with a consent which is 
 practically unanimous ; (ii) His theory of 
 the Roman origin of the Clementine ro- 
 mance is fmding less favour daily. Its 
 ignorance of everything Roman is its fatal 
 condemnation. This however will be a 
 subject for consideration in its proper 
 ])lace.
 
 56 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 betrays gross ignorance. It is full of anachronisms. It makes his 
 father and mother relatives not of Domitian, but of Tiberius. Its 
 hero cannot be identified with Flavins Clemens, who was the son 
 of Flavins Sabinus, for it gives to his father the name Faustus or 
 Faustinianus. 
 
 What account then shall we give of this ascription of imperial 
 relationships to Clement the bishop? It is the confusion of igno- 
 rance. The writer, presumably an Ebionite Christian in the distant 
 East, invents a romance as the vehicle of certain ideas which he 
 desires to disseminate. For his hero he chooses Clement, as the best 
 known name among the leading Christians of the generation suc- 
 ceeding the Apostles. His Epistle to the Corinthians had a wide 
 circulation, and appears to have been in the hands of the writer 
 himself. But of this Clement he knows nothing except that he was 
 bishop of the Roman Church. A vague rumour also may have reached 
 him of one Clement, a member of the imperial family, who had pro- 
 fessed the faith of Christ. If so, he would have no scruple, where all 
 else was fiction, in ascribing this imperial relationship to his hero. Where 
 everything else which he tells us is palpably false, it is unreasonable 
 to set any value on this one statement, if it is improbable in itself or 
 conflicts with other evidence. 
 
 The confusion however did not end with this Clementine writer. 
 Certain features were adopted from this romance into the later accounts 
 of Clement the bishop. Thus the name of his father Faustinus ' and 
 the discipleship to S. Peter are borrowed in the Liber Pontificalis ; 
 but no sign of an identification appears even here, and some of the 
 facts are inconsistent with it. Not a single authenticated writer for 
 many centuries favours this identity. The silence of Irenasus is against 
 it. The express language of Eusebius, as also of his two translators 
 Jerome and Rufinus, contradicts it. Rufinus indeed speaks of Clement 
 as a ' martyr,' and possibly (though this is not certain) this martyrdom 
 may have been imported indirectly by transference from his namesake 
 Flavins Clemens. But this very example ought to be a warning against 
 the identification theory. Confusion is not fusion. The confusion of 
 ancient writers does not justify the fusion of modern critics. 
 
 But it is urged in favour of this fusion that Christian writers betray 
 no knowledge of the consul as a Christian, unless he were the same 
 person as the bishop. This ignorance however, supposing it to have 
 
 ' The father's name is Faustus in the him Faustinus, which is the name of one 
 Homilies and Faustinianus in the Kecogni- or other of the twin-i)rothers in both these 
 tions, while the Liber Pontificalis calls works.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 57 
 
 existed, would not in any degree justify the identification, if the 
 identification presents any difficulty in itself. But is it not burdened 
 with this great improbability, that a bishop of Rome in the first 
 century should not only have held the consular office, but have been 
 so intimately connected with the reigning emperor, as to have sons 
 designated for the imperial purple, and that nevertheless all authentic 
 writers who mention Clement the bishop should have overlooked the 
 fact.'* Is it easy to conceive for instance that Irenceus, who visited 
 Rome a little more than half a century after the consul's death, who 
 gives the Roman succession to his own time, and who goes out of his 
 way to mention some facts about Clement, should have omitted all 
 reference to his high position in the state ? In short, the argument 
 to be drawn from ignorance in Christian writers is far more fatal to 
 the identification than to its opposite. Moreover, we may well believe 
 that the husband's Christianity was less definite than the wife's — 
 indeed the notices seem to imply this'— and thus, while Domitilla 
 (though not without some confusion as to her relationship) has a place 
 in Christian records as a confessor, Flavius Clemens has none as a 
 mart)n-. 
 
 Again it is urged that, just as Christian writers betray entire ignorance 
 of the consul, so heathen writers show themselves equally ignorant of 
 the bishop. This reciprocity of ignorance is supposed in some way or 
 other to favour the identity. Yet it is difficult to see why this conclu- 
 sion should be drawn. Heathen writers equally ignore all the Roman 
 bishops without exception for the first two or three centuries, though 
 several of these were condemned and executed by the civil government. 
 Not one even of the Apostles, so far as I remember, is mentioned by 
 any classical writer before the age of Constantine. 
 
 But, besides the difficulty of explaining the ignorance of Christian 
 writers, supposing the bishop to have stood so near the throne, a 
 still greater objection remains. This is the incompatibility of the two 
 
 ' Those who adopt the identification 
 theory strongly uphold the Christianity 
 of Flavius Clemens. Their theory 
 obliges them to take up this position. 
 There obviously was a Christian Cle- 
 ment, and on then' hypothesis no other 
 person remains. So for instance Baur, 
 Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Erbes, Hasen- 
 clever, and others, and (though less 
 strenuously) Lipsius. On the other hand 
 those who oppose this theory are tempted 
 
 to question or to deny that Flavius Cle- 
 mens was a Christian, and thus to cut 
 the ground from under their opponents. 
 This is the position of Zahn and of Wie- 
 seler. Funk resists this temptation. The 
 logical order of investigation, as it seems 
 to me, K/irsi to enquire whetljcr thci c are 
 two distinct Clements, and then (in the 
 event of this question being answered in 
 the affirmative) to enquire whether Fla- 
 vius Clemens was or was not a Christian.
 
 58 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 functions, which would thus be united in one person. It would have 
 strained the conscience and taxed the resources of any man in that age 
 to reconcile even the profession of a Christian with the duties of the 
 consular magistracy; but to unite with it the highest office of the 
 Christian ministry in the most prominent Church of Christendom would 
 have been to attempt a sheer impossibility, and only the clearest 
 evidence would justify us in postulating such an anomaly'. 
 
 Then again what we know of Clement the consul is not easily 
 reconcilable with what we know of Clement the bishop. I have 
 already referred to the martyrdom of the former as inconsistent with the 
 traditions of the career of the latter. But this is not the only difficulty. 
 According to ancient testimony, which it would be sceptical to question, 
 Clement the bishop is the author of the letter to the Corinthians. This 
 letter however declares at the outset that the persecution had been 
 going on for some time; that the attacks on the Church had been 
 sudden and repeated; that this communication with tire Corinthians had 
 been long delayed in consequence; and that now there was a cessation 
 or at least a respite". The language of the letter indeed — both in the 
 opening reference to the persecution and in the closing prayers for 
 their secular rulers— leaves the impression that it was written immedi- 
 ately after the end of the persecution and probably after the death of 
 Domitian, when the Christians were yet uncertain what would be 
 the attitude of the new ruler towards the Church. At all events it is 
 difficult to imagine as the product of one who himself was martyred 
 eight months before the tyrant's death. 
 
 But a still graver and to my mind insuperable objection to the theory, 
 which identifies the writer of the epistle with the cousin of Domitian, is 
 the style and character of the document itself. 
 
 Is it possible to conceive this letter as written by one, who had re- 
 ceived the education and who occupied the position of Flavius Clemens ; 
 who had grown up to manhood, perhaps to middle life, as a heathen; 
 who was imbued with the thoughts and feelings of the Roman noble; 
 
 ' This objection appears to me to hold, kuI eVaXXTjXow yevoixivas ijfuu avfiipopas 
 
 whatever view we take of Clement's k.t.X., as read in C. A is mutilated 
 
 office, consistently with the facts ; for on here. In my former edition {Appendix 
 
 any showing it was exceptionally pro- p. 269) 1 assigned too much weight to 
 
 minent. Its validity does not depend, as the Syriac rendering, which gives a pre- 
 
 Hasenclever seems to think (p. 255), on sent, 'which are befalling,' as this may be 
 
 his being invested with the supremacy of a mere carelessness, and not denote a 
 
 the later papal office, though undoubtedly diffcient reading -yivoiiiva.'s. But the force 
 
 it would be greatly increased thereby. of the argument is qualitied by the doubt 
 
 - See especially § i Atd rds ai<pvL8iovs respecting the reading.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 59 
 
 who about this very time held the most ancient and honourable office 
 in the state in conjunction with the emperor; who lived in an age of 
 literary dilettantism and of Greek culture; who must have mixed in 
 the same circles with Martial and Statius and Juvenal, with Tacitus 
 and the younger PHny; and in whose house Quintilian lived as the 
 tutor of his sons, then designated by the emperor as the future rulers 
 of the world'? Would not the style, the diction, the thoughts, the 
 whole complexion of the letter, have been very different? It might 
 not perhaps have been less Christian, but it would certainly have been 
 more classical — at once more Roman and more Greek — and less 
 Jewish, than it is. 
 
 The question, whether the writer of this epistle was of Jewish or 
 Gentile origin, has been frequently discussed and answered in opposite 
 ways. The special points, which have been singled out on either side, 
 will not bear the stress which has been laid upon them. On the one 
 hand, critics have pleaded that the writer betrays his Jewish parentage, 
 when he speaks of 'our father Jacob,' ' our father Abraham ' (§§ 4, 31) ; 
 but this language is found to be common to early Christian writers, 
 whether Jewish or Gentile ^ On the other hand, it has been inferred 
 from the order 'day and night' (§§ 2, 20, 24), that he must have been 
 a Gentile ; but examples from the Apostolic writings show that this 
 argument also is quite invalid^. Or again, this latter conclusion has 
 been drawn from the mention of 'our generals' (§ 37), by which 
 expression the writer is supposed to indicate his position as ' before all 
 things a Roman born'^ But this language would be equally appro- 
 priate on the lips of any Hellenist Jew who was a native of Rome. 
 Setting aside these special expressions however, and looking to the 
 general character of the letter, we can hardly be mistaken, I think, in 
 regarding it as the natural outpouring of one whose mind was saturated 
 with the knowledge of the Old Testament. The writer indeed, like the 
 author of the Book of Wisdom, is not without a certain amount of 
 Classical culture (§§ 20, 25, ^s, 37, 38, 55); but this is more or less 
 superficial. The thoughts and diction alike are moulded on ' the Law 
 and the Prophets and the Psalms.' He is a Hellenist indeed, for he 
 betrays no acquaintance with the Scriptures in their original tongue : 
 but of the Septuagint Version his knowledge is very thorough and 
 
 ^ Observe what language Quinlilian - See the note on § 4 TrarV ti/j.lcv. 
 
 uses of the Jews, hi. 7. 21 'Est conditor- ^ See the note on § 2 v/x^pas re kuI 
 
 ibus urbium infame contraxisse aliquam uvktus. 
 
 perniciosam ceteris genteni, quahs est ■* Ewald Gesc/i. d. V. Israel, vii. p. 
 
 primus Judaicae superstitionis auctor.' 206.
 
 6o EPISTLES OE S. CLEMENT. 
 
 intimate. It is not confined to any one part, but ranges freely over 
 the whole. He quotes profusely, and sometimes his quotations are 
 obviously made from memory. He is acquainted with traditional in- 
 terpretations of the sacred text (§§ 7, 9, n, 31). He teems with words 
 and phrases borrowed from the Greek Bible, even where he is not 
 directly quoting it. His style has caught a strong Hebraistic tinge 
 from its constant study. All this points to an author of Jewish or 
 proselyte parentage, who from a child had been reared in the know- 
 ledge of this one book'. 
 
 It has been remarked above, that Jews were found in large numbers 
 at this time among the slaves and freedmen of the great houses, even 
 of the imperial palace. I observe this very name Clemens borne by 
 one such person, a slave of the Cresars, on a monument, to which I' 
 have already referred (p. 29) for another purpose {C. I. L. vi. 8494), 
 
 D. M. 
 CLEMETI . CAESAR ?" 
 
 VM . N. SERVO . CASTE 
 LLARIO . AQVAE . CL 
 AVDIAE . FECIT . CLAV 
 DIA . SABBATHIS . ET . SI 
 BI . ET . SVIS, 
 
 for his nationality may be inferred from the name of his relative Sab- 
 bathis, who sets up the monument. And elsewhere there is abundant 
 evidence that the name at all events was not uncommon among the 
 dependants of the Caesars about this time. Thus we read in a missive 
 of Vespasian (C. /. L. x. 8038), de . controversia ... vt . finiret . 
 CLAVDivs . CLEMENS . PROCVRATOR . MEvs . scRiPSi .EI. In another 
 inscription (C. /. L. vi. 1962) we have, evtacto . avg . lib . proc . 
 
 ACCENSO . DELAT . A. DIVO . VESPASIANO . PATRI . OPTIMO . CLEMENS . 
 
 1 This conviction of a Jewish training (Theolog. Quartalschr. LXi. p. 544, 1879); 
 
 in the author is strengthened in my mind see also Aube Persecutions p. 170. On 
 
 every time I read the epistle. Since the other hand Harnack says (p. Ixiii, ed. 
 
 I expressed myself in this sense in my 2), ' rectius ex elegante sermonis genere 
 
 Appendix p. 264 (1877), I ^^^e been et e cc. 37, 55, judices eum nobili loco 
 
 glad to find that this view is strongly natum fuisse, patria Romanum'; and 
 
 maintained by Renan Les ^Lvangiles Ewald (1. c.) argues (I think, somewhat 
 
 p. 311 sq (see also Jotirnal des Sa- perversely) that the length of the writer's 
 
 vants, Janvier 1877). P\mk considers quotations from the Old Testament shows 
 
 the argument so far valid, that the letter that the book was novel to him. But in 
 
 could only have been written after a long fact the direct quotations are only a very 
 
 Christian training, which is inconsistent small part, and the least convincing part 
 
 with what we know of Flavius Clemens of the evidence.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 6 1 
 
 FiLivs ; in another (C. /. L. vi. 9049), Clemens . avg . ad . svpelect; 
 in another {C. I. L. vi. 9079), d. m . sedati . ti . cl . secvndini . proc . 
 
 AVG . TABVL . CLEMENS . ADFINIS ; in another (C /. L. VL 940), PRO . 
 SALVTE . T . CAESARIS . AVG . F . IMP . VESPASIANI . TI . CLAVDIVS . CLE- 
 MENS . FECIT; in another {C. I. L. ill. 5215), t . vario . clementi . 
 AB . EPiSTVLis . AVGVSTOR . , this last however dating in the reign of 
 M. Aurehus and L. Verus a. d. 161 — -169; while in another, found in 
 the cokimbarium of the Freedmen of Livia, and therefore perhaps be- 
 longing to an earlier date than our Clement, we read (C. /. L. vL 4145), 
 
 IVLIA . CALLITYCHE . STORGE . CLAVDI . EROTIS . DAT . CLEMENTI . CON- 
 
 ivGi . CALLiTYCHES. I Venture therefore to conjecture that Clement 
 the bishop was a man of Jewish descent, a freedman or the son 
 of a freedman belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens the 
 emperor's cousin'. It is easy to imagine how under these circum- 
 stances the leaven of Christianity would work upwards from be- 
 neath, as it has done in so many other cases ; and from their 
 domestics and dependants the master and mistress would learn their 
 perilous lessons in the Gospel. Even a much greater degree of 
 culture than is exhibited in this epistle would be quite consistent 
 with such an origin ; for amongst these freedmen were frequently 
 found the most intelligent and cultivated men of their day. Nor is 
 this social status inconsistent with the position of the chief ruler of the 
 most important church in Christendom. A generation later Hernias, 
 the brother of bishop Pius, unless indeed he is investing himself with 
 
 ^ The coincidence in the cognouicn may occasionally with examples where the 
 have been accidental, owing to the fact freedmen or their descendants bear the 
 that he or his father or grandfather had same C(?i,'-«£'Wt'« with the master (see above, 
 borne it as a slave ; for it was a common p. 47, note 4), though these are theexcep- 
 slave name (e.g. C. I. L. v. 6021, ix. tions. It is impossible for instance that all, 
 3051). As a rule the manumitted slave and not very likely that any, of the Flavii 
 took the wijw^w of his master, but retained Clementes mentioned in the inscriptions 
 his own name as the cognomen. This is a were descendants of Domitian's nephew. 
 difficulty raised by Lipsius Chronol. p. Still the conjecture that Clement the 
 161, and others. Thus Renan (/.fj Evan- bishop was a dependant of Clement the 
 g/7cs p. 311) objects that our Clement in consul must remain a conjecture. His 
 lliis case ' se serait appele Flavius et non connexion with the imperial household in 
 pas Clemens,' forgetting that he himself some way or other has a mucli higher 
 in an earlier passage (p. 255) has ex- degree of probability. But being so con- 
 plained the name of .S. Luke (Lucas, nected, he may nevertheless not have 
 Lucanus) by saying that it 'pent se ratta- been a Flavius, but a Claudius or a \'^a- 
 cher, par un lien de clientele ou d'affran- lerius, as the examples given in the next 
 chissement, a quelque M. Annreus Lu- note will show, 
 canus, parent du celebre poete.' We meet
 
 62 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a fictitious personality, speaks of himself as having been a slave 
 (Vis. i. i); and this involves the servile origin of Pius also. At a 
 still later date, more than a century after Clement's time, the papal 
 chair was occupied by Callistus, who had been a slave of one Car- 
 pophorus an officer in the imperial palace (Hippol. Haer. ix. 12). The 
 Christianity which had thus taken root in the household of Domitian's 
 cousin left a memorial behind in another distinguished person also. 
 The famous Alexandrian father, who flourished a century later than 
 the bishop of Rome, bore all the three names of this martyr prince, 
 Titus Flavins Clemens'. He too was doubtless a descendant of some 
 servant in the family, who according to custom would be named after 
 his patron when he obtained his freedom. 
 
 The imperial household was henceforward a chief centre of Chris- 
 tianity in the metropolis. Irengeus writing during the episcopate of 
 Eleutherus (circ. a.d. 175 — 189), and therefore under M. Aurelius or 
 Commodus, speaks of 'the faithful in the royal CQurt' in language 
 which seems to imply that they were a considerable body there 
 (iv. 30. i). Marcia, the concubine of this last-mentioned emperor, was 
 herself a Christian, and exerted her influence over Commodus in alle- 
 viating the sufferings of the confessors (Hippol. Ifaer. 1. c). At this same 
 time also another Christian, Carpophorus, already mentioned, whose name 
 seems to betray a servile origin, but who was evidently a man of con- 
 
 1 This conjunction of names occurs This last inscription illustrates the con- 
 also in an inscription found at Augsburg, nexion of names Valerius and Clemens 
 T . FL . PRiMANO . PATRi . ET . TRAIAN . vvhich appears in our epistle. Of this 
 CLEMENTINAE . MATRI . ET . T . FL '. phenomenon also we have Other examples: 
 CLEMENTi . FRATRi (C. /. L. III. 5812), e.g. a memorial erected C . VALERIC • C . 
 where the name Traiana is another Hnk f , stel . clementi by the decvriones . 
 of connexion with the imperial house- alae. getvlorvm . QViBVS. praefvit, 
 hold. Compare also T . fl . longi- bello . ivdaico . SVB . divo . vespa- 
 
 NVS...ET . FLAVI . LONGINVS . CLEMEN- SIANO . AVG . PATRE (C. /. L. 7007), 
 
 TINA . MARCELLINA . fil[i] (C./.Z. III. found at Turin. This Valerius Clemens 
 
 1 100) ; MATRI . PIENTISSIMAE . LVCRE- therefore was a contemporary of our Cle- 
 
 Tivs. CLEMENS. ET. FL . FORTVNATVS . ment. For other instances of the combi- 
 
 FiLi (C /. L. III. 5844). The name nation Valerius Clemens see C. I. L. iii. 
 
 FLAVlvs . CLEMENS occurs also in ano- 633, 2572, 6162, 6179, v. 3977, 7007, 
 
 ther inscription (Murat. CDXCiv. 4), along 7681, viii. 5121, x. 3401, 3646, Muratori 
 
 with many other names which point to the MCDXV. i, mdlxiv. 12. So too Valerius 
 
 household of the Ca;sars, though at a later Clementinus C. I. L. lii. 3524, and 
 
 date. So too C. I. L. in. 5783, viii. Valeria Clementina, ib. 2580. For ex- 
 
 2869, 9470, 10470. Comp. also D . m . amples of Claudius Clemens, besides x. 
 
 C . VALERIO . CLEMENTI . C . IVLIVS . 8038 quoted in the text, see Vill. 5404, 
 
 FELIX . ET . FLAVIA . FORTVNATA . HE- X. 633 1, 8397. 
 
 REDES (Murat. mdv. 12).
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 63 
 
 siderable wealth and influence, held some office in the imperial house- 
 hold. A little later the emperor Severus is stated to have been cured 
 by a physician Proculus, a Christian slave, whom he kept in the palace 
 ever afterwards to the day of his death : while the son and successor 
 of this emperor, Caracalla, had a Christian woman for his foster-mother 
 (TertuU. ad Scop. 4). Again, the Christian sympathies of Alexander 
 Severus and Philip, and the still more decided leanings of the ladies of 
 their families, are well known. And so it continued to the last. 
 When in an evil hour for himself Diocletian was induced to raise his 
 hand against the Church, the first to suffer were his confidential servants, 
 the first to abjure on compulsion were his own wife and daughter'. 
 
 I have spoken throughout of this Clement, the writer of the letter, 
 as bishop of the Roman Church. But two questions here arise ; First, 
 What do we know from other sources of his date and order in the 
 episcopal succession ? and Secondly, What was the nature of this epis- 
 copal office which he exercised. 
 
 I. The first of these questions will be more fully answered in a 
 later chapter, on the Roman Succession, where the various problems 
 offered by the discrepancies in the early lists are discussed. It will be 
 sufficient here to sum up the results, so far as they affect our answer. 
 
 Confining ourselves then to the earliest names, we are confronted 
 with three different representations which assign three several positions 
 to Clement. Not counting the Apostles, he is placed third, first, and 
 second, in the series respectively. 
 
 (i) The first of these appears among extant writers as early as 
 Irenseus, who wrote during the episcopate of Eleutherus (about a. d. 
 175 — 190). The order here is Linus, Anencletus, Clemens, Euarestus", 
 the first mentioned having received his commission from the Apostles 
 S. Peter and S. Paul (iii. i. i, iii. 3. 3). But some years earlier than 
 Irenseus, the Jewish Christian Hegesippus had drawn up a list of the 
 Roman succession ^ He was well acquainted with Clement's letter and 
 visited both Corinth and Rome— the place from which and the place 
 to which it was addressed. He arrived there soon after the middle 
 of the second century, during the episcopate of Anicetus (c. a.d. 160) 
 and remained till the accession of Eleutherus. We should expect there- 
 
 1 Mason Persecution of Diocletian p. the Apostles) according to the order pre- 
 
 121 sq. served in the earliest tradition ; Petrus et 
 
 - The word placeas will serve as a Pauius, Linus, Anencletus, Clemens, Eu- 
 
 convenient memoria technica, giving the arestus, Alexander, Sixtus (Xystus). 
 initial letters of the first seven (including ^ See the passage given below, p. 154.
 
 64 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 fore that his hst would not differ essentially from that of Irenseus, since 
 his information was obtained about the same time and in the same 
 place. Elsewhere I have given reasons, which seem to me to be strong, 
 for believing that his list is preserved in Epiphanius. If this suppo- 
 sition be correct, after the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul came Linus, 
 then Cletus, then Clemens, then Euarestus. Thus these two earliest 
 lists are identical, except that the same person is called in the one 
 Cletus and in the other Anencletus. This is the order likewise which 
 appears in Eusebius and in Jerome after him. It is adopted during 
 the fourth century by Epiphanius in tlie East, and by Rufinus in the 
 West. Altogether we may call it the traditional order. Indeed none 
 other was ever current in the East. 
 
 (ii) The Clementine romance emanated, as I have already said, 
 from Syria or some neighbouring country, and betrays no knowledge 
 of Rome or the Roman Church. A leading idea in this fiction is the 
 exaltation of its hero Clement, whom it makes the; depositary of the 
 apostolic tradition. The author's ignorance left him free to indulge 
 his invention. He therefore represented Clement as the immediate 
 successor of S. Peter, consecrated by the Apostle in his own life time. 
 Though the date of this work cannot have been earlier than the middle 
 of the second century, yet the glorification of Rome and the Roman 
 bishop obtained for it an early and wide circulation in the West. 
 Accordingly even TertuUian speaks of Clement as the immediate 
 successor of S. Peter. This position however is not assigned to him 
 in any list of the Roman bishops, but only appears in this father as an 
 isolated statement. 
 
 (iii) The Liberian list dates from the year 354, during the episcopate 
 of the pope by whose name it is commonly designated. It gives the 
 order, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus, Aristus ; where Clemens is 
 placed neither first nor third but second, where the single bishop next 
 in order is duplicated, thus making Cletus and Anacletus, and where 
 the following name (a matter of no moment for our purpose) is abridged 
 from Euarestus into Aristus. This list appears with a certain show of 
 authority. It was illustrated by Furius Filocalus, the calligrapher whom 
 we find employed in the catacombs by Pope Damasus the successor 
 of Liberius. Moreover it had a great influence on later opinion 
 in Rome and the West. It coincides in some respects with the list 
 of the African fathers Optatus and Augustine. It was followed in many 
 of its peculiarities by the catalogues of the succeeding centuries. It 
 influenced the order of the popes in the famous series of mosaics in 
 the basilica of S. Paul at Rome. It formed the ground-work of the
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 65 
 
 Liber Fontificalis, which was first compiled in the end of the fifth or 
 beginning of the sixth century, but revised from time to time, and which, 
 though not strictly official, had a sort of recognition as a surtimary of 
 the Papal history. But quite independently of its subsequent influence, 
 this Liberian Catalogue claims consideration on its own account. It is 
 circumstantial, it is early, and it is local. On these three grounds it 
 challenges special investigation. 
 
 It is circumstantial. It gives not only the names of the several 
 bishops in succession, but also their term of office in each case. The 
 duration is precisely defined, not only the years but the months and 
 days being given. Moreover it adds data of relative chronology. It 
 mentions the imperial reigns during which each bishop held office, and 
 also the consulships which mark the first and last years of his epi- 
 scopate. 
 
 It is early. The date already mentioned (a.d. 354) gives the time 
 when the collection was made and the several tracts contained in 
 it assumed their present form ; but it comprises much more ancient 
 elements. The papal list falls into two or three parts, of which the 
 first, comprising the period from the accession of Peter to the accession 
 of Pontianus (a.d. 230), must have been drawn up in its original form 
 shortly after this latter date. 
 
 It is local. Bound up in this collection is another treatise, a ' chro- 
 nicle,' which on good grounds is ascribed to Hippolytus. Moreover 
 there is somewhat strong, though not absolutely conclusive evidence, 
 that Hippolytus drew up a catalogue of the Roman bishops, and that 
 this catalogue was attached to the chronicle. Moreover the date at 
 which (as already mentioned) the first part of the papal list ends, the 
 episcopate of Pontianus (a.d. 230 — -235), coincides with the termination 
 of this chronicle, which was brought down to the 13th year of Alex- 
 ander (a.d. 234). Thus incorporated in this I^iberian document, we 
 apparently have the episcopal list of Hippolytus, who was bisho]) of 
 Portus the harbour of Rome, and was closely mixed up with the 
 politics of the Roman Church in his day. At all events, if not the 
 work of Hippolytus himself, it must have been compiled by some 
 contemporary, who like him had a direct acquaintance with the affairs 
 of the Roman Church. 
 
 If this were all, the Liberian list would claim the highest considera- 
 tion on the threefold ground of particularity, of antiquity, and of 
 proximity. But further examination diminishes our estimate of its value. 
 Its details are confused ; its statements are often at variance with 
 known history \ its notices of time are irreconcilable one with another. 
 CLEM. 5
 
 66 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 It has obviously passed through many vicissitudes of transcription and 
 of editing, till its original character is quite changed. This is especially 
 the case with the more ancient portion. This very sequence of the 
 earliest bishops, so far as we can judge, is simply the result of blun- 
 dering. Whether and how far Hippolytus himself was responsible for 
 these errors, we cannot say with absolute confidence ; but examination 
 seems to show that the document, which was the original groundwork 
 of this list, gave the same sequence of names as we find in Irenseus and 
 Eusebius and Epiphanius, and that any departures from it are due to 
 the blunders and misconceptions of successive scribes and editors. 
 
 These results, which I have thus briefly gathered up, will be set 
 forth more fully in their proper place. If they are substantially correct, 
 the immediate problem which lies before us is simple enough. We 
 have to reckon with three conflicting statements, so far as regards the 
 position of Clement in the Roman succession — a tradition, the Irenaean — 
 a fiction, the Clementine— and a blunder, the Liberian, or perhaps the 
 Hippolytean. Under these circumstances we cannot hesitate for a 
 moment in our verdict. Whether the value of the tradition be great or 
 small, it alone deserves to be considered. The sequence therefore 
 which commends itself for acceptance is, Linus, Anencletus or Cletus, 
 Clemens, Euarestus. It has moreover this negative argument in its 
 favour. The temptation with hagiologers would be great to place 
 Clement as early as possible in the list. Least of all would there be 
 any inducement to insert before him the name of a person otherwise 
 unknown, Cletus or Anencletus. 
 
 Nor can the tradition be treated otherwise than with the highest 
 respect. We can trace it back to a few years later than the middle of 
 the second century. It comes from Rome itself It was diligently 
 gathered there and deliberately recorded by two several writers from 
 different parts of Christendom. hX the time when Hegesippus and 
 Irenseus visited the metropolis, members of the Roman Church must 
 still have been living, who in childhood or youth, or even in early 
 manhood, had seen Clement himself. 
 
 But, besides the sequence of the names, we have likewise the 
 durations of the several episcopates. It will be shown, when the time 
 comes, that the numbers of years assigned to the early bishops in lists 
 as wide apart as the Eusebian and the Liberian can be traced to one 
 common tradition, dating before the close of the second century at all 
 events. If the reasons which I shall give be accepted as valid, the 
 tradition of the term-numbers was probably coeval with the earliest
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 67 
 
 evidence for the tradition of the succession, and was recorded by the 
 pen of Hegesippus himself This tradition assigns twelve years to 
 Linus, twelve to Cletus or Anencletus, and nine to Clement. As the 
 accession of Linus was coeval, or nearly so, with the martyrdom of the 
 two Apostles, which is placed about a. d. 65 (strictly speaking a. d. 64 
 or A. D. 67), the accession of Clement would be about a. d. 90. Thus, 
 roughly speaking, his episcopate would span the last decade of the first 
 century. This agrees with the evidence of Clement's epistle itself, 
 which appears to have been written immediately after, if not during, the 
 persecution, i.e. a.d. 95 or 96. 
 
 2. The discussion of the first question has paved the way for the 
 consideration of the second, What was the position which Clement 
 held ? Was he bishop of Rome in the later sense of the term ' bishop ' ? 
 and, if bishop, was he pope, as the papal office was understood in after 
 ages? 
 
 We have seen that tradition — very early tradition — gives by name 
 the holders of the episcopal office in Rome from the time of the Apostles' 
 death. The tradition itself is not confused. Linus, Cletus or Anen- 
 cletus, and Clemens, are bishops in succession one to the other. The 
 discrepancies of order in the later papal lists do not require to be 
 explained by any hypothesis which supposes more than one person to 
 have exercised the same episcopal office simultaneously; as for instance 
 the theory which represents them as at the same time leading members 
 of the Roman jDresbytery, the term ' bishop ' being understood in the 
 earlier sense, when it was a synonyme for 'presbyter"; or the theory 
 which supposes Linus and Cletus to have been suffragans under S. Peter 
 during his life-time"; or the theory which suggests that Clement, though 
 ordained bishop before Linus and Cletus, yet voluntarily waived his 
 episcopal rights in their favour for the sake of peace ^; or lastly the 
 theory which postulates two distinct Christian communities in Rome — 
 a Jewish and a Gentile Church — in the ages immediately succeeding the 
 Apostles, placing one bishop as the successor of S. Peter at the head of 
 the Jewish congregation, and another as the successor of S. Paul at the 
 
 ^ This is a not uncommon theory of recension of the Liber Pontificalis ; see 
 
 modem critics. It was also maintained below, p. 191. 
 
 by the French and English Protestants * This view is propounded by Epi- 
 
 of the 1 7th century arguing against epi- phanius, who however only offers it as a 
 
 scopacy. suggestion, Ilacrcs. xxvii. 6, quoted below, 
 
 ^ This theory was first propounded by p. 169. It has found favour with IJaro- 
 
 Rufinus Pracf. in Recogn., quoted below, nius (ann. 69, § xliii), Tillemont {Memoir es 
 
 p. 174 sq. It is adopted in the later 11. p. 548), and others. 
 
 5—2
 
 68 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 head of the Gentile, and supposing the two communities to have been 
 afterwards fused under the headship of Clement '. However attractive and 
 plausible such theories may be in themselves, their foundation is with- 
 drawn, and they can no longer justify their existence, when it is once 
 ascertained that the tradition of the Roman succession was one and 
 single, and that all variations in the order of the names are the product 
 of invention or of blundering. 
 
 The value of the tradition will necessarily be less for the earlier 
 names than for the later. Though, so far as I can see, no adequate 
 reason can be advanced why Linus and Anencletus should not have 
 been bishops in the later sense, as single rulers of the Church, yet here 
 the tradition, if unsupported by any other considerations, cannot in- 
 spire any great confidence. But with Clement the case is different. 
 The testimony of the succeeding ages is strong and united. Even the 
 exaggerations of the Clementine story point to a basis of fact. 
 
 By this Clementine writer indeed he is placed on a very high 
 eminence. Not only is the episcopal office, which h^ holds, monarchical ; 
 but he is represented as a bishop not of his own Church alone, but in 
 some degree also of Christendom. S. Peter is the missionary preacher 
 of the whole world, the vanquisher of all the heresies ; and S. Clement, 
 as his direct successor, inherits his position and responsibilities. But 
 over the head of the pope of Rome (if he may be so styled) is a still 
 higher authority — the pope of Jerusalem. Even Peter himself— and 
 a fortiori Peter's successor — is required to give an account of all his 
 missionary labours to James the Lord's brother, the occupant of the 
 mother-see of Christendom. 
 
 The language and the silence alike of Clement himself and of 
 writers in his own and immediately succeeding ages are wholly irre- 
 concilable with this extravagant estimate of his position". Even the 
 opinion, which has found favour with certain modern critics, more 
 especially of the Tiibingen school, that the episcopate, as a monarchical 
 
 1 This theory receives some support mond's theory with some modifications 
 
 from the statement in Apost. Const, vii. has found favour with several recent 
 
 46 T^s WViofxaluiv iKKXriffias Afcos ixiv writers, e.g. Bunsen Hippolyhis I. pp. 
 
 6 KXavStas TrpcGros i57r6 ITauXou, KXjjjtt??? 5^ xxiv, 44 (cd. 2), Baring-Gould Lives of 
 
 fxirk rhv \.ivo\) 06.va.Tov i}ir' kiioxj Wrpov Sahits Nov. II. p. 507. I had myself 
 
 devrepos KexeipoTdvrjTai, though it is not put it forward tentatively as a possible 
 
 this writer's own view. It was pro- solution of the discrepancies in the early 
 
 pounded, I believe, first by Hammond </^ lists of Roman bishops; Galatians p. 
 
 Epis<:opat!isy7irJb2ts\>.i-:.'j{l.om\ox\ 1651); 337 sq, PhUippians p. t.^\. 
 see Cotelier on Apost. Coust. I.e., and ^ Sec on this point PhUippians ]). 217 
 
 Tillemont Mcmoircs il. p. 547. Ham- sq, Tgnai. and Poly c. i. p. 383 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 69 
 
 office, was developed more rapidly at Rome than elsewhere, finds no 
 support from authentic testimony. Whatever plausibility there may be 
 in the contention that the monarchical spirit, which dominated the 
 State, would by contact and sympathy infuse itself into the Church, 
 known facts all suggest the opposite conclusion. In Clement's letter 
 itself — the earliest document issuing from the Roman Church after the 
 apostolic times — no mention is made of episcopacy properly so called. 
 Only two orders are enumerated, and these are styled bishops and 
 deacons respectively, where the term ' bishop ' is still a synonyme for 
 ' presbyter ' '. Yet the adoption of different names and the consequent 
 separation in meaning between ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' must, it 
 would seem, have followed closely upon the institution or development 
 of the episcopate, as a monarchical office. Nevertheless the language 
 of this letter, though itself inconsistent with the possession of papal 
 authority in the person of the writer, enables us to understand the 
 secret of the growth of papal domination. It does not proceed from 
 the bishop of Rome, but from the Church of Rome. There is every 
 reason to believe the early tradition which points to S. Clement as its 
 author, and yet he is not once named. The first person plural is 
 maintained throughout, 'We consider,' 'We have sent.' Accordingly 
 writers of the second century speak of it as a letter from the com- 
 munity, not from the individual. Thus Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, 
 writing to the Romans about a.d. 170, refers to it as the epistle 'which 
 you wrote to us by Clement (Euseb. H. E. iv. 23)'; and Irenseus soon 
 afterwards similarly describes it, ' In the time of this Clement, no small 
 dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church 
 in Rome sent a very adequate letter to the Corinthians urging them 
 to peace (iii. 3. 3).' Even later than this, Clement of Alexandria calls 
 it in one passage ' the Epistle of the Romans to tlie Corinthians ' 
 {Strom, v. 12, p. 693), though elsewhere he ascribes it to Clement. 
 Still it might have been expected that somewhere towards the close 
 mention would have been made (though in the third person) of the 
 famous man who was at once the actual writer of the letter and the 
 chief ruler of the church in whose name it was written. Now how- 
 ever that we possess the work complete, we see that his existence is 
 not once hinted at from beginning to end. The name and personality of 
 Clement are absorbed in the church of which he is the spokesman. 
 
 This being so, it is the more instructive to observe the urgent and 
 almost imperious tone which the Romans adopt in addressing their 
 Corinthian brethren during the closing years of the first century. They 
 
 ^ Sec Pkilipplans p. 95 sq, 196.
 
 70 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 exhort the offenders to submit ' not to them, but to the will of God ' 
 (§ 56). 'Receive our counsel,' they write again, 'and ye shall have no 
 occasion of regret' (§ 58). Then shortly afterwards; 'But if certain per- 
 sons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him (i.e. by God) 
 through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no 
 slight transgression and danger, but we shall be guiltless of this sin' (§ 59). 
 At a later point again they return to the subject and use still stronger 
 language ; 'Ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience 
 unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out 
 the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which 
 we have made for peace and concord in this letter ; and we have also 
 sent unto you faithful and prudent men, that have walked among us from 
 youth unto old age unblameably, who shall be witnesses between you 
 and us. And this we have done, that ye might know, that we have had 
 and still have every solicitude, that ye may speedily be at peace 
 (§ 63).' It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remon- 
 strance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubt- 
 edly this is the case. There is all the difference in the world between 
 the attitude of Rome towards other churches at the close of the first 
 century, when the Romans as a community remonstrate on terms of 
 equality with the Corinthians on their irregularities, strong only in the 
 righteousness of their cause, and feeling, as they had a right to feel, 
 that these counsels of peace were the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and 
 its attitude at the close of the second century, when Victor the 
 bishop excommunicates the Churches of Asia Minor for clinging to a 
 usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had been handed 
 down to them from the Apostles, and thus foments instead of healing 
 dissensions (Euseb. H. E. v. 23, 24). Even this second stage has 
 carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance towards 
 the assumptions of a Hildebrand or an Innocent or a Boniface, or 
 even of a Leo : but it is nevertheless a decided step. The sub- 
 stitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome is an all 
 important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church 
 of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the 
 successor of S. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, 
 as a matter of fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon 
 the power of the Church of Rome. It was originally a primacy, not 
 of the episcopate, but of the church. The position of the Roman 
 Church, which this newly recovered ending of Clement's epistle throws 
 out in such strong relief, accords entirely with the notices in other 
 early documents. A very few years later — from ten to twenty — Ignatius
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 71 
 
 writes to Rome. He is a staunch advocate of episcopacy. Of his 
 six remaining letters, one is addressed to a bishop as bishop ; and the 
 other five all enforce the duty of the churches whom he addresses to 
 their respective bishops. Yet in the letter to the Church of Rome 
 there is not the faintest allusion to the episcopal office from first to 
 last. He entreats the Roman Christians not to intercede and thus 
 by obtaining a pardon or commutation of sentence to rob him of the 
 crown of martyrdom. In the course of his entreaty he uses words 
 which doubtless refer in part to Clement's epistle, and which the newly 
 recovered ending enables us to appreciate more fully ; ' Ye never yet,' 
 he writes, ' envied any one,' i.e. grudged him the glory of a consistent 
 course of endurance and self-sacrifice, 'ye were the teachers of others 
 (ovSeTTOTc if^acTKavaTe ov8evL' a'AXou? €8iSa^aT€,§ 3).' They would therefore 
 be inconsistent with their former selves, he implies, if in his own case 
 they departed from those counsels of self-renunciation and patience 
 which they had urged so strongly on the Corinthians and others. But, 
 though Clement's letter is apparently in his mind, there is no mention 
 of Clement or Clement's successor throughout. Yet at the same 
 time he assigns a primacy to Rome. The church is addressed in the 
 opening salutation as ' she who hath the presidency (TrpoKdOrjTai) in the 
 place of the region of the Romans.' But immediately afterwards the 
 nature of this supremacy is defined. The presidency of this church I 
 is declared to be a presidency of love {TrpoKaOrnxivrj t^s ayaTriys). This 
 then was the original primacy of Rome — a primacy not of the bishop 
 but of the whole church, a primacy not of official authority but of \ 
 practical goodness, backed however by the prestige and the advantages 
 which were necessarily enjoyed by the church of the metropolis. The 
 reserve of Clement in his epistle harmonizes also with the very modest 
 estimate of his dignity implied in the language of one who appears to 
 have been a younger contemporary, but who wrote (if tradition can be 
 trusted) at a somewhat later date'. Thou shalt therefore, says the per- 
 sonified Church to Hernias, 'write two little books,' i.e. copies of this 
 work containing the revelation, ' and thou shalt send one to Clement 
 and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send it to the cities abroad, for 
 this charge is committed unto him, and Grapte shall instruct the widows 
 and the orphans ; while thou shalt read it to this city together with the 
 presbyters who preside over the church.' And so it remains till the 
 close of the second century. When, some seventy years later than the 
 date of our epistle, a second letter is written from Rome to Corinth 
 during the episcopate of Soter (about a.d. 165 — 175), it is still written 
 
 ' Herm. Vis. ii. 4.
 
 72 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 in the name of the Church, not the bishop, of Rome ; and as such is 
 acknowledged by Dionysius of Corinth. 'We have read your letter' 
 (u/Awv TTjv iiria-ToXyjv), he writes in reply to the Romans. At the same 
 time he bears a noble testimony to that moral ascendancy of the early 
 Roman Church which was the historical foundation of its primacy; 
 ' This hath been your practice from the beginning ; to do good to all 
 the brethren in the various ways, and to send supplies (e'^oSia) to many 
 churches in divers cities, in one place recruiting the poverty of those 
 that are in want, in another assisting brethren that are in the mines by 
 the supplies that ye have been in the habit of sending to them from the 
 first, thus keeping up, as becometh Romans, a hereditary practice of 
 Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter hath not only maintained, 
 but also advanced,' with more to the same effect \ 
 
 The results of the previous investigations will enable us in some 
 degree to realize the probable career of Clement, the writer of the 
 epistle ; but the lines of our portrait will differ widely from the imaginary 
 picture which the author of the Clementine romance has drawn. The 
 date of his birth, we may suppose, would synchronize roughly with the 
 death of the Saviour. A few years on the one side or on the other 
 would probably span the difference. He would be educated, not like 
 this imaginary Clement on the subtleties of the schools, but like Timothy 
 on the Scriptures of the Old Testament. He would indeed be more or 
 less closely attached to the palace of the Caesars, not however as a 
 scion of the imperial family itself, but as a humbler dependent of the 
 household. When he arrived at manhood, his inward doubts and 
 anxieties would be moral rather than metaphysical. His questioning 
 would not take the form 'Is the soul immortal?' but rather 'What shall 
 I do to be saved ? ' He would enquire not ' To what philosophy 
 shall I betake myself — to the Academy or to the Lyceum or to the 
 Porch?', but 'Where shall I find the Christ?' How soon he dis- 
 covered the object of his search, we cannot tell ; but he was probably 
 
 . 1 Euseb. J/. E. iv. 23 quoted below, 
 p. 155. Harnack (p. xxix, ed. 2) says 
 that this letter of Dionysius 'non Soteris 
 tempore sed paidlo post Soteris mortem 
 (175 — -iSo) Romam missa esse videtur.' 
 I see nothing in the passage which sug- 
 gests this inference. On the contrary the 
 perfect tenses {diareTripTiKeu, enrjv^rjKev), 
 used in preference toaorists, seem to imply 
 that he was living. The epithet naKapLos, 
 
 applied to SoLer, confessedly proves no- 
 thing ; for it was used at this time and 
 later not less of the living than of the 
 dead (e.g. Alexander in Euseb. H. E. vi. 
 11). Eusebius himself, who had the 
 whole letter before him, seems certainly 
 to have supposed that Soter was living, 
 for he speaks of it as f7ricrTo\i)...e7rf<r/co7r(jj 
 T^ TOTf. Swrfpi Trpoacpujvoucra. See below, 
 p. 154 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 73 
 
 grown or growing up to manhood when the Messianic disturbances 
 among the Jews at Rome led to the edict of expulsion under Claudius 
 (about A.D. 52)'. If he had not known the name of Jesus of Nazareth 
 hitherto, he could no longer have remained ignorant that one claiming 
 to be the Christ had been born and lived and died in Palestine, of 
 whom His disciples asserted that, though dead, He was alive — alive for 
 evermore. The edict was only very partial in its effects". It was not 
 seriously carried out ; and, though some Jews, especially those of 
 migratory habits like Aquila and Priscilla, were driven away by it, yet it 
 did not permanently disturb or diminish the Jewish colony in Rome. 
 Meanwhile the temporary displacements and migrations, which it caused, 
 would materially assist in the diffusion of the Gospel. 
 
 A few years later (a.d. 58) the arrival of a letter from the Apostle 
 Paul, announcing his intended visit to Rome, marked an epoch in the 
 career of the Roman Church. When at length his pledge was redeemed, 
 he came as a prisoner ; but his prison-house for two long years was the 
 home and rallying point of missionary zeal in Rome. More especially 
 did he find himself surrounded by members of Csesar's household. 
 The visit of Paul was followed after an interval (we know not how 
 long) by the visit of Peter. Now at all events Clement must have been 
 a Christian, so that he would have associated directly with both these 
 great preachers of Christianity. Indeed his own language seems to 
 imply as much. He speaks of them as ' the good Apostles^' — an epithet 
 which suggests a personal acquaintance with them. The later tra- 
 ditions, which represent him as having been consecrated bishop by 
 one or other of tliese Apostles, cannot be literally true ; but they are 
 explained by the underlying fact of his immediate discipleship \ Around 
 
 ^ Sueton. Claud. 25 ; coinp. Acts xviii. tlie tradition vvliich makes Clement tiie 
 
 2, and ssQ Philippians p. ly. third in tlie succession of Roman bishops 
 
 ^ See Lewin Fasti Sacri p. 295, for is inconsistent with the tradition which 
 
 the date of this decree and for its effects. makes him an immediate disciple of one 
 
 This most useful book is not as well or other Apostle, treating this assumed 
 
 known as it deserves to be. inconsistency as if it were a postulate 
 
 ^ § 5 ■'■o'^s ayadovs aivoaToKovs. The beyond the reach of controversy; C/iro- 
 
 epithet has caused much uneasiness to nologie pp. 147, 149, 150. But what 
 
 critics, and emendations have been freely havock would be made by the application 
 
 offered. It is confirmed however by the of this principle to contemporary history, 
 
 recently discovered authorities (the Con- The death of the Aj^ostles Peter and 
 
 stantinople MS and the Syriac version), Paul is placed A.U. 64 at the earliest; 
 
 and must be explained by the writer's and the dale of Clement's epistle is 
 
 personal relations to the Apostles. somewhere about a.d. 95. There is thus 
 
 ^ Lipsius again and again insists that an interval of a little more than thirty
 
 74 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 these great leaders were grouped many distinguished followers from the 
 distant East, with whom Clement would thus become acquainted. 
 Peter was attended more especially by Mark, who acted as his inter- 
 preter. Sylvanus was also in his company at least for a time*. Paul 
 was visited by a succession of disciples from Greece and Asia Minor 
 and Syria, of whom Timothy and Titus, Luke and Apollos, besides 
 Mark who has been already mentioned, are among the most prominent 
 names in the history of the Church'. 
 
 Then came the great trial of Christian constancy, the persecution 
 of Nero. Of the untold horrors of this crisis we can hardly doubt, from 
 his own description, that he was an eye-witness. The suspenses and 
 anxieties of that terrible season when the informer was abroad and 
 every Christian carried his life in his hand must have stamped them- 
 selves vividly on his memory. The refined cruelty of the tortures — 
 the impalements and the pitchy tunics, the living torches making night 
 hideous with the lurid flames and piercing cries, the human victims 
 clad in the skins of wild beasts and hunted m the arena, while the 
 populace gloated over these revels and the emperor indulged his mad 
 orgies — these were scenes which no lapse of time could efface. Above 
 all — the climax of horrors — were the outrages, far worse than death 
 itself, inflicted on weak women and innocent girls ^. 
 
 As the central figures in this noble army of martyrs, towering 
 head and shoulders above the rest, Clement mentions the Apostles 
 
 years. Must we reject as eiToneous the man army into Paris more than half a 
 
 common belief, which assumes that a century later (a. D. 1 871), on which occa- 
 
 famous statesman still living as I write sion there are good reasons for believing 
 
 (a.d. 1887) was a political disciple of Sir that he was actually present? 
 
 R. Peel, who died in 1850, and even held ^ i Pet. v. 12, 15, on the supposition, 
 
 office under him sixteen years before his which seems to me highly probable, that 
 
 death? Is it credible, that certain Eng- this epistle was written from Rome. See 
 
 lishmen occupying prominent positions also Papias in Euseb. J^. E. iii. 39, Iren. 
 
 in Church or State, apparently with a Hacr. iii. i. i, iii. 10. 6. 
 
 prospect of many years of life still before - For Timothy see Phil. i. i, Col. i. i, 
 
 them, were (as they are reported to have Philem. i, comp. 2 Tim. iii. 9 sq, Heb. 
 
 been) pupils of Arnold, the great school- xiii. 23; for Mark, Col. iv. 10, Philem. 
 
 master, who died not less than forty-five 24, 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 ; for Luke, Col. iv. 14, 
 
 years ago ? Above all who will venture Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; for Titus, 
 
 to maintain that the Emperor William 2 Tim. iii. 10, comp. Tit. iii. 12; for 
 
 entered Paris with the victorious Prussian Apollos, Tit. iii. 13, in conjunction with 
 
 troops after the surrender seventy-three his not improbable authorship of the 
 
 years ago (a.d. 1814), seeing that the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 
 story may be explained by a confusion ^ See the note on § 6 Aavatdes kuI 
 
 with another entry of a triumphant Ger- Atp/cat.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 75 
 
 Peter and Paul ; for I cannot doubt that he speaks of both these as 
 sealing their testimony with their blood'. Whether they died in the 
 general persecution at the time of the great fire, or whether their martyr- 
 doms were due to some later isolated outbreak of violence, it is un- 
 necessary for my present purpose to enquire. There are solid reasons 
 however— at least in the case of S. Paul — for supposing that a con- 
 siderable interval elapsed ^ 
 
 The Christian Church emerged from this fiery trial refined and 
 strengthened. Even the common people at length were moved with 
 pity for the crowds of sufferers, whom all regarded as innocent of the 
 particular offence for which they were punished, and against whom 
 no definite crime was alleged, though in a vague way they were charged 
 with a universal hatred of their species ^ But on more thoughtful and 
 calm-judging spirits their constancy must have made a deep impression. 
 One there was, whose position would not suffer him to witness this 
 spectacle unmoved. Flavius Sabinus, the City prefect, must by virtue 
 of his position have been the instrument — we cannot doubt, the un- 
 willing instrument — of Nero's cruelty at this crisis^ He was naturally 
 
 ^ See the notes on the passage (§ 5) 
 relating to the two Apostles. 
 
 * The main reasons for this view are; 
 (i) The confident expectations of release 
 which the Apostle entertains (Phil. i. 25, 
 Philem. 22): (2) The visit to the far 
 West, more especially to Spain; see the 
 note on § 5 ro ripfxa ttjs SuVews : (3) Tlie 
 phenomena of the Pastoral Epistles, whicli 
 require a place after the close of the 
 period contained in the Acts. 
 
 ^ Tac. Atm. xv. 44 ' indicio eorum 
 multitude ingens, baud perinde in criminc 
 incendii quam odto hutnani gena-is, con- 
 
 victi sunt unde quamquam adversus 
 
 sontes et novissima exempla meritos mi- 
 seratio oriebatur, tamquam non utiliiate 
 publica sed in saevitiam unius ahsume- 
 rcntur.' It is clear that 'humani generis' 
 is the objective not the subjective geni- 
 tive, and that the phrase is correctly 
 rendered in the text, for several reasons ; 
 (i) The parallelism of the context re- 
 quires that this phrase should express a 
 charge against the Christians; (2) The 
 parallel passages elsewhere point to this 
 
 interpretation, e. g. HisL v. 5 ' apud 
 ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in 
 promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile 
 odium ' of the Jews, with which com- 
 pare I Thess. ii. 15 wdcni' dvdpuTrois 
 evavTiuv, Juv. Sat. xiv. 103 sq, with the 
 passages quoted in Mayor's note. Til- 
 lemont [Mh)ioires II. p. 74) wrongly in- 
 terprets it 'victimes de la haine du genre 
 huniaiu,' and this is likewise the meaning 
 attached to it by some commentators on 
 Tacitus. 
 
 I need not stop to consider the vagary 
 of Plochart {Pc7-senction des Chretiens sous 
 Ni'ron, Paris 1885), who maintains that 
 the passage in Tacitus relating to the 
 Christians is a medieval interpolation. 
 It will go the way of Father Ilardouin's 
 theories that Terence's Plays and Virgil's 
 Aeneid and Horace's Odes, and I know 
 not what besides, were monkish forgeries ; 
 though it may possibly have a momentary 
 notoriety before its departure. 
 
 * See above, p. 18, note 2, for his 
 tenure of office, and p. 35, note 2, for 
 his humane disposition.
 
 76 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 of a humane and gentle nature. Indifferent spectators considered him 
 deficient in promptitude and energy in the exercise of his office. Doubt- 
 less it imposed upon him many duties which he could not perform 
 without reluctance ; and we may well suppose that the attitude and 
 bearing of these Christians inspired him at all events with a passive 
 admiration. This may have been the first impulse which produced 
 momentous consequences in his family. Thirty years later his son 
 Flavius Clemens was put to death by another tyrant and persecutor — a 
 near relation of his own — on this very charge of complicity with the 
 Christians. 
 \ On the death of the two Apostles the government of the Roman 
 Church came into the hands of Linus, the same who sends greeting to 
 Timothy on the eve of S. Paul's martyrdom. The name Linus itself, 
 like the names of other mythical heroes, would be a fit designation of a 
 slave or freedman ' ; and thus it suggests the social rank of himself or his 
 parents. An early venture, or perhaps an early tradition, makes him the 
 son of Claudia whose name is mentioned in the same salutations". If 
 so, he, like so many others, may have been connected with the imperial 
 household, as his mother's name suggests. But the relationship was 
 perhaps a mere guess of the writer, who had no better ground for it 
 than the proximity of the two names in S. Paul's epistle. Modern 
 critics are not satisfied with this ^ They have seen in Pudens who is 
 mentioned in the same context the husband of Claudia ; and they have 
 identified him with a certain Aulus Pudens, the friend of Martial, who 
 
 1 See C.I.L. x. 6637, where it is ap- tained that it was founded by missionaries 
 
 parently a slave's name. This same in- sent by pope Eleutherus on the invitation 
 
 scription gives five Claudias, contempo- of the British prince Lucius. See e.g. 
 
 rariesofS. Paul. Ussher Britanti. Ecclcs. Antiq. cc. i, 3 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. iv. 21 citrTrafeTat ere EiV^ovXos (IVorks v. p. 22 sq, p. 49 sq), Fuller 
 
 Kol I\.ovbj}% Kal \lvoz /cat KXauOio koX ol Church History i. § 9 (l. p. 13 sq, ed. 
 
 dStX^ot [Trdyres] : con\^. Apost. Const. \\\. Brewer, 1845), Collier Eccles. Hist, of 
 
 46 Atvos 6 KXai/Stas, where presumably Great Britain i. p. 7 sq (ed. Barham, 
 
 the relationship intended is that of son 1840). 'Father Parsons,' writes Fuller, 
 
 and mother, though this is not certain. ' will not admit hereof, because willingly 
 
 ^ The theory that Pudens and Claudia ho would not allow any sprinkling of 
 
 were connected with Britain, and thus Christianity liut what was raised from 
 
 were the evangelists of the British Church, Rome'; but he himself adds sensibly,' 
 
 had a controversial value with the older ' He that is more than lukewarm is too 
 
 generation of English critics and his- hot in a case of so little consequence.' 
 
 torians. The origin of the British Church In urging the chronological objection to 
 
 was thus traced back to an apostolic the identification of Pudens and Claudia 
 
 foundation, and in this way they met the Parsons was right; but the mission under 
 
 contention of Romanist writers who main- Lucius seems to be equally untenable
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 77 
 
 married the British maiden Claudia Rufina'. Before following these 
 speculations farther, it should be observed that the interposition of 
 Linus between Pudens and Claudia removes any presumption in favour 
 of their being regarded as man and wife^ The only ground, on which 
 such a relationship could still be maintained, is the statement of the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, which would make Linus their son ; and even 
 then the order would be strange. Their son however he cannot have 
 been ; for, as the immediate successor of the apostles in the government 
 of the Roman Church, he must have been thirty years old at least at 
 the time of the Neronian persecution (a.d. 64), and probably was much 
 older. Yet the epigram of Martial, celebrating the marriage of Pudens 
 and Claudia, was not written at this time, and probably dates many 
 years later ^ But not only is the oldest tradition respecting Claudia 
 ignored by this hypothesis. It equally disregards the oldest tradition 
 respecting Pudens, which attributes to him wholly different family 
 relations, a wife Sabinella, two sons Timotheus and Novatus, and two 
 daughters Pudentiana and Praxedis*. I do not say that these traditions 
 are trustworthy; but they have at least a negative value as showing that 
 antiquity had no knowledge whatever of this marriage of Pudens and 
 Claudia. Several English writers however have gone beyond this. 
 Not content with identifying the Pudens and Claudia of S. Paul with 
 the Pudens and Claudia of Martial, they have discovered a history for 
 the couple whom they have thus married together. It had been the 
 
 with the mission under Pudens and tation.' Alford accounts for the inter- 
 Claudia ; see W'aSS.'xxa Archacologia xxxiii. posed Linus by saying, 'They apparently 
 p. 308 sq. were not married at this time,' in. p. 105. 
 
 ^ Epigr. iv. 13 'Claudia, Rufe, meo But what reason is there for supposing 
 
 nubit peregrina Pudenti.' In order to that they were married afterwards? 
 
 maintain this theory it is necessary to ^ For the chronology of Martial's epi- 
 
 identify this Claudia with the person grams see Friedlaender Sittengesch. iii. 
 
 mentioned in Epigr. xi. 53, 'Claudia p. 376 sq, and also his edition of this 
 
 caeruleis cum sit Rufina Britannis Edita poet, i. p. 50 sq (1886). The date of 
 
 quam Latiae pectora gentis habet ! ' publication of the several books in order 
 
 Friedlaender however (Martial Epigr. i. is there traced. There is no ground for 
 
 p. 342, II. p. 375) regards them as dif- the contention of some English writers 
 
 ferent persons, printing 'Peregrina' as a that epigrams in the later books were 
 
 proper name. The identification of the written long before, though not published 
 
 two Claudias of Martial seems to me pro- at the time. The instances alleged do 
 
 bable in itself. not prove the point. 
 
 2 Conybeare and Howson (il. p. 592) ** See Ussher I.e. p. 51 sq, Tillemont 
 
 consider this 'not a conclusive objection, Memoires 11. p. 615 sq. It should be 
 
 for the names of Linus and Pudens may added that in the Liber Poniificalis the 
 
 easily have been transposed in rapid die- father of Linus is called ' Ilerculanus.'
 
 78 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 fashion with the older generation of English critics to regard this 
 Claudia as the daughter of the British king Caractacus; and some more 
 adventurous spirits considered Linus to be none other than Llin, a 
 person appearing in British hagiography as the son of Caractacus. The 
 discovery however, in the year 1722, of an inscription at Chichester 
 gave another direction to these speculations. This inscription records 
 {C. I. L. VII. II, p. 18) how a certain temple was erected to Neptune 
 and Minerva [ex .] avctoritate . [ti.] clavd[i . co]gidvbni . r . 
 lega[ti] . AVG . in . BRIT., by a guild of smiths, donante . aream . 
 [pvDJENTE . PVDENTiNi . FiL. The British king Cogidubnus, who is 
 here designated a 'legate of Augustus', is doubtless the same whom 
 Tacitus mentions' as a faithful ally of the Romans during the campaigns 
 of Aulus Plautius and Ostorius Scapula (a.d. 43 — 51); and he appears 
 to have taken the name of his suzerain, the emperor Claudius. Assuming 
 that this Cogidubnus had a daughter, she would probably be called 
 Claudia; and assuming also that the name of the donor is correctly 
 supplied [pvdJente^ we have here a Pudeijs who might very well have 
 married this Claudia. This doubtful Pudens and imaginary Claudia 
 are not only identified with the Pudens and Claudia of Martial, for 
 which identification there is something to be said, but also with the 
 Pudens and Claudia of S. Paul, which seems altogether impossible ^ 
 
 1 Tacit. Agric. 14 'Consularium primus Williams Claudia and Pudens etc. (Llan- 
 
 A. Plautius praepositus, ac subinde Os- dovery, 1848), where it is seen in its best 
 
 torius Scapula, uterque bello egregius; and final form. It has been taken up 
 
 redactaque paullatim in formam provin- with avidity by more recent English 
 
 ciae proxima pars Britanniae...quaedam writers on S. Paul; e.g. by Alford (Ex- 
 
 civitates Cogidumno regi donatae (is ad cursus on 2 Tim. iv. 21), by Conybeare 
 
 nostram usque memoriam fidissimus man- and Howson {Life and Epistles of S. 
 
 sit), vetere ac jam pridem recepta populi Paul 11. p. 594 sq, ed. 2), by Lewin (Life 
 
 Romani consuetudine ut haberet instru- and £pis//es of S. Paul u. p. 3^2 sq), and 
 
 menta servitutis et reges.' This person by Plumptre (Bp Ellicott JVera Testament 
 
 is described accordingly in our inscrip- Cinnmentary 11. p. 185 sq, Excursus on 
 
 tion; 'r(egis), lega{ti) Aug(usti) in l>ri- Acts). Lewin sums up, ' Upon the whole 
 
 t(annia).' we should say that Claudia may have 
 
 - This restoration seems likely enough, been the daughter of Cogidunus, or may 
 
 though liuebner says 'majore fortasse have been the daughter of Caractacus, and 
 
 cum probabilitate credideris Pudentinum that in all probability she was either the 
 
 fuisse filium Pudentis secundum consue- one or the other' (p. 397). At all hazards 
 
 tudinem nomenclaturae in hominibus the Claudia of S. Paul must be made out 
 
 peregriniS'.obser\'andam,' and himself sug- to be a British princess. Yet the argu- 
 
 gests [clem]ente (C /. L. vil. p. 19). ments which go to show that she was a 
 
 •* This theory, which had found favour daughter of Caractacus, must to the same 
 
 with previous writers, is strenuously main- extent go to .show that she was not a 
 
 tained in a pamphlet by Archdeacon J. daughter of Cogidubnus, and conversely.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 79 
 
 The chronology alone is a fatal objection. Martial only came to 
 Rome about the year 65 ; the epigram which records the marriage of 
 Pudens and Claudia did not appear till a.d. 88 j and the epigram 
 addressed to her as a young mother, if indeed this be the same Claudia, 
 was published as late as a.d. 96'. To these chronological difficulties it 
 should be added that Martial unblushingly imputes to his friend Pudens 
 the foulest vices of heathendom, and addresses to him some of his 
 grossest epigrams, obviously without fear of incurring his displeasure. 
 Under these circumstances it is not easy to see how this identification 
 can be upheld, especially when we remember that there is not only no 
 ground for supposing the Pudens and Claudia of S. Paul to have been 
 man and wife, but the contrary, and that both names are very frequent, 
 Claudia especially being the commonest of all female names at this 
 period. Here is an inscription where a married pair, connected with 
 the imperial household, bear these same two names (C /. L. vi. 
 15066); 
 
 TI . CL . TI . LIB . PVDENS 
 ET . CL . QVINTILLA 
 FILIO . DVLCISSIMO. 
 
 In this inscription we have the basis of a more plausible identifica- 
 tion ; and probably a careful search would reveal others bearing the 
 same combination of names. But we are barred at the outset by the 
 improbabiHty that the Pudens and Claudia of S. Paul were man 
 and wife. 
 
 Of the episcopate of this Linus absolutely nothing is recorded on 
 trustworthy authority. Even the Liber Poiitificalis can only tell us — 
 beyond the usual notice of ordinations — that he issued an order to ' 
 women to appear in church with their heads veiled^; and he alone of 
 the early Roman bishops is wholly unrepresented in the forged letters 
 of the False Deeretals. On the other hand he acquires a certain promi- 
 nence, as the reputed author of the spurious Acts of S. Peter and 
 S. Paul, though we learn from them nothing about Linus himself ^ 
 
 Of Linus' successor in the direction of the Roman Church we know 
 absolutely nothing except the name, or rather the names, which he bore. 
 
 This theory has been controverted by I had formerly (1. c. p. 73) spoken lightly 
 
 Hallam {^Archaeologia xxxill. p. 323 sq, of the chronological difficulty, but it now 
 
 1849), by myself {yourn. of Class, and appears to me insuperable. 
 Sacr. Philol. iv. p. 73 sq, 1857), and by ^ j^n^ p^^^i^ ,_ pp_ j^, 121, ed. Du- 
 
 Huebner {Rheinisches Museum xiv. p. chesne. 
 
 358, 1859; comp. C. I. L. VII. p. 19). " Magn. Bibl. Vat. Pair. i. p. 69 sq. 
 
 ^ See the references in p. 77, note 3. (De la Bigne).
 
 8o 
 
 EPISTLES OE S. CLEMENT. 
 
 He is called Anencletus or Cletus in the several authorities. Anen- 
 cletus is found in Irenaeus ; Cletus, though among extant writings it 
 appears first in Epiphanius, would seem to have been as old as 
 Hegesippus '. His original designation probably was Anencletus, 
 ' the blameless,' which, though it occurs but rarely, represents a type of 
 names familiar among slaves and freedmen^ As a slave's name it 
 appears on a Roman inscription, found in London and now preserved 
 in the Guildhall (C. I. L. vii. 28;. It occurs likewise, not indeed as a 
 slave's name, but perhaps a freedman's, in a more interesting inscrip- 
 tion of the year a.d. 10 i found in Central Italy, among the Ligures 
 Baebiani, in connexion with a ' Elavian estate' (C /. L. ix. 1455); l . 
 viBBio . ANENCLETO . FVND . FLAViANi. And a fcw Other examples of 
 the name appear elsewhere, but it is not common^ If this were his 
 original name, Cletus would be no inappropriate substitution. Over and 
 above the general tendency to abbreviation, a designation which re- 
 minded him of his Christian 'calling' would commend itself; whereas his 
 own name might jar with Christian sentinient, which bids the true 
 disciple, after doing all, to call himself an 'unprofitable servant'. Had 
 not S. Paul, writing to this very Roman Church, called himself kAtjto? 
 as an apostle of Christ, and his readers KX-qrol as a people of Christ ? 
 On the other hand the word kXt/jtos is not such as we should expect to 
 find adopted as a proper name, except in its Christian bearing^. But, 
 whatever may have been the origin of the second name, there can be 
 no reasonable doubt that the two are alternative designations of the 
 same person. I'he documents which make two persons out of the two 
 
 ' See above, p. 64. 
 
 ~ Such as Amemptiis, Amomus, Ame- 
 rimnns, Abascantus, Anicetus, etc. 
 
 ^ C. I. L. irT.6220, v. 81 10, 40 (p. 960). 
 This last is a tile, across which likewise 
 is written Q . ivn . pastor. It has given 
 rise to an amusing mistake. The words 
 have been read continuously qvin . 
 PASTOR . ANACLETVS (Muratori cnxcviii. 
 6) ; and, as Anencletus is the fifth in the 
 succession as given in the Liber Ponti- 
 ficalis, they have been referred to him. 
 This name occurs twice in a Spartan in- 
 scription of the imperial times, Boeckh 
 Corp. Inscr. Graec, 1240. 
 
 The Latin Anadettis is a mere cor- 
 ruption of ^\viyK\riTos. The Greek dvd- 
 K\'r)Tos 'called Viack ' is never, so far as I 
 
 can discover, used as a proper name, nor 
 would it be appropriate. In Dion Cass, 
 xlv. 12 it is given as a translation of 
 the military term ' evocatus.' 
 
 * KX'JJtos is given in Corp. Inscr. Graec. 
 6S47, but the inscription is mutilated and 
 of the date nothing is said. One of the 
 two Laconian Graces was called KXrjra, 
 if indeed the reading be correct (Pausan. 
 iii. 18. 6, ix. 35. i). In Mionnet Snppl. 
 VI. J). 324 (a Smyrnaian coin) em . kAhtoy 
 tlicre is perhaps a mistake, as the next 
 coin has erriKTHTOY- I" ^'^^ Latin in- 
 scriptions we meet with Claetus, Cleta 
 (11.2268,2903). Clitus also occurs. The 
 possible confusion with the more com- 
 mon names KXetTos, KXiVoy, when trans- 
 literated into Latin, was great.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 8 1 
 
 names are comparatively late, and they carry on their face the explana- 
 tion of the error — the fusion of two separate lists. 
 
 The tradition, as I have already mentioned, assigns a duration of 
 twenty-four years to the episcopates of Linus and Anencletus, twelve to 
 each. Probably these should be regarded as round numbers. It was a 
 period of steady and peaceful progress for the Church. In a later writer 
 indeed we stumble upon a notice of a persecution under Vespasian ; 
 but, if this be not altogether an error, the trouble can only have been 
 momentary, as we do not find any record of it elsewhere'. On the 
 whole the two earlier Flavian emperors — father and son — the con- 
 querors of Judaea, would not be hostilely disposed to the Christians, who 
 had dissociated themselves from their Jewish fellow-countrymen in their 
 fatal conflict with the Romans^ When Clement succeeded to the 
 government of the Church, the reign of Domitian would be more than 
 half over. The term of years assigned to him in all forms of the tradi- 
 tion is nine ; and here probably we may accept the number as at least 
 approximately correct, if not strictly accurate. If so, his episcopate 
 would extend into the reign of Trajan. The most trustworthy form of 
 the tradition places his death in the third year of this emperor, which 
 was the last year of the century ^ 
 
 Domitian proved another Nero"*. The second persecution of the 
 Church is by general consent of Christian writers ascribed to him. 
 It was however very different in character from the Neronian. The 
 Neronian persecution had been a wholesale onslaught of reckless fury, 
 Domitian directed against the Christians a succession of sharp, sudden, 
 partial assaults*, striking down one here and one there from malice or 
 jealousy or caprice, and harassing the Church with an agony of suspense. 
 In the execution of his cousin, the consul, Flavins Clemens, the perse- 
 cution culminated ; but he was only one, though the most conspicuous, 
 of a large number who suffered for their faith". 
 
 ^ See Ignat. and Poly c. I. p. 15 sq. /cat iTraWijXovs k.t.X. 
 
 2 Euseb. //. E. iii. 5. ^ See especially Dion Cass. Ixvii. 14 
 
 ^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 34. d.'X\oi...7roXXot /careStKocr^T/crai' k.t.X., given 
 
 * See Juv. Sat. iv. 38, with Mayor's in full below, p. 104. Whether Acilius 
 
 note, for heathen writers; comp. Euseb. Glabrio, whom Dion mentions by name 
 
 H. E. iii. 17. When Tertullian calls immediately afterwards, was put to death 
 
 him 'Subnero' {de Pall. 4) and 'portio for his Christianity or for some other 
 
 Neronis de crudelitate ' (Apol. 5), he is in- cause, is a matter of dispute. Dion .speaks 
 
 fluenced by the story which gave Domi- of him as KaTrjyopTjdifTa to. re aXXa km 
 
 tian the credit of having stopped the per- ola ui woWol /cat on d-qpLois e/xaxero. In 
 
 secution ; see above, p. 41, note 3. the former part of the sentence (to. re 
 
 ^ See the note on § r Aia rds ai<pvi5lovi aXXa k.t.X.) it might be possible to see 
 
 CLEM. 6
 
 82 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 In the midst of these troubles disastrous news arrived from Corinth. 
 The old spirit of faction in the Corinthian Christians, as it appears in 
 S. Paul's epistle, had reasserted itself. They had risen up against the 
 duly commissioned rulers of their Church — presbyters who had been 
 appointed by the Aposdes themselves or by those immediately so 
 appointed — and had ejected them from their office. It does not appear 
 that any doctrinal question was directly involved, unless indeed their 
 old scepticism with respect to the Resurrection had revived'. The 
 } quarrel, so far as we can judge, was personal or political. However 
 this may have been, the ejection was wholly unjustifiable, for the persons 
 deposed had executed their office blamelessly. Corinth was an im- 
 portant Roman colony. The communication between Rome and 
 Corinth was easy and frequent. If the journey were rapidly accom- 
 plished, it need not take more than a week ; though the average length 
 was doubtless greater ^ The alliances within the Christian Church were 
 
 a charge of Christianity, for previously 
 he has mentioned 'Jewish practices' and 
 ' atheism ' in connexion with Flavins 
 Clemens and others ; but there is no 
 ground for confining ola oi ttoWoI to 
 these cases, and it is more naturally in- 
 terpreted 'the same sort of charges as the 
 majority of his victims.' The account of 
 Domitian's victims has extended over 
 several chapters, and the pretexts for their 
 destruction are various. The last point 
 {oTL Kal Orjpiois iz-idxero) has nothing to do 
 with Christianity, though some have con- 
 nected it with the cry 'Christianos ad 
 leones.' Dion explains himself in the 
 next sentence. Domitian had compelled 
 Glabrio, when consul (he was colleague of 
 the future emperor Trajan, a.d. 91), to 
 kill a huge lion at the Juvenalia (veavia- 
 Kev/xara), and he had despatched the beast 
 with consummate skill and without re- 
 ceiving any wound himself. The em- 
 peror's real motive therefore was partly 
 jealousy at his success, and partly (we 
 may suppose) dread of his future ascend- 
 ancy ; his ostensible reason was the de- 
 gradation of the consul's office by fighting 
 in the arena, though he himself had com- 
 pelled him to do this. This is the way 
 of tyrants. Suetonius (Z><jw?V. 10) says of 
 
 this Acilius Glabrio, that he and another 
 were put to death in exile by Domitian 
 'quasi molitores novarum rerum.' He is 
 the 'juvenis indignus quern mors tam 
 saeva maneret' of Juv. SaL iv. 95. The 
 Christianity of Acilius Glabrio is favoured 
 by De Rossi, J?om. Sotterr. i. 319, and 
 more strenuously maintained by Hasen- 
 clever, p. 267 sq. Zahn takes the op- 
 posite view {Hernias p. 57). The case 
 seems to me to break down altogether. 
 
 ^ Some prominence is given to the 
 subject, and analogies in nature are 
 brought forward, § 24 sq. 
 
 " Helius, having important news to 
 convey to Nero who was then in Corinth, 
 left Rome and arrived in Greece e/SSo/x?; 
 ■r]\j.kpc}., Dion Cass. Ixiii. 19. This how- 
 ever was extraordinary speed. Commonly 
 it occupied a longer time. With very 
 favourable winds it took five days from 
 Corinth to Puteoli (Philostr. Vit. Ap. vii. 
 10) ; and setting sail at evening from 
 Puteoli a vessel would arrive at Ostia on 
 the third day (ib. vii. 15, 16). The land 
 route from Puteoli to Rome was 138 
 miles and would occupy about the same 
 time as the journey by water {ib. vii. 41). 
 The route by way of Brundusium would 
 take a longer time than if the traveller
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 83 
 
 determined to a great degree by political and ethnical affinities. Thus 
 the Churches of Asia Minor were closely connected with the Churches 
 of Gaul, notwithstanding the wide intervening space, because Gaul had 
 been studded at an early date with Greek settlements from Asia Minor'. 
 In the same way the strong Roman element at Corinth attached the 
 Corinthian Church closely to the Roman. It was therefore natural 
 that at this critical juncture the Roman Christians should take a lively 
 interest in the troubles which harassed the Corinthian brotherhood. 
 For a time however they were deterred from writing by their anxieties 
 at home. At length a respite or a cessation of the persecution enabled 
 them to take the matter up. Clement writes a long letter to them, not 
 however in his own name, but on behalf of the Church which he repre- 
 sents, rebuking the offenders and counselling the restoration of the 
 ejected officers. 
 
 Clement's letter is only one of several communications which passed 
 between these two Churches in the earHest ages of Christianity, and of 
 which a record is preserved. Of four links in this epistolary chain we 
 have direct knowledge, (i) The Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans was 
 written from Corinth. It contains the earhest intimation of the Apo- 
 stle's intention to visit Rome. It comprises a far larger number of 
 salutations to and from individual Christians, than any other of his 
 epistles. (2) An interval of less than forty years separates the Epistle 
 of Clement from the Epistle of S. Paul. It is addressed from the 
 Romans to the Corinthians. For some generations it continued to be 
 read from time to time in the Corinthian Church on Sundays ^ (3) We 
 pass over another interval of seventy or eighty years; and we find Soter, 
 the Roman bishop, addressing a letter to the Corinthians. What was 
 the immediate occasion which called it forth we do not know. From 
 the language of the reply it would appear, like the earlier letter of 
 Clement, to have been written not in the name of the bishop, but of the 
 Church of Rome ^ (4) This letter of Soter called forth a reply from 
 Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, written (as we may infer from the 
 language) not long after the letter was received. In this reply he 
 associates the Corinthian Church with himself, using the first person 
 
 sailed from one of the ports on the Western ^ Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 ; 
 
 coast under favourable conditions of see below, p. 155. 
 
 weather. See for some facts bearing on ^ Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. ii. 25, 
 
 this question, Philippians p. 38, note. iv. 23, vp.et%...cvveKepkaaTe, vplv 'ido^ eari, 
 
 ^ See Contemporary Review^ August o (jLaKapios v/j-uv eTria-Koiros Zwri^p, aviyvoj- 
 
 1876, p. 406, Ignat. and Polyc. i. p. 430 /uei> vfi-Civ tt^v iTriaTo\rfii>. See above 
 
 sq. p. 72. 
 
 6—2
 
 84 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 plural 'we,' 'us'; but whether the address was in his own name or in 
 theirs or (as is most probable) in both conjointly, we cannot say. He 
 reminds the Romans of their common inheritance with the Corinthians 
 in the instruction of S. Peter and S. Paul, saying that, as both Apostles 
 had visited Corinth and preached there, so both had taught at Rome 
 and had sealed their teaching there by martyrdom'. He extols the 
 ' hereditary ' liberality of the Roman Christians, and commends the 
 fatherly care of the bishop Soter for strangers who visit the metro- 
 polis. He informs them that on that very day — being Sunday — 
 their recent epistle had been publicly read in the congregation, 
 just as it was the custom of his Church to read their earlier letter 
 written by Clement ; and he promises them that it shall be so 
 read again and again for the edification of the Corinthian brother- 
 hood'. 
 
 We have no explicit information as to the result of Clement's affec- 
 tionate remonstrances with the Corinthians. But an indirect notice 
 would lead to the hope that it had not been ineffectual. More than half 
 a century later Hegesippus visited Corinth on his way to Rome. Thus 
 he made himself acquainted with the condition of the Church at both 
 places. He mentioned the feuds at Corinth in the age of Domitian 
 and the letter written by Clement in consequence. To this he added, 
 ' And the Church of Corinth remained steadfast in the true doctrine 
 {i7reix€vev...€v rw 6p6io Xoyw) till the episcopate of Primus in Corinth^'. 
 The inference is that the Corinthian Church was restored to its integrity 
 by Clement's remonstrance, and continued true to its higher self up to 
 the time of his own visit. This inference is further confirmed by the 
 fact already mentioned, that Clement's letter was read regularly on 
 Sundays in the Church of Corinth. 
 
 This letter to the Corinthians is the only authentic incident in 
 Clement's administration of the Roman Church*. The persecution 
 ceased at the death of the tyrant. The victims of his displeasure were 
 recalled from banishment. Domitilla would return from her exile in 
 Pontia or Pandateria; and the Church would once more resume its 
 career of progress. 
 
 Clement survived only a few years, and died (it would appear) a 
 
 ^ Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. If. E. ii. 25, ■* For the acts ascribed to him in the 
 
 quoted below, p. 155. See also above, Zt7v;- /i3«/j/?(a/£r, see below, pp. 186,191. 
 
 p. 72. He is there represented as dividing the 
 
 2 Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. city into seven regions, and as collecting 
 
 ' Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22; the acts of the martyrs. 
 
 see below, p. 154.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 85 
 
 natural death. We do not hear anything of his martyrdom till about 
 three centuries after his death. Probably in the first instance the story 
 arose from a confusion with his namesake, Flavius Clemens. In its 
 complete form it runs as follows ; 
 
 The preaching of Clement was attended with brilliant successes 
 among Jews and Gentiles alike. Among other converts, whom he 
 ' charmed with the siren of his tongue,' was one Theodora, the wife of 
 Sisinnius, an intimate friend of the emperor Nerva. On one occasion 
 her husband, moved by jealousy, stealthily followed her into the church 
 where Clement was celebrating the holy mysteries. He was suddenly 
 struck blind and dumb for his impertinent curiosity. His servants 
 attempted to lead him out of the building, but all the doors were 
 miraculously closed against them. Only in answer to his wife's prayers 
 was an exit found ; and on her petition also Clement afterwards restored 
 to him both sight and speech. For this act of healing he was so far 
 from showing gratitude, that he ordered his servants to seize and bind 
 Clement, as a magician. In a phrensied state, they began binding and 
 hauling about stocks and stones, leaving ' the patriarch ' himself un- 
 scathed. Meanwhile Theodora prayed earnestly for her husband, and 
 in the midst of her prayers S. Peter appeared to her, promising his 
 conversion. Accordingly Sisinnius is converted. His devotion to the 
 patriarch from this time forward is not less marked than his hatred had 
 been heretofore. With Sisinnius were baptised not less than 423 persons 
 of high rank, courtiers of Nerva, with their wives and children. 
 
 Upon this ' the Count of the Offices,' Publius Tarquitianus, alarmed 
 at the progress of the new faith, stirs up the people against Clement. 
 Owing to the popular excitement Mamertinus, the Prefect, refers the 
 matter to Trajan, who is now emperor, and Clement is banished for life 
 ' beyond the Pontus ' to a desolate region of Cherson, where more than 
 two thousand Christians are working in the marble quarries. Many 
 devout believers follow him voluntarily into exile. There, in this parched 
 region, a fountain of sweet water is opened by Clement, and pours forth 
 in copious streams to slake the thirst of the toilers. A great impulse is 
 given to the Gospel by this miracle. Not less than seventy-five churches 
 are built ; the idol-temples are razed to the ground ; the groves are 
 burnt with fire. Trajan, hearing of these facts, sends Aufidianus, the 
 governor, to put a stop to Clement's doings. The saint is thrown into 
 the deep sea with an iron anchor about his neck, so that ' not so much 
 as a relique of him may be left for the Christians.' 
 
 These precautions are all in vain. His disciples Cornelius and
 
 86 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Phcebus pray earnestly that it may be revealed to them where the body 
 lies. Their prayer is answered. Year by year, as the anniversary of the 
 martyrdom comes round, the sea recedes more than two miles, so that the 
 resting place of the saint is visited by crowds of people dry-shod. He 
 lies beneath a stone shrine, not reared by mortal hands. At one of 
 these annual commemorations a child was left behind by his God-fearing 
 parents through inadvertence, and overwhelmed with the returning tide. 
 They went home disconsolate. The next anniversary, as the sea re- 
 tired, they hastened to the spot, not without the hope that they might 
 find some traces of the corpse of their child. They found him — not a 
 corpse, but skipping about, full of life. In answer to their enquiries, 
 he told them that the saint who lay within the shrine had been his 
 nurse and guardian. How could they do otherwise than echo the cry 
 of the Psalmist, 'God is wonderful in His saints"? 
 
 These Acts are evidently fictitious from beginning to end. The 
 mention of the ' Comes Officiorum ' alone would show that they cannot 
 have been written before the second half of the fourth century at the 
 earliest ^ It is therefore a matter of no moment, whether or not the 
 portion relating to the Chersonese was originally written for a supposed 
 namesake Clement of Cherson, and afterwards applied to our hero 
 Clement of Rome^. The story must have been translated into Latin 
 before many generations were past ; for it is well known to Gregory of 
 Tours (c. A.D. 590) and it has a place in early Gallican service books". 
 By the close of the fourth century indeed S. Clement is regarded as a 
 
 1 These Acts of Clement are sometimes (ed. W. Smith), Hodgkin Italy and her 
 
 found separately, and sometimes attached Invaders i. p. 215. He does not appear 
 
 to an Epitome of Clement's doings taken till the age of Constantine. For other 
 
 from the spurious Epistle to James and anachronisms in these Acts see Tillemont 
 
 the Homilies or Recognitions. They may Memoires II. p. 564 sq. 
 
 be conveniently read in Cotelier's Patr. ^ See Tillemont Memoires li. p. 566, 
 
 Apost. I. p. 808 sq (ed. Clericus, A.D. Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. p. xci. I cannot 
 
 1724), reprinted by Migne Patrol. Graec. find that this theory of a confusion of two 
 
 II. p. 617 sq ; or in Dressel's dementi- Clements is based on any foundation of 
 
 noriim Epitomae DuaeY>-p. 100 sq, p. 222 fact, nor is it required to explain the 
 
 sq (1859) ; or again in Funk's Patr. Apost. locality. The passages of De Rossi Bull. 
 
 II. p. 28 sq, comp. p. vii sq (1881). di Archeol. Crist. 1864, 5 sq. 1868, p. 18, 
 
 * § 164 6 irovriporaros . . .Tuiv ocfxpiKluv to which Duchesne refers, do not bear it 
 
 Ko/x-ns (p. 108, ed. Dressel). The 'comes out. 
 
 officiorum' is the same with the 'ma- ■• See the passage of Gregory given 
 
 gister officiorum'; Goihohed Cod.T/ieodos. below, p. 186; and for the Gallican ser- 
 
 VI. ii. p. 16. For his functions see Gib- vice books, Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. pp. 
 
 bon Decline and Fall c. xvii, il. p. 326 xci, 124.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 87 
 
 martyr, being so designated both by Rufinus (c. a.d. 400) and by 
 Zosimus (a.d. 417)'; and a little earlier, during the episcopate of 
 Siricius (a.d. 384-394), an inscription in his own basilica, of which only 
 fragments remain, seems to liave recorded a dedication [sancto . ] mar- 
 tyr[i . CLEMENTi], though the name has disappeared". But the attribution 
 of martyrdom w^ould probably be due, as I have already said^, to a 
 confusion with Flavius Clemens the consul. The fact of the martyrdom 
 being first accepted, the details would be filled in afterwards ; and a 
 considerable interval may well have elapsed before the story about the 
 Chersonese was written. We seem to see an explanation of the exile 
 of Clement to this distant region in a very obvious blunder. An 
 ancient writer, Bruttius, mentioned the banishment of Domitilla, the 
 wife of Flavius Clemens, who together with her husband was con- 
 demned for her religion, to 'Pontia'^ A later extant Greek chro- 
 nographer, Malalas, unacquainted with the islands of the Tyrrhene 
 sea, represents this Bruttius as stating that many Christians were 
 banished under Domitian to Pontus or to 'the Pontus' (iirl t6v Hovtov)^ ; 
 and accordingly we find Clement's place of exile and death elsewhere 
 called 'Pontus"^. In these very Acts he is related to have been 
 banished 'beyond the Pontus,' i.e. the Euxine (iripav rov Hovtov). The 
 ambiguity of vtjo-os Hovtm, 'the island Pontia,' and 'an island of 
 Pontus,' would easily lend itself to confusion. It does not therefore 
 follow that, where later writers speak of Pontus or some equivalent as 
 the scene of his banishment and martyrdom, they were already in 
 possession of the full-blown story in the Acts of Clement. Thus it is 
 impossible to say how much or how little was known to the author of 
 the Zt/?er Pontificalis, who records that Clement was martyred in the 
 3rd year of Trajan and 'buried in Greece' (sepultus est in Grecias)^ 
 The panegyric, which bears the name of Ephraim bishop of Cherson", 
 
 ^ For the passages of Rufinus and Zosi- 
 mus, see below, pp. 174, 176. 
 
 ^ See De Rossi Bull, di Archcol. Crist. 
 1870, p. 147 sq, where the reasons are 
 given for filling in the name clementi. 
 Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. p. 124 calls this 
 restoration 'a peu pres certaine.' 
 
 ^ See above, pp. 53, 56. 
 
 ■* See Euseb. H. E. iii. iS ei's vr\ijov 
 YiovTla.v, and so too CJwon. 11. p. 160, the 
 authority being Bruttius. For the passages 
 see below, p. 105 sq. 
 
 ^ Joann. Malalas, quoted below, p. 109. 
 
 " The resting place of Clement is given 
 ' Inpontu (sic), in mari,' corrupted some- 
 times into ' In portu, in mari.' See 
 Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. pp. xlvii, clvii. 
 
 '' The passages in both recensions of 
 the Liber Pontijicalis are given below, 
 pp. 186, 192. 
 
 ^ This is printed by Cotelier Pair. 
 A post. I. p. 815 sq (comp. Migne Patrol. 
 Grace. 11. p. 634). It has the heading 
 rov iv ayioLS tj/xui/ 'Ecppat'fj. dpxi-eTnaKowov 
 li.ep(ru>vos wepl rov davfj-aros k.t.X., and 
 begins Qav/xaffrbs (v. 1. EvXoyrjTbs) 6 Oeos
 
 88 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 is certainly based on the Acts of Clement, as we possess them ; but 
 except in connexion with the praises of Clement we never hear of this 
 person'. If the author of this panegyric really bore the name Ephraim, 
 he cannot have belonged to Cherson ; for he speaks of the annual 
 recession of the tide on the anniversary of Clement's death as a miracle 
 repeated on the spot in his own time^ Obviously he is a romancer, 
 living at a distance, whether measured by time or by space. The 
 Chersonese was doubtless a favourite place of banishment in the age 
 when the Acts were composed. A later pope, Martin i, died in 
 exile there (a.d. 655). 
 
 This story has a curious sequeP. Between seven and eight centuries 
 had elapsed since Clement's death. Cyril and Methodius, the evan- 
 gelists of the Slavonian people and the inventors of the Slavonian 
 alphabet', appear on the scene. The more famous of the two brothers, 
 Constantine surnamed the Philosopher, but better known by his other 
 name Cyril, which he assumed shortly before his death, was sent to 
 evangelize the Chazars. He halted in the Crimea, in order to learn the 
 language of the people among whom he was to preach. Being ac- 
 quainted with the account of Clement's martyrdom, he made diligent 
 enquiry about the incidents and the locality, but could learn nothing. 
 
 K.T.X. Another panegyric of Clement 
 bearing the name of this same Ephraim, 
 and commencing 'E^eXdovros ^iXLinrov 
 Tou dwoffToXov rijs VaXiXaias, is mentioned 
 by Allatius, but has never been published. 
 Cotelier could not find it. .See Fabric. 
 Bill/. Graec. vii. p. 21 sq, viii. p. 254 (ed. 
 Harles). 
 
 ^ \-.QC{\x\Qn,Oricns Christianus i.p. 1330, 
 says of this person, 'quo tempore Ephraem 
 ille vixerit, si tamdem aliqziando vixerit, 
 incertum est.' The words which I have 
 italicized express a misgiving which I had 
 felt independently. See also Tillemont 
 II. p. 565. 
 
 " §5 ^KTOT€ yap...ixixp'- I'V^ arffj-epov 
 •qiiipa^ eKacTifi Xpovip to davfiaarbv tovto 
 reXeWai deovpyiKm /J.eyaXotjpyrj/j.a. 
 
 •* The account of the translation of the 
 reliques is given in a document printed 
 in the Bollandist ^cL Sanct. Martii II. 
 p. *i9 sq. It is a Life of S. Cyril, though 
 largely occupied with these relitjues, and 
 
 is one of the most important authorities 
 for his history. It was taken from a MS 
 belonging to F. Duchesne. Another ac- 
 count printed likewise in the Act. Sanct. 
 ib. p. *22 from a MS belonging to the 
 monastery of Blaubeuern (?) near Ulm, is 
 obviously later and has no value. 
 
 ■* For the authorities for the history of 
 Cyril and Methodius see Potthast Bibl. 
 Histor. Med.ALvi p. 664, with Suppl. p. 
 138, Ginzel Gcschichtc der Slavenapos- 
 tcln (Vienna, 1861), and Leger Cyrille ct 
 Mcthode (Paris, 1868). This last men- 
 tioned work contains a useful account 
 of the sources of information ancient 
 and modern, as well as of the history of 
 the two brothers. It is sufficient to refer 
 those readers wlio desire to pursue the 
 point further to its references. The 
 matter with which we are concerned, the 
 translation of S. Clement's reliques, is 
 treated only cursorily by this writer.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 89 
 
 Successive invasions of barbarians had swept over the country, and 
 wiped out the memory of the event. After praying, however, he was 
 directed in a dream to go to a certain island lying off the coast. He 
 obeyed, and his obedience was rewarded. Arrived there, he and his 
 companions began digging in a mound in which they suspected that the 
 treasure lay, and soon they saw something sparkling like a star in the 
 sand. It was one of the saint's ribs. Then the skull was exhumed; 
 then the other bones, not however all lying together. Lastly, the 
 anchor was found. At the same time they were gladdened by a fra- 
 grance of surpassing sweetness. From this time forward the precious 
 reliques were Cyril's constant companions of travel in his missionary 
 journeys. After his labours were ended in these parts, he and his 
 brother were sent to convert the Moravians and Bohemians. Here 
 magnificent spiritual victories were achieved. As time went on they 
 were summoned to Rome by the reigning pontiff Nicholas i (a.d. 
 858 — 867) to give an account of their stewardship. Nicholas himself 
 died before their arrival, but his successor Adrian 11 (a.d. 867 — 872) 
 gave them an honorable welcome. Hearing that they brought with 
 them the remains of his ancient predecessor, he went forth with the 
 clergy and people in solemn procession, met them outside the walls, 
 and escorted them into the city. The bones of Clement were deposited 
 in his own basilica, his long-lost home, after an absence of nearly eiglit 
 centuries. 
 
 Cyril died in Rome, and his body was placed in a sarcophagus in 
 the Vatican. Methodius set forth to resume his missionary labours in 
 Moravia. But before departing, he requested that he might carry his 
 brother Cyril's bones back with him — this having been their mother's 
 special request, if either brother should die in a foreign land. The 
 pope consented; but an earnest remonstrance from the Roman clergy, 
 who could not patiently suffer the loss of so great a treasure, barred the 
 way. Methodius yielded to this pressure, asking however that his 
 brother's bones might be laid in the church of the blessed Clement, 
 whose reliques he had recovered. A tomb was accordingly prepared 
 for Cyril in the basilica of S. Clement, by the right of the high altar, and 
 there he was laid'. 
 
 The story of the martyrdom and its miraculous consequences is a 
 wild fiction; but this pendant, relating to the translation of the reliques, 
 seems to be in the main points true history. The narrative, which 
 
 ^ A tomb has been discovered in the The claim of this basilica to the posses- 
 subterranean basilica (see below, p.Q2sq.), sion of the tomb of Methodius rests on 
 which may have been that of S. Cyril. no historical foundation.
 
 90 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 contains the account, has every appearance of being a contemporary 
 document. Indeed there is ground for surmising that it was compiled 
 by Gaudericus bishop of Velitrae, whose cathedral is dedicated to 
 S. Clement and who was himself an eye-witness of the deposition of 
 the bones in Rome'. There is also an allusion to the event in a letter 
 written a few years later by Anastasius the Librarian (a.d. 875)^ An 
 account of the discovery and transportation of the reliques, coinciding 
 with, if not taken from, this narrative, was given by Leo bishop of Ostia, 
 who has been represented as a contemporary, but seems to have lived 
 at least a century later^ Again the internal character of the narrative 
 is altogether favourable to its authenticity. The confession that the 
 people of the place knew nothing of the martyrdom or. of the porten- 
 tous miracle recurring annually is a token of sincerity*. IMoreover 
 there is no attempt to bridge over the discrepancy as regards the 
 locality. The legend of the martyrdom spoke of a submerged tomb; 
 the account of the discovery relates that the bones were found scattered 
 about in a mound on an islands Moreover it is frankly stated that the 
 spot was chosen for digging for no better reason than that it was a likely 
 place. It was, we may suppose, a sepulchral mound on the sea-shore, 
 where bones had been accidentally turned up before. Thus, while 
 
 1 See Act. Sanct. 1. c. p. * 15, where the et templum neglectum atque destructum, 
 
 reasons for assigning this narrative to et magna pars regionis illius fere desolata 
 
 Gaudericus are given. His date is fixed et inhabitabilis reddita; acpropterea ipsa 
 
 by the fact that his name appears attached sancti martyris area cum corpora ipsius 
 
 to acts of the 8th General Council, a.d. fluctibus obruta fuerat '. 
 869. See also Leger, pp. xxxii, 106. ^ ib. 'Navigantesigitur...perveneruntad 
 
 - Anastas. Biblioth. Op. ill. p. 741 insulam in qua videlicet acstimahant 
 
 (Migne Patrol. Lat. cxxix). sancti corpus martyris esse. Eam igitur 
 
 3 Baron. Annul, ann. 867 § cxxxii, undique circumdantes...coeperunt...in a- 
 
 Act. Sanct. 1. c. p. 41. For his date see cervo illo, quotantum thesaurumquiescere 
 
 Ughelli lial. Sacr. i. p. 55 note, ed. j«j//(ra;-j dabatur, curiose satis et instan- 
 
 Coleti 1717. tissime fodere'. 
 
 * Act. Sanct. I.e. p. *2o * Ad quern prae- ' Tandem ex improviso velut clarissi- 
 
 fati omnes, utpote non indigenae sed mum quoddam sidus, donante Deo, una 
 
 diversis ex gentibus advenae, se quod de costis martyris pretiosi resplenduit 
 
 requireret omnino nescire professi sunt. ...magisque ac amplius...terram certatim 
 
 Siquidem ex longo jam tempore ob cul- eruderantibus sanctum quoque caput ipsius 
 
 pam et negligentiam incolarum miracu- consequenter apparuit...ecce post pauUu- 
 
 lum illud marini recessus, quod in historia Uim rursus quasi ex quibusdam abditis 
 
 passionis praefati pontificis celebre satis sanctarum reliquiarumparticulispaullatim 
 
 habetur, fieri destiterat, et mare fluctus et per modica intervalla omnes repertae 
 
 suos in pristinas stationes refuderat. sunt. Ad ultimum quoque ipsa etiam 
 
 Praeterea et ob multitudinem incursan- anchora' etc. 
 tium barbarorum locus ille desertus est,
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 
 
 91 
 
 there are the best possible grounds for holding that Clement's body 
 never lay in the Crimea, there is no adequate reason for doubting that 
 the Apostle of Slavonia brought som.e bones from the Crimea, and 
 deposited them in Rome, believing them to be Clement's'. 
 
 The foregoing account has brought us in contact with a historical 
 monument of the highest interest, connected with S. Clement — the 
 basilica bearing his name at Rome. Jerome, writing a.d. 392, after 
 referring to the death of Clement, adds, 'A church erected at Rome 
 preserves to this day the memory of his name,' or perhaps we should 
 translate it, 'protects to this day the memorial chapel built in his 
 nameV since 'memoria' is frequently used to denote the small oratory 
 or chapel built over the tomb or otherwise commemorative of martyrs 
 and other saints^ To the existence of this basilica in Jerome's time 
 more than one extant inscription bears witness''; and indeed his ex- 
 pression ' usque hodie ' shows that it was no recent erection when he 
 wrote. A quarter of a century after this date it is mentioned by 
 
 ^ This incident seems to have left only a 
 confused tradition in the country itself. 
 When in the year 1058 Henry i of 
 France sent Roger bishop of Chalons as 
 ambassador to Jaroslav, one of the dukes 
 of Kiov, the predecessors of the Czars of 
 Russia, to claim the duke's daughter as 
 his bride, enquiry was expressly made by 
 the bishop (who by the way must have 
 been ignorant of Cyril's doings) whe- 
 ther Clement's body still lay in Cherson, 
 and whether the sea still parted asunder 
 annually on his ' birthday.' The reply 
 was that pope Julius [a.d. 337 — 352J had 
 visited those regions to put down heresy ; 
 that, as he was departing, he was admo- 
 nished by an angel to return and remove 
 the body of Clement ; that he hesitated 
 because the parting of the sea only took 
 place on the day of the martyrdom ; that 
 the angel assured him the miracle would 
 be wrought specially for his benefit ; that 
 accordingly he went to the place dry- 
 shod, brought the body to the shore, 
 and built a church there; and that he 
 carried a portion of the reliques (de 
 corpora ejus reliquias) to Rome. It is 
 added that on the very day wlien the 
 
 Roman people received the reliques, the 
 ground on which the tomb stood rose 
 above the surface of the sea and became 
 an island, and that the people of the 
 place erected a basilica there. The duke 
 moreover told the bishop that he himself 
 had once visited this place and had carried 
 away the heads of S. Clement and S. 
 Phoebus his disciple and had deposited 
 them in the city of Kiov, where he 
 showed them to the bishop. 
 
 This story is given in a marginal note 
 of a S. Omer MS, quoted Act. Boll. I.e. p. 
 *i4 sq. The visit of Pope Julius to these 
 parts is mythical. 
 
 * Ilieron. Vii-. Illustr. 15 ' nominis 
 ejus memoriam usque hodie Romae ex- 
 structa ecclesia custodit'. 
 
 ■* See the numerous examples in Du- 
 cange Gloss. Med. et Injivi. Latin, s. v. 
 'memoria'; comp. also De Rossi Rom. 
 Sottcrr. III. p. 455. This sense is given 
 to 'memoria' in the passage of Jerome 
 by De Rossi Ihill. di Archeol. Crist. 
 1870, p. 149 sq. 
 
 * De Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 
 1863, p. 25, 1S70, p. 147 sq; see Du- 
 chesne 1. c. p. 21.
 
 92 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Pope Zosimus, who held a court here (a.d. 417) to consider the case 
 of Caelestius the Pelagian'. Some generations later we find Gregory 
 the Great delivering more than one of his homilies in this building^ 
 And in the succeeding centuries it occupies a position of prominence 
 among the ecclesiastical buildings of Rome. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the existing basiUca of San Clemente, 
 situated in the dip between the Esquiline and Cselian hills, marks 
 the locality to which S. Jerome refers. Until quite recently indeed 
 it was supposed to be essentially the same church, subject to such 
 changes of repair and rebuilding as the vicissitudes of time and circum- 
 stance had required. It preserves the features of the ancient basilica 
 more completely than any other church in Rome; and the archaic 
 character na^turally favoured the idea of its great antiquity. The dis- 
 coveries of recent years have corrected this error^ 
 
 The excavations have revealed three distinct levels, one below the 
 other. The floor of the existing basilica is nearly even with the 
 surrounding soil, the church itself being above ground. Beneath this is 
 an earlier basilica, of which the columns are still standing and help to 
 support the upper building. It is altogether below the surface, but was 
 at one time above ground, as the existing basilica now is. Thus it was 
 not a crypt or subterranean storey to the present church, nor was it 
 used simultaneously; but was an integral building in itself, disused at 
 some distant epoch and filled up so as to support the present church 
 when erected. Under this earlier basilica is a third and still lower 
 storey. This is occupied partly by solid masonry of tufa, belonging to 
 
 ^ See the passage quoted below, p. 176. 32; 1867, p. 35; 1870, pp. 125, 130 
 
 ^ Greg. Magn. Horn, in Evang. ii. 33, sq. The last article more especially gives 
 
 38. a complete survey of these discoveries. 
 
 ^ These excavations were carried on by See also a description with plates by 
 
 the zeal and energy of J. Mullooly, the Th. Roller, Saint Clement de Rome, 
 
 Irish prior of the monastery of San Cle- Description de la Basilique Souterraine 
 
 mente, who published an account of the recetnment decouvcrte (Paris, 1873), ^^^ 
 
 discoveries in a work entitled Saint Cle- for the decorations Parker's Archceology of 
 
 ment Pope and Martyr and his Basilica Rome, XI. p. 58 sq. English readers will 
 
 in Rome (Rome, 1869). The book is fmd a useful and succinct account with 
 
 provokingly uncritical. The subject how- plans in the later editions of Murray's 
 
 ever has been discussed in a series of Handbook for Rome. When I was last 
 
 notices and articles by the great master of in Rome (1885), the lowest storey was 
 
 Christian archeology in Rome, De Rossi, flooded and inaccessible. For the early 
 
 who has brought his great knowledge notices of this basilica see Duchesne AWt'j 
 
 and penetration to bear on the subject ; stir la Topographie de Rome au Aloyen- 
 
 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1863, pp. 8 sq, 25 Age^. 21 (Rome, 1887), extracted from 
 
 sq; 1864, pp. I sq, 39 sq; 1865, PP- -3> Melanges d' Archeologie et d" Histoire VII.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 93 
 
 the regal or republican period, and partly by certain chambers of the 
 imperial age, of which I shall have to speak presently. 
 
 The history of the two upper storeys — the disused and the existing 
 basilicas — can be satisfactorily explained. The lower of these, the 
 now subterranean church, belongs to the Constantinian age. It is 
 the same church of which Jerome speaks, though renovated from time 
 to time. On its walls are frescoes representing (among other subjects) 
 the martyrdom and miracles of S. Clement, as related in his Acts. 
 These however are much later than the building itself. They are 
 stated in the accompanying inscriptions to have been given by beno 
 DE RAPiZA and his wife. But surnames were not used till the tenth 
 century, and even then only sparingly; and this particular surname 
 first makes its appearance in Rome in the eleventh century. More- 
 over there is in this lower church a sepulchral inscription bearing the 
 date A.D. 1059'. The lower basilica therefore must have been still 
 used at this comparatively late date. On the other hand the upper 
 church contains an inscription, misread and misinterpreted until re- 
 cently, which ascribes the erection of the new basilica to Anastasius 
 the Cardinal presbyter of the church, whom we know to have been 
 aUve as late as a.d. 1125-. Between these two dates therefore the 
 change must have taken place. What had happened meanwhile to 
 cause the substitution of the new building for the old ? 
 
 In A.D. 1084 Rome was stormed and set on fire by Robert 
 Guiscard. ' Neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek nor German, 
 brought such desolation on the city as this capture by the Normans"*. 
 From the Lateran to the Capitol the city was one mass of smoking 
 ruins. This was the beginning of that general migration which trans- 
 ferred the bulk of the people from the older and now desolate parts 
 of Rome to the Campus Martius. The level of the ground in the 
 dips of the hills was heaped up with the debris; and thus the old 
 basilica was half buried beneath the soil. 
 
 Hence, phoenix like, this new basilica rose out of the bosom ot the 
 old. But not only was the general character of the old building re- 
 tained in the new — the narthex, the semicircular apse, the arrangement 
 of the choir and presbytery\ A large portion of the furniture also was 
 
 1 Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1870, p. 138 ; '' The lines of the upper church are not 
 
 comp. MuUooly, p. 220. traced exactly on the lines of the lower, 
 
 - Bull, di Archeol. Ci-ist. 1870, pp. 138, the dimensions of the lower being some- 
 
 141 sq. what greater. This may be seen from 
 
 3 Milman's Latin Christianity in. p. the plans given in the works mentioned 
 
 100. ' al)ove, p. 92, note 3.
 
 94 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 transferred thither — the candelabrum, the ambones, the pierced stone 
 fences or transennae. Carved slabs have had their sculptures or their 
 mouldings hewn away to shape them for their new surroundings. In- 
 scriptions from the previous edifice are found in strange incongruous 
 places. One such describes the dedication of an altar during the 
 papacy of Hormisdas (a.d. 514 — 523) by mercvrivs presbyter, who 
 himself afterwards succeeded Hormisdas as Pope John 11'. 
 
 The history of the third and lowest storey, beneath the old Con- 
 stantinian basiHca, is not so easy to decipher. Of the very ancient 
 masonry belonging to regal or republican periods I say nothing, for 
 without further excavations all conjecture is futile. A flight of steps 
 near the high altar led down to some chambers of the imperial times. 
 One of these is immediately below the altar, and this De Rossi sup- 
 poses to have been the original ' memoria ' of Clement. Extending 
 to the west of it and therefore beyond the apse of the superposed 
 basilica is a long vaulted chamber, which has evidently been used for 
 the celebration of the rites of Mithras. It is De Rossi's hypothesis 
 that this chapel originally belonged to the house of Clement and was 
 therefore Christian property; that it was confiscated and devoted to 
 these Mithraic rites in the second or third century, when they became 
 fashionable ; that so it remained till the close of the last persecution ; 
 and that at length it was restored to the Christians with the general 
 restoration of Church property under Constantine, at which time also 
 the first basilica was built over the 'memoria' of the saint. 
 
 On these points it is well to suspend judgment. The relation of the 
 Mithraic chapel to the house of Clement more especially needs con- 
 firmation. It remains still only a guess ; but it is entitled to the con- 
 sideration due even to the guesses of one who has shown a singular 
 power of divination in questions of archaeology. For the rest I would 
 venture on a suggestion. The basihca would most probably be built 
 over some place which in early times was consecrated to Christian 
 worship, whether an oratory or a tomb bearing the name of Clement. 
 But was it not the house, or part of the house, not of Clement the 
 bishop, but of Flavius Clemens and Domitilla? Whether the two 
 Clements, the consul and the bishop, stood to each other in the re- 
 lation of patron and client, as I have supposed, or not, it is not 
 unnatural that the Christian congregation in this quarter of the city 
 should have met under Clement the bishop in the house of Clement 
 the consul, either during the lifetime or after the death of the latter, 
 
 1 Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1870, \i. 143 sq.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 95 
 
 seeing that his wife or widow Domitilla bore a distinguished part in the 
 early Roman Church. If so, we have an account of the confusion 
 which transferred the martyrdom of Clement the consul to Clement 
 the bishop. We have likewise an explanation of the tradition that 
 Flavius Clemens lies buried in this same basilica, which is called after 
 his namesake and is said to cover his namesake's bones. A dedi- 
 cation of a portion of a private house to purposes of Christian worship 
 was at least not uncommon in early Christian times. In the Flavian 
 family it might claim a precedent even in heathen devotion. The 
 emperor Domitian, the head of the clan, converted the house in which 
 he was born into a temple of the Flavian race ; and after his 
 tragical death his own ashes were laid there by a faithful nurse'. 
 
 A truer and nobler monument of the man, even than these archi- 
 tectural remains, is his extant letter to the Corinthians. This docu- 
 ment will be considered from other aspects at a later stage. We are 
 only concerned with it here, in so far as it throws light on his character 
 and position in the history of the Church. From this point of view, 
 we may single out three characteristics, its comprehensiveness, its 
 sense of order, and its moderation. 
 
 (i) The cotnprehensiveness is tested by the range of the Apostolic 
 writings, with which the author is conversant and of which he makes 
 use. Mention has already been made (p. 9) of his co-ordinating the 
 two Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul (§ 5) in distinction to the Ebionism of 
 a later age, which placed them in direct antagonism, and to the fac- 
 tiousness of certain persons even in the apostolic times, which per- 
 verted their names into party watchwords notwithstanding their own 
 protests. This mention is the fit prelude to the use made of their 
 writings in the body of the letter. The influence of S. Peter's First 
 Epistle may be traced in more than one passage ; while expressions 
 scattered up and down Clement's letter recall the language of several of 
 S. Paul's epistles belonging to different epochs and representing 
 different types in his literary career ^ Nor is the comprehensiveness 
 of Clement's letter restricted to a recognition of these two leading 
 Apostles. It is so largely interspersed with thoughts and expressions 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews, that many ancient writers attributed 
 this Canonical epistle to Clement. Again, the writer shows himself 
 
 ^ Sueton. Domit. i ' Domitianus natus ''■ For the justification of the state- 
 
 est...domo quamposteain templum gentis ments in this paragraph see the passages 
 
 Flaviae convertit ' (comp. ib. 5, 15); ib. in Lardner IVorks 11. p. 40 sq, or the 
 
 17 'Phyllis nutrix...reliquias templo Fla- index of Biblical passages at the end of 
 
 viae gentis clam intulit.' this volume.
 
 96 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 conversant with the type of doctrine and modes of expression charac- 
 teristic of the Epistle of S. James. Just as he coordinates the authority 
 of S. Peter and S. Paul, as leaders of the Church, so in like manner he 
 combines the teaching of S. Paul and S. James on the great doctrines 
 of salvation". The same examples of Abraham and of Rahab, which 
 suggested to the one Apostle the necessity of faith, as the principle, 
 suggested to the other the presence of works, as the indispensable con- 
 dition, of acceptance. The teaching of the two Apostles, which is thus 
 verbally, though not essentially, antagonistic, is 'coincidently affirmed'" 
 by Clement. It was ' by reason of faith and hospitahty' (8ia ■k'kttiv 
 Kut cfiiXo^evLai') that both the one and the other found favour with God. 
 'Wherefore,' he asks elsewhere (§31), 'was our father Abraham blessed? 
 was it not because he wrought righteousness {8LKatoavv7]v) and truth by 
 faith (8ta Trco-rews)?' With the same comprehensiveness of view (§§ 32, ^;^) 
 he directly states in one paragraph the doctrine of S. Paul, ' Being 
 called by His will (Sta ^t/YTy'/xaros avrov) in Christ Jesus, we are not 
 justified by ourselves (ov 81' eavrcGi/ SLKaLov/xeOa) nor by... works which 
 we wrought in holiness of heart but by our faith (Std t^s Trto-Tcw?) ' ; while 
 in the next he affirms the main contention of S. James, 'We have seen 
 that all the righteous (Travres ol StKaiot) have been adorned with good 
 works,' following up this statement with the injunction ' Let us work the 
 work of righteousness (justification) with all our strength' (i$ o'A?;? 
 la-)(yo<; y/xwu ifjyacrwfji^Oa epyov SiKaLoavvrj^). We have thus a full re- 
 cognition of four oat of the five types of Apostolic teaching, which 
 confront us in the Canonical writings. If the fifth, of which S. John 
 is the exponent, is not clearly affirmed in Clement's letter, the reason is 
 that the Gospel and Epistles of this Apostle had not yet been written, 
 or if written had not been circulated beyond his own immediate band 
 of personal disciples. 
 
 (ii) The sense of order is not less prominent as a characteristic of 
 this epistle. Its motive and purpose was the maintenance of harmony. 
 A great breach of discipline had been committed in the Corinthian 
 Church, and the letter was written to restore this disorganized and 
 factious community to peace. It was not unnatural that under these 
 circumstances the writer should refer to the Mosaic dispensation 
 as enforcing this principle of order by its careful regulations respecting 
 persons, places, and seasons. It creates no surprise when we see him 
 
 1 See especially Westcott History of cause and the instrument^ as expressed by 
 
 the Canon p. 25. 5ta with the accusative and genitive re- 
 
 ^ Westcott, 1. c. He also calls atten- spectively in these passages of Clement, 
 tion to the distinctions hetwcen the final
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 97 
 
 going beyond this and seeking illustrations likewise in the civil govern- 
 ment and military organization of his age and country. But we should 
 hardly expect to find him insisting with such emphasis on this principle 
 as dominating the course of nature. Nowhere is ' the reign of law ' 
 more strenuously asserted. The succession of day and night, the 
 sequence of the seasons, the growth of plants, the ebb and flow of the 
 tides, all tell the same tale. The kingdom of nature preaches har- 
 mony, as well as the kingdom of grace. ' Hitherto shalt thou come, 
 and no further ' is only a physical type of a moral obligation. We may 
 smile, as we read the unquestioning simplicity which accepts the story 
 of the phoenix and uses it as an illustration ; but we are apt to forget 
 that among his most cultivated heathen contemporaries many accepted 
 it as true and others left it an open question'. With this aspect of 
 the matter however we are not at present concerned. The point to be 
 observed here is that it is adduced as an illustration of natural law. It 
 was not a miracle in our sense of the term, as an interruption of the 
 course of nature. It was a regularly recurrent phenomenon. The time, 
 the place, the manner, all were prescribed. 
 
 (iii) The third characteristic of the writer is moderaiio/i, the sobriety 
 of temper and reasonableness of conduct, which is expressed by 
 the word iTrutKcia. This was the practical outcome of the other two. 
 One who takes a comprehensive view of all the elements in the problem 
 before him, and is moreover pervaded by a sense of the principle of 
 harmony and order, cannot well be extravagant or impulsive or fanatical. 
 He may be zealous, but his zeal will burn with a steady glow. This is 
 not a quality which we should predicate of Ignatius or even of Poly- 
 carp, but it is eminently characteristic of Clement". The words 
 eVteiKT^'s, €7rtet/<eia, occur many times in his epistle^ In two several 
 passages the substantive is qualified by a striking epithet, which seems 
 to be its contradiction, cKTevys cVtei/ccta, 'intense moderation' \ The 
 verbal paradox describes his own character. This gentleness and equa- 
 bility, this 'sweet reasonableness,' was a passion with him. 
 
 The importance of the position which he occupied in the Church in 
 his own age will have been sufficiently evident from this investigation. 
 The theory of some modern writers that the Roman Christians had 
 hitherto formed two separate organizations, a Tetrine and a Pauline, 
 and that they were united for the first time under his direction, cannot 
 be maintained^ ; but it probably represents in an exaggerated form the 
 
 ^ See the notes on the passage, § 25. * §§ 58, 62 nera f.Krevovi tViet/ceias. 
 
 2 See Ignat. and Polyc. I. p. i sq. ^ y^g above, p. 67 sti- 
 
 ' See the notes on §§ i, 56, 58. 
 
 CLEM. • 7
 
 98 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 actual condition of this church. Not separate organizations, but 
 divergent tendencies and parties within the same organization — this 
 would be the truer description. Under such circumstances Clement 
 was the man to deal with the emergency. At home and abroad, by 
 letter and in action, in his doctrinal teaching and in his official re- 
 lations, his work was to combine, to harmonize, and to reconcile. 
 
 The posthumous fame of Clement presents many Interesting features 
 for study. Notwithstanding his position as a ruler and his prominence 
 as a writer, his personality was shrouded in the West by a veil of un- 
 merited neglect. His genuine epistle was never translated into the Latin 
 language ; and hence it became a dead letter to the church over which 
 he presided, when that church ceased to speak Greek and adopted the 
 vernacular tongue. His personal history was forgotten— so entirely 
 forgotten, that his own church was content to supply its place with a 
 fictitious story imported from the far East. Even his order in the 
 episcopate was obscured and confused, though that episcopate was the 
 most renowned and powerful in the world. Meanwhile however his 
 basilica kept his fame alive in Rome itself, giving its name to one of 
 the seven ecclesiastical divisions of the city and furnishing his title to 
 one of the chief members of the College of Cardinals. His personal 
 name too was adopted by not a few of his successors in the papacy, 
 but nearly a whole millennium passed before another Clement mounted 
 the papal throne — the first pope (it is said) who was consecrated out- 
 side of Rome ; and he only occupied it for a few brief months'. This 
 second Clement was the 147th pope, and reigned on the eve of the 
 Norman invasion. Yet in this interval there had been many Johns, 
 many Stephens, many Benedicts and Gregories and Leos. Elsewhere 
 than in Rome his name appears not unfrequently in the dedications of 
 churches ; and in Bohemia more especially the connexion of his sup- 
 posed reliques with Cyril the evangelist of those regions invested him 
 with exceptional popularity at an early date". 
 
 Meanwhile a place was given to him in the commemorations of the 
 Roman Sacramentaries, where after the Apostles are mentioned ' Linus, 
 Cletus, Clemens, Xystus, Cornelius, Cyprianus,' etc."'', the correct tra- 
 ditional order of the early Roman bishops being thus preserved not- 
 withstanding the confusions of the Liberian Catalogue. At what date 
 this commemoration was introduced we cannot say; but it is found 
 
 1 Clement 11 was pope from 25 Dec. comp. p. loi. 
 A.D. 1046 to 9 Oct. A.D. 1047. ^ See Muratori Lit. Rom. i. p. 696, 11. 
 
 - See Leger Cyrille ct MithoJe p. 132 ; pp. 3, 693, 777.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. - 99 
 
 in the earliest of these Sacramentaries. His day is recorded in Western 
 Calendars also with exceptional unanimity on ix Kal. Dec. (Nov. 23). 
 It does not indeed appear in the Liberian list, for the Clement com- 
 memorated there on v Id. Nov. (Nov. 9) must be a different person, 
 unless it be altogether an error. But the martyrdom of Clement was 
 probably not yet known ; and martyrs alone have a place in this list. 
 This however is the one exception among the earlier Western martyr- 
 ologies. In the eariy Carthaginian Calendar' and in the Old Roman 
 and Hieronymian Martyrologies, Nov. 23 is duly assigned to him. In 
 the last-mentioned document we have a double entry 
 
 xi Kal. Dec. [Nov. 21] Romae, natalis S. Clementis Confessoris, 
 
 ix Kal. Dec. [Nov. 23] Romae. ..natalis S. Clementis Episcopi et Martyris, 
 
 but such duplications abound in this document. The later Western 
 calendars and martyrologies follow the earlier. In the early Syriac 
 Martyrology his name is not found at all. In the Greek books his 
 festival undergoes a slight displacement, as frequently happens, and 
 appears as Nov. 24 or Nov. 25, the former being the day assigned to 
 him in the Menaea. In the Coptic Calendar it is Hathor 29, corre- 
 sponding to Nov. 25^, and in the Armenian the day seems to be Nov. 26. 
 All these are evidently derived mediately or immediately from the 
 Roman day. At what date and for what reason this day, Nov. 23, 
 was adopted, Ave have no means of ascertaining. 
 
 But while the neglect of the West robbed him of the honour which 
 was his due, the East by way of compensation invested him with a 
 renown — a questionable renown — to which he had no claim. His 
 genuine letter was written in Greek and addressed to a Greek city, 
 though a Roman colony. Its chief circulation therefore was among 
 Greek-speaking peoples, not in Greece only, or in Asia Minor, but 
 in Syria and the farther East. It dated from the confines of the 
 apostolic age. It was issued from the metropolis of the world. It 
 was the most elaborate composition of its kind which appeared in 
 these primitive times. Hence we may account for the attribution to 
 Clement of not a few fictitious or anonymous writings which stood in 
 need of a sponsor. 
 
 ^ The date given in this Calendar is... - See Malan's Calendar of the Coptic 
 
 Kal. Dec, the number having disap- Church p. 13; comp. Wiistenfeld's ..S)'«- 
 
 peared; but, as the next entry is S. axariitiii. d. Coptischcn Christen p. 144 
 
 Chrysogonus, whose day was Nov. 24 sq (translated from the Arabic), where 
 
 (viii Kal. Dec), there can be no doubt the story of the martyrdom and miracles 
 
 that the missing number is ix. is given from the Acts. 
 
 7—2
 
 lOO EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (i) The earliest of these hterary ventures was singularly bold. 
 A writer living about the middle of the second century wanted a hero 
 for a religious romance, and no more imposing name than Clement's 
 could suggest itself for his purpose. So arose the Clementine fiction, 
 having for its ])lot the hero's journeys in search of his parents, which 
 brought him in contact with S. Peter. The story was only the peg on 
 which the doctrinal and practical lessons were hung. The writer had 
 certain Ebionite views which he wished to enforce ; and he rightly 
 judged that they would attract more attention if presented in the 
 seductive form of a novel'. The work is not extant in its original 
 form ; but we possess two separate early recensions — the Homilies and 
 the Recognitions — both Ebionite, though representing different types 
 of Ebionism. As he and his immediate readers were far removed from 
 the scene of Clement's actual life, he could invent persons and inci- 
 dents with all the greater freedom. Hence this Clementine story is the 
 last place where we should look for any trustworthy information as 
 regards either the life or the doctrine of Clement. 
 
 (ii) Not improbably this early forgery suggested a similar use of 
 Clement's name to later writers. The device which served one extreme 
 might be employed with equal success to promote the other. The true 
 Clement was equally removed from both. The author of the Clementine 
 romance had laid stress on the importance of early marriage in all cases. 
 It occurred to another writer, who was bent on exalting virginity at the 
 expense of marriage, to recommend his views by an appeal to the same 
 great authority. The Epistles to Virgins, written in Clement's name, 
 are extant only in Syriac, and contain no certain indications which 
 enable us to assign a date to them with confidence. Perhaps we shall 
 not be far Avrong if we ascribe them to the first half of the third 
 century. They must certainly be younger than the Clementine romance, 
 of which I have spoken already; and they are probably older than the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, of which I am now about to speak. 
 
 (iii) In the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles are represented as 
 communicating to Clement their ordinances and directions for the 
 future administration of the Church. The Apostles describe him as 
 their ' fellow minister,' their ' most faithful and like-minded child in the 
 Lord' (vi. 1 8. 5). Rules are given relating to manners and discipline, 
 to the various Church officers, their qualifications and duties, to the 
 conduct to be observed towards the heathen and towards heretics, to 
 the times of fasting and of festival, to the eucharist, and other matters 
 affecting the worship of the Church. Clement is the mouthpiece of 
 ' The slory is given above, p. 14 sq ; see also pp. 55 sq, 64, 68.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 1 01 
 
 the Apostles to succeeding generations of Christians, As a rule, he 
 is mentioned in the third person (vi. 8. 3, vi. 18. 5, vii. 46. i,viii. 10, 2); 
 while the Apostles themselves, notably S. Peter, speak in the first. But 
 in one place (vii. 46. 7) he comes forward in his own person, ' I 
 Clement.' The Apostolical Canons may be regarded as a corollary to 
 the Constitutions. At least they proceed on the same lines, though 
 they were compiled many generations later. Here towards the close of 
 the list of Canonical Scriptures, the professed author thus describes the 
 work to which these Canons are appended ; ' The ordinances ad- 
 dressed to you the bishops in eight books by the hand of me Clement 
 (St' e,aoi; KX7f//,evTos), which ye ought not to publish before all men by 
 reason of the mysteries contained therein (Std ra eV auVoi? [xxcniKa).^ 
 
 (iv) Three distinct groups of spurious writings attributed to 
 Clement have been described. But these do not nearly exhaust the 
 literary productions with which he has been credited. There is the 
 so-called Second Episfh to tlie Co7'ini/iians, not certainly an epistle nor 
 written by Clement, but a homily dating perhaps half a century after his 
 time. Unlike the works already enumerated, this is not a fictitious 
 writing. It does not pretend to be anything but what it is, and its 
 early attribution to Clement seems to be due to an accidental error. It 
 will be considered more fully in its proper place. 
 
 (v) This enumeration would be incomplete, if we failed to mention 
 the Canonical writings attributed to Clement. The anonymous Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, its parentage being unknov/n, was not unnaturally 
 fathered upon Clement. This attribution was earlier than the time of 
 Origen, who mentions it', and may therefore have been maintained by 
 Clement of Alexandria or even by Pantcenus. It is due to the fact that 
 the Roman Clement shows familiarity with this Canonical epistle and 
 borrows from it. But it does not deserve serious consideration. The 
 differences between the two writings are far greater than the re- 
 semblances. More especially do we miss in the Roman Clement, 
 except where he is quoting from it, the Alexandrian type of thought 
 and expression which is eminently characteristic of this Canonical 
 epistle. The part of Clement however is otherwise stated by Eusebius. 
 He mentions the fact that certain persons regard him as the translator 
 of this epistle, the author being S. Paul himself". This view again 
 
 ^ Quoted in Euseb. H. E. vi. 25 ; see 18S), wlio seems to ascribe this opinion to 
 below, p. 161 sq. Origen describes tliis Clement of Alexandria, though the pas- 
 opinion as r\ th ^/^aj (pddcraaa IffTopia vir6 sage is confused. 
 
 Tixwi/ XeyovTuv k.t.X, See the statement ^ //. E. iii. 37, quoted below, p. 166. 
 
 of Stephanus Gobarus (quoted below, p. Eusebius himself speaks favoralily of this
 
 I02 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 need not detain us. There is every reason to believe that the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews was written originally in Greek and not written by 
 S. Paul. But whether Clement be regarded as author or as translator, 
 we must take this attribution, however early, not as a historical tra- 
 dition, but as a critical inference. When a later Avriter, Photius, 
 says tliat Clement was supposed by some to have been the author 
 of the Ads of t/ie Apostles, the form of his statement leads me to 
 suspect that he is guilty of some confusion with the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews'. 
 
 (vi) All the writings hitherto mentioned as falsely ascribed to 
 Clement were written in the Greek language and apparently in the 
 East. But besides these there were other Western fabrications of which 
 I shall have to speak again at a later point. It is sufficient to say here 
 that the ' Letter to James ' which is prefixed to the Clementine Homilies 
 was translated into Latin by Rufinus; that somewhat later a second 
 letter was forged as a companion to it; that they were subsequently 
 amplified and three others added to them ; and that these five Latin 
 letters thus ascribed to Clement formed the basis of the collection of 
 spurious papal documents known as the False Decretals, the most por- 
 tentous of medieval forgeries — portentous alike in their character and 
 their results. Thus the Clementine romance of the second century was 
 the direct progenitor of the forged Papal Letters of the ninth — a mon- 
 strous parent of a monstrous brood ^ 
 
 If then we seek to describe in few words the place which tradition, 
 as interpreted by the various forgeries written in his name, assigns to 
 
 opinion. Jerome {de Vir. III. is) appro- p. 196) makes him the author of a story 
 
 priates the judgment of Eusebius (' mihi relating to Abraham. These ascriptions 
 
 videtur') without acknowledgment. may have been mere blunders. It is 
 
 1 Amphiloch. \ii\ see below, p. 128. certainly a blunder, when S. Thomas 
 
 The three persons, whom he mentions as Aquinas in the thirteenth century speaks 
 
 the authors of the Acts according to of some Antenicene writers as having 
 
 different authorities, Clement, Barnabas, attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to 
 
 and Luke, are the same to whom the Clement the Pope, because 'ipse scripsit 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews was actually as- Athmiensibus quasi per omnia secun- 
 
 signed by various ancient writers. dum stilum istum ' {Prol. ad Hebr!), 
 
 - Besides these well-known Clementine though the statement is repeated by 
 
 writings, he is credited with others by Nicolas of Lyra (t 1340) de Libr. Bibl. 
 
 isolated writers. Thus Theodoras the Caw. (see the passages in Credner's ^m/. 
 
 Studite (see below, p. 195) ascribes to in das N'. T. pp. 511, 512). This mis- 
 
 him a narrative of the Apostles watching take shows how little was known of 
 
 at the tomb of the Virgin, similar to that Clement's genuine Epistle even by the 
 
 which is found in the Pseudo-Melito. ablest and most learned medieval writers 
 
 Again Georgius Hamartolus (see below, in the West.
 
 CLEMENT THE DOCTOR. 103 
 
 Clement, we may say that he was regarded as the tnierpreter of the Apo- 
 stolic teacJiing and the codifier of the Apostolic ofdi?iajices. 
 
 In dealing with Ignatius and Polycarp I sought for some one term, 
 which might express the leading conception of either, entertained by 
 his own and immediately succeeding ages. I was thus led to describe 
 Ignatius as 'the Martyr' and Polycarp as 'the Elder.' It is not so 
 easy to find a corresponding designation for Clement. The previous 
 examination will have shown that the traditional Clement is in this 
 respect an exaggeration of the historical Clement, but the picture is 
 drawn on the same lines. The one digests and codifies the spurious 
 apostolic doctrine and ordinances, as the other combines, and co-ordi- 
 aates their true teaching. Again, the practical side of his character and 
 work, as we have seen, corresponds to the doctrinal. From this point 
 of view he may be regarded as the moderator between diverse parties 
 and tendencies in the Church. In both respects he is a harmonizer. 
 Yet the term is hardly suitable for my purpose, as it unduly restricts the 
 scope of his position. But he stands out as the earUest of a long line 
 of worthies who, having no authority in themselves to originate, have 
 been recognized as interpreters of the Apostolic precepts ' once de- 
 livered,' and whom it is customary to call the ' doctors' of the Church. 
 By right of priority therefore Clement is essentially ' the Doctor,'
 
 IC4 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Notices of the Persecution iiiider Domitian 
 
 and of the 
 
 Family of Flavins Clemens. 
 
 Dion Cassius Hist. Ixvi/. 14. 
 
 Kai^ TO) avrw eret aXXoug re TToWovi kol tov ^Xaoviov 
 KXyjlxevra virarcTjovTa, Kcinrep dve\\)iov ovTa koI yvvaiKa koX 
 avTrjv cTvyyeirq iavTov ^Xaovcau Ao/xtrtWai^ e^ovra, /care- 
 (npagev o Ao/xtrtaj'd?. eTTrjviy^Ot') Se diJLcf)olv eyKXrjjxa ddeo- 
 TrjTO's, v(f) ■))? Kol aXXoL €9 TO, Twv 'lovSatojj/ e^T^ i^oKdXXovTe<; 
 TToXXol KaTeoLKaaOrjcrav, kol ol fxeu diriOavov, 01 Se roiv yovu 
 ovcriojv icTTepyjOrjcrav' t] he Ao/xtriXXa VTrepajpCadr) ixovou e? 
 UaPOUTeptav. tov Se St) VXa^pioiva tov [xeTO, tov Tpa'iavov 
 apgavTa, KaTrjyoprjdevTa to. re dXXa koL ola ol rroXXol kol 
 OTL /cat OrjpioL'^ ijxd^^eTO, diriKTeivev. icj) co ttov kol tu fid- 
 XiaTa opyrjv avTot vtto (f)96vov e<j)(ev, otl vnaTevovTa avTov 
 es TO AXySa^^o^" eVt ra veavLcrKevixaTa (Lvoixacrp-iva KoXecras 
 XeovTa arroKTeivai jxcyav rjvdyKaore, kol os ov (jlovov ovSev 
 eXvfxavOr] dXXa Koi eOcTO^ajrara avTOV KaTetpydcTaTo. 
 
 For the bearing of this passage see the investigations, pp. 33 sq, 81 sq, ahovc. 
 
 Mki.ito A/>ol. ad j]/. Aiitonin. (Euseb. IT. E. iv. 26). 
 
 Moj/ot TrdvTcov dvarreicrOivTe^ vtto tlvcjv fiaaKdvcjv dv- 
 dpajTTOJV TOV KaO^ njjxd^ iv Sia/3oXrj KciTacrTrjarai Xoyov rjdi- 
 Xyjaav Nepojv /cat Ao/xeTtaw?* a(/) wv /cat to tt^s crv/coc^ai^Tta? 
 dXoyco (Twqdeia uepX tovs tolovtov^ pvrjvaL crvjJil3ei3r)Ke 
 i//ev8o5. otXXa ttjv iKeuvcov dyvoiav 01 croX evcre/BeLq TrareyDe? 
 eTTrjvcopOojaavTO, TroXXa/ct? TroXXots eTnTrXrj^o.vTe'i iyypd(f)(os, 
 oaroL irepl tovtcjv vecoTepicraL iToXfxrjaav.
 
 PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN. 105 
 
 J- 
 Tertullianus A/>c>/. 5. 
 
 Temptaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate; sed qua 
 et homo, facile coeptum repressit, restitutis etiam quos relegaverat. 
 
 Again elsewhere, ci'e Pall. 4, he uses the expression ' Subneronem,' apparently 
 referring to Domitian. See above, p. 8r, note 4. 
 
 Lactantius de Mart. Perscc. 3. 
 
 Post hunc [Neronem], interjectis aliquot annis, alter non minor 
 tyrannus ortus est; qui cum exerceret injustam dominationem, subjec- 
 torum tamen cervicibus incubavit quam diutissime, tutusque regnavit, 
 donee impias manus adversus Dominum tenderet. Postquam vero ad 
 persequendum justum populum instinctu daemonum incitatus est, tunc 
 traditus in manus inimicorum luit poenas. 
 
 5. 
 
 EusEFius Chronicon 11. p. 160, ed. Schune. 
 
 Dometianus stirpem Davidis interfici praecepit, ne quis successor 
 regni Judaeorum maneret. Refert autem Brettius, multos Christia- 
 norum sub Dometiano subiisse martyrium; Flavia vero Dometila et 
 Flavus dementis consulis sororis filius in insulam Pontiam fugit 
 (fugerunt?) quia se Christianum (Christianos?) esse professus est 
 (professi sunt?). 
 
 This notice is placed after Ann. Abr. 21 10, Doniit. 14. 
 
 The text is confused in the Armenian Version, of which this Latin is a translation. 
 It must be corrected by the texts of Syncellus (see below, p. 1 10 sq) and of Jerome 
 (see below, p. 108). 
 
 6. 
 
 EusEBius Hist. Ecd. iii. 17, iS, 19, 20. 
 
 17. Hohkriv ye fx-qu et? ttoXXov'^ eVtSetfajaei^o? o Aojxe- 
 
 rtavos (OjJiOTrjTa, ovk. okiyov re tojp inl 'Pwftr^s evTraTpcocop 
 
 T6 Kol iTno-'Qixojp dvSpcov Tr\rjOo<; ov [xer evXoyov Kptcrew? 
 
 AcreiVa?, [xvptov; re aWov; C7n(f>avel<; avSpaq rat? vnep rr)v
 
 lo6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ivopiav t,r)ixL(t)(Ta<? (^vyai? Kai rat? tcou ovataiu a.7ro^o\als 
 dpaLTLCo?, reXevTcop Trj<? Nepojj'o? deoe^^Opia^ re Koi ^eojaa^ta? 
 StotSo^ov eavTov KarecrTijaaTo. oevrepos Srjra top KaO* tjixcov 
 aveKivei Siojyixop, Kainep tov Trarpo? avTov Ovea"7racrLapov 
 jxrjSeu Kad' i^ficov aroTTOu impoTJcrai'TO';. 
 
 1 8. 'Ei^ tovto) Kar4)(€.L \6yo<; tov aTTOcrrokov oifxa kol 
 evayyekidTrjv ^loidvvrjv ert rw yStcj ivhiarpij^ovra Ty]<; et? tov 
 Oelov \6yov eveKev fxapTvpla'^ Udrixov olKeiv KaTaSLKacrOrjvaL 
 TTfV vrjaov. ypd(f)0)V ye tol o ^Ipyjvalo'; irepl ttJs xpyjcjiov Trjq 
 /cam TOV dvTL)(pLaTov 7rpoay)yopia<; (ftepofievrj^ iv Trj 'lojdvvov 
 Xeyoixevr) 'ATTOKakvipei, aOrats crvWaySat? iv TTejXTrTO) tcov 
 77^09 ras atpecrei? Tovra nept tov ^Icodvvov (prjcriv 
 
 ei Ae eAei ana(j)(\na6n 6n tco nyn KAipoj i<HpYTTec0Ai 
 
 TOYNOMA AYTOY, Al' eKEINOY AN eppeOH TOY KAI THN AHO- 
 
 kaAyY'n eoipAKOTOc. oyAe r^p npo noAAoY Xpof^OY eoopABH, 
 aAAa cxeAoN eni thc HMerepAc r^NeAC npdc tco reAei thc 
 
 AOMGTIANOY ApXHC. 
 
 €1? TOcrovTov Se dpa Acara tov<; Sr]\ovjxevov<; ij ttjs ^j/^e- 
 Tepa<i 77tcrr£W9 SieA.a/x7re StSacr/caXta, coq kol tov<s anoOev tov 
 KaS" Tjixd'^ \6yov crvyypDi(f)els l^y) arroKprjo-ai rat? avTcHv 
 la-TopLaL<; tov re Sicoyp-ov koI Ta iv avTco papTvpia irapa- 
 Zovvai. olye koI tov Kaipov i-rr a/cyot^e? iuearjprjvavTO, iv 
 eTEL TrevTeKauSeKdrco AopeTiavov pera nXeicrTCJP eTepcov Kai 
 ^Xavtav AopeTiXXav larTopyjaavTe^, i^ dSeX(f>rj^ yeyovvlav 
 <i>Xavtov KX-qpevTO<;, ev6<; tcov T-QVLKdSe inl 'l?djpy)<; vndTcov, 
 Trjq et9 Xpitrroi^ papTvpCa^ eveKev el<; vrjcrop UopTLav /cara 
 Tipoiplav oeoocrdcLi. 
 
 19. Tov 8' avTov Aop^eTLavov tov<; (xtto yevov<; AavlS 
 dvaipelaOaL irpocTTd^avTO^, TraXato? KaTe)(ei Xoyo<i tojv acpe- 
 TLKCov Ttt'o.? KaT'^yoprjaai tmv dnoyovcov lovoa {tovtov oe 
 eTvat dSeX(f)6v KaTO. adpKo. tov a(OTrjpo<;), co'? ano yevov; 
 Tvy)(av6vT(ov AavCS, kol cu? avTov crvyyeveiav tov XpLcxTov 
 (jtepovTcov. TavTa Be St^XoI Kara Xe^Lv d)Se ttoj? Xeycov 6 
 'Hyujcnmro'^'
 
 PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN. 107 
 
 20. en Ae nepiHCAN 01 Ano reNoyc toy KYpi'oy yicoNo'i 
 'loyAA TOY KATA CApKA AefOMeNOY AYTOY aA6A4)oy, ofc eAH- 
 AATopeYCAN tbc fcK r^Noyc ONTAC AayiA. TofTOYC a' 6 ioyo- 
 
 KATOC HfAre npoC AOMCTIANON KAICApA" eCJJOBeiTO r^P THN 
 nApOYCIAN TOY XpiCTOY, (i>C KAI 'HpooAHC* KAI cnHpcoTHceN 
 
 AYToyc 61 eK Aayi'a eici, kai ojMoAorHCAN" TOTe enHpooTH- 
 ceN AYTOYC nocAC kthccic e)(OYCiN, h ndcooN xphmatoon 
 KYpieVoYCiN' 01 Ae £inoN AM({)dTepoi Innakicxi'Aia Ahnapia 
 
 YHApXeiN AYToTc MONA, eKACTCp AYTOiiN ANHKONTOC TOY H M I - 
 CeCOC. KAI TAYTA OYK GN ApTYpiOIC e(})ACKON e)(eiN, aAA' eN 
 AlATIMHCei rflC nAeGpoON TpiAKONTA CNNeA MONON, 62 (L N 
 KAI TOYC c{)6pOYC ANAC))epeiN, KAI AYTOYC AYTO YpfO Y N T AC 
 
 AiATpe(})ec0Ai. eiTA Ae kai tag )(6?pAc tac Iaytoon eni- 
 
 AeiKNYNAI, MApTYpiON THC Ay'tOYPTIAC THN TOY CWMATOC 
 
 ckAhpi'an KAI TOYC And THC cYNexoyc ep^<^cl'Ac eNAnoTY- 
 nooGeNTAC eni toon iAio^n )(eiptoN tyAoyc hapictantac. 
 epwTHOeNTAc Ae nepi toy XpicToy kai thc BACiAeiAC aytoy, 
 onoiA TIC eiH KAI noi kai ndTe 4)ANHcoMeNH, AdfON Aoynai 
 (x>c of KocMiKhi MeN oyA' eni'reioc, enoYp^Nioc Ae kai Af- 
 reAiKH TYrX'^^'S'/ ^~^'' CYNTeAeiA toy aioonoc peNHcoMeNH, 
 
 OnHNIKA eA0djN fcN AoSh KpiNC? ZtONTAC KAI NCKpofc, KAI 
 
 AnoAcbcei eKACT(p kata ta eniTHAeYMATA aytoy- e(|)' oic 
 
 MHAfc'N AYTOON KATerNOOKdTA TON AoMGTIANON, aAAa KAI (X>C 
 CYTeAoON KATACJjpONHCANTA, eA6Y9epOYC M6N AYTOYC ANe?NAI, 
 KATAnAYCAl Ae AlA npOCTAfMATOC TON KATA THC eKKAHCIAC 
 AlOOfMON. TOYC Ae AnoAYBeNTAC hirHCACBAI toon eKKAHCIOON, 
 
 d)C AN Ah MApTYpAc oMoy KAI And reNOYC ONTAC TOY KypiOY, 
 
 reNOMCNHC Ae eipHNHC M6XPI TpAIANOY nApAMe?NAI AYTOYC 
 
 T<o Bi'oi. 
 
 I I 
 
 TavTa fxeu o Hyi^crtTrTro?. ov ixrju akka kol 6 TeprvX- 
 Xtavo? Tov Ao/xertavov TOiavTrjv 7TeTroir]ro.i ixvrjix-qv 
 
 neneipAKei noTe kai Aomctiano'c tayto noie?N eKeiNW, 
 Mepoc CON THC NepooNOC ajMOTHTOC. aAA' oimai, ATe e'xooN 
 
 Tl CYNeceOOC, TAXICTA enAYCATO, ANAKAAeCAMeNOC KAI OYC 
 
 65[eA]HAAKei.
 
 loS EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 jaerd 8e tov Aofxenavov TrevTeKaiSeKa eTecnu inLKpaTTJ- 
 aavTa, Ne/Doua rrjv dp^nju StaSe^a/xsVov, KaOaipeBrjVOii [Jikv 
 ras AofxeTLavov TLjJids, eTTaueXOeiv Se eVl rot, oLKela [xeTo. tov 
 Kai ras ovcria<^ anoXa/Selu tov<; dSiKco^ efeXr^Xa/xeVov?, 7} 'Pcu- 
 fxaLcov avyK\y]TO<; /3ovXr) \^y)^il^€Tac laTopovaiv ol ypacfifj toL 
 Kara tov'; ^povovs TrapaSo^re?. t6t€ St) ovu /cat tov drro- 
 CTToXov Xoiavvrjv airo Trj'^ Kara ttjv vrjcrov (f)vyrj<i tyjv inl Trj<; 
 ^E(f)€crov 'biaTpi^riv dTTeiX'iq<^ivai 6 tojv irap rjjXLP dp^atoiv 
 TTapahihwcTi Xoyo?. 
 
 The passage at the close of the 18th chapter is translated by Rufinus; 'quinto- 
 decimo anno Domitiani principis cum aliis plurimis ab eo etiam Flaviam Domitillam 
 sororis filiam Flavii Clementis unius hinc ex consulibus viri ob testimonium, quod 
 Christo perhibebat, in insulam Pontiam nomine deportatam.' 
 
 For the passage in Tertullian see above, p. 105. 
 
 HiERONVMUS Ej)i'sf. cviii. 7 ((9/. i. p. 695). 
 
 Delata ad insulam Pontiam quam clarissimae quondam feminarum 
 sub Domitiano principe pro confessione nominis Christiani Flaviae 
 Domitillae nobilitavit exilium, vidensque cellulas, in quibus ilia longum 
 martyrium duxerat, sumtis fidei alis lerosolymam et sancta loca videre 
 cupiebat. 
 
 Jerome is here giving an account of the travels of Paula (a.d. 3S5). The date of 
 the letter itself is a.d. 404. 
 
 There is a v. 1. 'insulas Pontias'; see above, p. 50, note r. 
 
 8. 
 
 HiERONYMUs Chronicon (11. p. 163, Sclione). 
 Ann. Abr. 21 12, Domit. 16. 
 
 Domicianus eos qui de genere David erant interfici praecipit, ul 
 nullus ludaeorum regni reliquus foret. Scribit Bruttius plurimos 
 Christianorum sub Domiciano fecisse martyrium, inter quos et Flaviam 
 Domitillam Flavii Clementis consulis ex sorore neptem in insulam 
 Pontianam relegatam, quia se Christianam esse testata sit.
 
 PERSECUTION OF DO^IITIAN. 1 09 
 
 9- 
 
 Theodoret Graec. A fed. Cur. ix (Op. iv. p. 931, ed. Schulze). 
 
 rov Uerpov eKelvo'^ [o 'Kepcov] koX top UavXov avelXep- 
 dX.V ov ^vvavcike Tolq voixoO€TaL<; TOV<i vojiov^' ovk Ovecr- 
 7ra<Ttaw9, ov Ttro?, ov AojLtertaw?, koX ravra ttoWols /car 
 avTcov Kol TravroSaTTOt? -^pr}ad[JLevo<; ix-q-xavrnxacri. ttoXKovs 
 yap St) tovtov<; dcnral,op,eyov<; toj 6av6.T(o TrapcTTeixxjse, navTo- 
 
 10. 
 
 I^Iart. Ign. Antioch. i {Ignat. and Polyc. 11. p. 474). 
 
 09 ['lyz^ctrto?] rov% ndXaL ^et/xcGi^ag /xoX.t? vapayayaju tcdp 
 TToWaJp inl AoiJLenavov hioiyixaJv, KaOdrrep Kv/Sepp'/JT-qq aya- 
 66<;, TO) oLaKi 777? 7Tpo(T<ivy^ri<; kol rrj^ pr](TTeia<;, rfj (rvP€)(eLa 
 rrj^ StSacTKaXtas, rw topco tco TTPevjxaTiKio, 7rpo9 rrip t^akrjp 
 rrj<; dpTiKeiixeprj'^ dpTely^cp 8um/xe&J9, SeSot/cws ixtj TLPa tcop 
 6XLyo\ljv)(0)P rj aKepaioTeptop anof^dXr). 
 
 1 1. 
 
 Joannes Malalas Chroiwgrapliia x. p. 262 (ed. Bonn.). 
 
 'EttI Se TT75 (WTov jSacTikeia^ Stcoy/xos XpLaTuapcop iyepero' 
 oo"Tt5 Kal TOP dyiop 'lojdpprjp top OeoXoyop apr]peyKep ep Trj 
 'PcojjLrj Kol i^yJTao'ep avTOP. Kal Oavixdcra^ tov avTov alro- 
 (TToXov TYjP (TOfjiLap aTTcXvcrcp avTOP XdOpa aneXOelp els 
 "^Kcfyeo-op, clttcjp avTco, "AneXOe Kal rjcrv^acrop, 66 ep TJX$e<;. 
 Kal eXoiZoprjOrj- Kal e^aipiaep avTOP els HdTpop. ttoXXovs 
 Se dXXovs XpLO-TLapovs eTLjxcopijcraTo, (oorTe <f>vyelp e^ avTcop 
 ttXtjOos inl TOP UoPTOP, KaXojs Bcottlos 6 crocfios -)(popoy pd(j)os 
 crvpeypdxjjaTo /car avTwp. 
 Sec above, pp. 48 sq, 87.
 
 no EPISTLES OF S. CLExMENT. 
 
 12. 
 
 Chronicon Paschale I. p. 4C7 s(i (ed. Bonn.). 
 
 ^IpS. e. L"/. VTT. AoiieTuavov AvyovcrTov to ly Ka.i ^\a.^iov 
 
 Kl\.rjlJieuTO<;. 
 Ae-UTEpos ixcTOL Nepcjpa Ao^ertaz^o? ^picniavovi eSt- 
 
 'Ett' avrov Se koX 6 dTr6aToXo<; 'icoduur)^ el<; UciTfxou 
 
 e^opt^erat ttjv vrjorov, cvOa Trjv aTTOKoiXvxjJLV eoipaKivai 
 
 Xeyerat, w? orfkol ^Ip-qvalo^;. 
 
 Ao[JLeTLav6<; rov'^ dno ydpov; AavlS dvaipeicrOai Trpocr- 
 
 era^ev, Iva p.y] rts hiap.€.ivrj Staoo^o? rrj<i tojv 'lovhaLcou 
 
 l3a(7L\LKTJ<; (l)vXr}<;. 
 
 'iz^S. r'. iS'. V7T. 'AaTTpevaTov Kai Aarepdvov. 
 
 'IcTTopel 6 Bpovrrto? tto\\ov<^ XpLaTLauov^ Kara to 
 
 tS' eVo5 AojxeTLavov [xejJiapTvprjKepaL. 
 
 'li/S. ^\ le. VTT. AoixeTLavov AvyovcTTov to tS' Koi KXyj[xevT0<; 
 
 TO /3'. 
 
 The three years uitended ai'e A.D. 93-95. The 14th year of Domitian began 
 Id. Sept. A.D. 94. The names of the consuls for A. d. 93 are wrongly given. They 
 were Collega and Priscus (or PriscinUs) ; see Tac. Agric. 44. The consuls for 
 A.D. 94 were Asprenas and Lateranlls, as here named. In the following year, A.D. 95, 
 Domitian and Flavius Clemens were consuls together for the first and only time. It 
 was the 17th consulate of Domitian, and the 1st of Clemens. 
 
 13- 
 
 Georgius Syncellus Chronogr. j). 650 (cd. Bonn.). 
 
 Ao/xertai^o? tov"^ ctTTo yevov<; Aa7;tS dvaipzicruai rrpocrc- 
 Tci^ev, tVa p.rj tl<; ^lovSaicov /Bao'tXiKov yevov<; arroXeirfiufj. 
 
 OvTO<; ixeTO. Nepowa Seurepos X/Dtcrrtarou? eSiw^e, Kal 
 ^loidvviqv TOP OeoXoyop diToXiv ip UdTfJico Trj viqcro) TTepcco- 
 picrep, €P0a Tiqp aTTOKdXvxfjLP ecopaKCP, wg o aytog Y,Lpr]paLO^ 
 <^~qcri' TToXXol 8e XpLanapcop ijjLapTvprja-ap Kara Ao/xeTtapop, 
 (o<i 6 BpeVrto? IcrTopcl' ip ol<i kol ^PXaovta. AofieTiXXa i$a-
 
 PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN. I 1 1 
 
 oeXcf)-)) KXiJiJiePTo<5 <E>Xaoutou vnaTiKov cos XpLCTTLapr] et? vi]- 
 (Tou UovTcau (f)vyaSeveTaL, avros re KXijixrj^; vnep XpcorTov 
 avaipeiTaL. tovtov Se %Tecf)av6<; tls tcou airekevOipoiv efs rrj 
 TTpos Toy oecTTTOTr^v evvoia KXruxevrcL iueSpevaaq top Aofxe- 
 riavov avel\e, TLfjirjs re napa Trj<; crvyKXiJTOv rj^tcoOri cJg 
 
 14. 
 
 Georgius Hx\martolus Chronkon iii. 131 {PatroL Grace, ex. p. 517, 
 ed. Migne). 
 
 E(^ ov [Ao/xenai'ou] Tt/xo^eos o ctTrocrToXo? KaX ^Ovr]- 
 (TLfios ifMapTvp-qaau, Koi ^lojdpvqs o 0e6\oyo<; kol evayye- 
 
 IS- 
 
 De SS. Nereo, Achilleo, Domitilla, etc. (^^/. Scr/id. BoUand> 
 Maius III. p. 4 sq.). 
 
 § 9. Tunc Nereus et Achilleus perrexerunt ad S. Clementem epis- 
 copum et dixerunt ei; Licet gloria tua tota in Domino nostro lesu Christo 
 sit posita et non de humana sed de divina dignitate glorieris, scimus 
 tamen Clementem consulem patris tui fuisse germanmn ; hujus soror 
 Plautilla nos in famulos comparavit, et time quando a domino Petro 
 apostolo verbum vitae audiens credidit et baptizata est, et nos simul 
 secum et cum filia Uomitilla sancto baptismate consecravit. Eodem 
 anno dominus Petrus apostolus ad coronam martyrii properavit ad 
 Christum et Plautilla corpus terrenum deseruit. Domitilla vero filia ejus, 
 cum Aurelianum illustrem haberet sponsum, a nostra parvitate didicit 
 sermonem quem nos ex ore apostoli didicimus, quia virgo, quae propter 
 amorem Domini in virginitate perseveraverit, Christum mereatur 
 habere sponsum, etc. 
 
 16. 
 S u ETo N I u s Domitlaii us 15, 17. 
 
 1 5. Denique Flavium Clementem patruelem suum, contemptissimae 
 inertiae, cujus filios, ctiam turn parvulos, successores palam destinaverat,
 
 1 I 2 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 et, abolilo priorc nomine, alteram Vespasianum appellari jusserat, 
 alterum Domitianum, repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non in 
 ipso ejus consulatu interemit. Quo maxime facto rnaturavit sibi 
 exitum... 
 
 17. De insidiarum caedisque genere haec fere divulgata sunt. 
 Cunctantibus conspiratis, quando et quomodo, id est, lavantem an 
 coenantem, aggrederentur, Stephanas Domitillae procurator et tunc 
 interceptarum rerum reus, consilium operamque obtulit. 
 
 17- 
 
 QuiXTiLiANUS Inst. O'laf. iv. prooem. 
 
 Cum vero mihi Domitianus Augustus sorcris suae nepotum delega- 
 verii curam, non satis honorem judiciorum caelestium intelligam, nisi 
 ex hoc oneris quoque magnitudinem metiar. Quis enim mihi aut mores 
 cxcolendi sit modus, ut eos non immerito probaverit sanctissimus 
 censor? aut studia, ne fefellisse in his videar principem ut in omnibus 
 ita in eloquentia quoque eminentissimum? 
 
 18. 
 
 Philostratus Vit. Apollon. viii. 25 (p. 170). 
 
 'Ew^oui^ Se 01 Oeol AofjieTiavov yjSr] rr^s tcov av6 poiTTOiv 
 7rpoeopLa<;. eTV)(^e jxeu yap KXijjXiEvTa direKTopa)-; apSpa vna- 
 Tov, o) TYjP ddeX(f)^v Tr]i> iavTOV eSeSw^et, TrpocrTayixa Se 
 iTreTToirjTo irepX Tiqv rpiT'qv r] TerdpTr^v 'ij/xepau rod (f)6uov 
 KaKeivrjv iq ai'Syoos (jiOLTav Srec^ai^o? tolvvv dTTekevdepo<^ 
 TTj^ yvvaiK6<^, ov iSiqXov to tt^s SLoarjjXLas <T)(rjfxa, etre top 
 TeOveojTo. ipOvixrjdel'; etre Travra?, (Dpfxyjcre fxkv tea ToZ'i iXev- 
 OepcoTaToi'i \\dr)paLOLs irrl top Tvpappop, ^i(l)0<; S' ix^eipa^ rw 
 rrj? dpLO'Tepa,'; 7Tr])(eL Kol tyjp X^^P^ iiri^ea'p.oi'i dvaXa/Bcop 
 otop KaTeayvlap dmoPTi tov hiKacT-qpiov TrpocreXBwp, AeojxaC 
 (Tov, 6(^17, ^acriXev, fxopov, fxeyaXd yap vrrep cop dKOvajj. 
 ovK dira^Lcoo'avTO'^ Se tov Tvpdppov ttjp dKpoacriP dTroXajSoiV 
 avTOP i<i TOP dphpcopa, ov ra /3acrtXeta, O:; TeOpijKCP, eTnep, 6 
 TToXe/xtcuraros ctol KXr/jxr)';, w? cru otet, dXX' cctlp ov iyd) 
 oioa, KOL ^vPTdTTeL eavTop eVt ere. [.Lcya S' avTov /SorjcraPTo^
 
 PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN. 1 13 
 
 Trepl Mv rjKovcre, Terapayixevo) irpocnrecroiv o %T€(()apo<i Kai to 
 ^t<^os T^9 i(TKeva(Tixein]<; ;)(et/50s avacTTracra? St')7/ce tov jx-qpov 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 For dde\(priv we should probably read ddeXfpidrjv 'niece', as Domitilla, the wife of 
 Flavius Clemens, appears from other authorities to have been the daughter of 
 Domitian's sister ; see above, p. 44. Zahn {Bt-r Hirt des Hennas p. 45, note 4) sup- 
 poses Philostratus to have confused her with her mother. 
 
 The expression e's dpdpbs (poirav is sometimes translated 'to go and join her 
 husband', i.e. 'to put herself to death'; e.g. by Ilausrath Ncntest. Zeiisgesch. III. 
 p. 301, Renan Les Evangiks p. 296, note 5, and others. Erbes {Jahrb. f. Prot. 
 Theol. IV. p. 700 sq., 1878) rightly objects to this interpretation. It is untenable 
 for two reasons, (i) It would require irph'i rhv avdpa instead of es dvdpos. The definite 
 article at all events is wanted. (2) The verb (poirav signifies 'to go to and fro,' and 
 could not signify 'to depart.' On the otiier hand it is used especially in the sense 'to 
 have intercourse with'; see Steph. Thes. s.v. (poirav (ed. Hase and Dind.). It must 
 therefore mean 'to marry another husband,' as it is correctly taken by Zahn (/. c), 
 Lipsius {Chronol. p. 156), and Hasenclever (p. 235). 
 
 19. 
 
 Trebellius Pollio Tyr. Trig. 12. 
 
 Domitianus...dux Aureoli fortissinius et vehementissimus, qui se 
 originem diceret a Domitiano trahere atque a Domitilla. 
 
 20. 
 
 Anthologia Latina 1435 {'^- P- 1^°' ^^- ^'teyer). 
 
 Qui colitis Cybelen et qui Phryga plangitis Attin, 
 
 Dum vacat et tacita Dindyma nocte silent, 
 Flete meos cineres. Non est alienus in illis 
 
 Hector, et hoc tumulo Mygdonis umbra tegor. 
 Ille ego, qui magni parvus cognominis heres 
 
 Corpore in exiguo res numerosa fui; 
 Flectere doctus equos, nitida certare palaestra, 
 
 Ferre jocos, astu fallere, nosse fidem. 
 At tibi dent superi quantum, Domitilla, mereris, 
 
 Quae facis, exigua ne jaceamus humo. 
 
 This epigram is headed 'Domitilla Ilectori'. It was, I suppose, the inscription 
 placed on the grave of a Phrygian slave or frcedman, to whom Domitilla had given 
 a plot of ground for burial ; see above, p. 41. 
 
 CLEM. 8
 
 114 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 21. 
 
 Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 948 (v. p. 172 sq.). 
 
 FL. DOMITILLA 'FILIA . FLAVIAE . DOMITILLAE 
 DIVI . VESPASIJANI.NEPTIS .FECIT. GLYCERAE.L.ET 
 
 See also Orelli 776. This inscription was formerly in the Church of S. Clemente 
 in Rome on the steps of the episcopal chair, but is now in the Vatican. Another 
 fragment of an inscription, attached to this by Cittadini (see Mommsen ad loc), seems 
 not to have any connexion with it. It contains, or did contain, the words 
 CVRANTE . T . FLAVio . ONESIMO . CONIVGI . BENEMER, whence Zahn (p. 48) and 
 Lipsius {Chronol. p. 155) make this Onesimus the husband of 'Domitilla filia'. But 
 surely his wife would be Glycera, not Domitilla, if this were part of the same in- 
 scription. 
 
 Mommsen (/. c.) takes 'neptis' as the genitive on account of the order. He thus 
 gives to the wife of Fl. Clemens a daughter besides her two sons Vespasianus and 
 Domitianus (see above, p. 21). Zahn takes it in the same way, and weds this fourth 
 Fl. Domitilla to T. Flavins Onesimus. It seems to me simpler to suppose with De 
 Rossi that the ' filia' is herself the wife of Clemens and granddaughter of Vespasian, 
 her mother being Vespasian's daughter Fl. Domitilla. 
 
 Commenting on this inscription, Mommsen drew up a stemina of the Flavii, which 
 contradicted all the authorities, Philostratus, Dion, Eusebius, and Quintilian alike, 
 It seemed to myself 'to have nothing to recommend it except the name of that truly 
 great scholar' {Philippians p. 23). It was criticized by De Rossi (^?i//. diArch. Crist. 
 1875, p. 70 sq), and has since been withdrawn by Mommsen himself {Corp. Inscr. 
 Lat. VI. 8942, p. 1 187). 
 
 The Flavia Domitilla of C. I. L. x. 1419 seems to be the wife of Vespasian. 
 
 22. 
 
 Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 8942 (p. 1187). 
 
 TATIA . BAVCYL^ 
 TRIX . SEPTEM . LIB^ 
 DIVI. VESPASIAN^ 
 
 FLAVIAE . DOMITIL5 
 
 > 
 
 VESPASIANI . NEPTIS . A> 
 
 IVS . BENEFICIO . HOC . SEPHVLCRUjM FECI 
 
 MEIS . LIBERTIS . LIBERTABVS . PO^STERISQ. 
 
 1 
 
 See also Orclli-IIenzen 5423. This inscription is now restored by Mommsen as 
 
 follows: TATlA BAUCYL . . [NU]TRIX SEPTEM LIB[ER0RUM PRONEPOTUM] DIVI 
 VESPASIAN[I, FILIORUM fl. CLEMENTIS ET] FLAVIAE D0MITIL[LAE UXORIS EJUS, 
 DIVl] VESPASIANI NEPTIS A[CCEPT0 LOCO E]JUS BENEFICIO HOC SEPHULCRU[m] 
 ETC. 
 
 This restoration seems to me to be open to two objections, (i) The expression 
 'liberorum nepotum' is awkward and unusual. (2) The words supplied are greatly
 
 PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN. 1 15 
 
 in excess of the available space. I should restore it [nv]trix . septem . lib[ero- 
 rvm] . Divi . vespasian[i . atqve] flaviae . DOMITILLAE . etc. This person had 
 nursed two generations, the seven children of Vespasian and his grandchild Domitilla, 
 just as we read of one Phyllis, who nursed not only his son Domitian but his grand- 
 daughter Julia (Sueton. Domit. 17). It is no objection to this interpretation that only 
 three children of Vespasian are mentioned in history (see above, p. 19). The other 
 four may have died in infancy. Indeed the long interval (ten years) between the 
 liirths of Titus and Domitian suggests that there were other children born between 
 them. Nor again is it any objection that in Suetonius (I. c.) Phyllis is mentioned as 
 the nurse of Domitian. He would have more than one nurse. De Rossi [Bull, di 
 Archcol. Crist. 1875, p. 67, note) so far agrees with Mommsen as to suppose that the 
 inscription speaks of seven children of Fl. Clemens and Fl. Domitilla. 
 
 23. 
 
 Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 16246 (p. 1836). 
 
 SER . CORNELIO . IVLIANO . FRAT. 
 PIISSIMO . ET . CAl[vISi]aE . EIVS 
 P. CALVISIVS . PHIL0[t]aS . ET . SIBI 
 EX . INDVLGENTIA . FLAVIAE . DOMITILL . 
 IN . FR . P . XXXV . IN AGR . P . XXXX. 
 
 See also Orelli-Henzen iii. p. 72. Found at Tor Marancia, and published in the 
 Bull. Inst. Arch. 1835, p. 155. 
 
 24. 
 
 Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 5. 3468. 
 
 gratte . c. f. domitillae 
 
 [fJiLIAE . LENTINl . SABINI 
 V . FORT . LEGT . ASCALON . 
 CONIVG . SATRI . SILON 
 IS . V . RELIG , PROMAGIST . 
 NEPTI . VESPASIANI . IM 
 
 This inscription is here printed as a warning. It was published by Vignoli De 
 Columna Imperatoris Antonini Pli p. 318 (Romae 1705) among Inscriptioties Variae. 
 From this work it was extracted in a mutilated form by Reimar on Dion Cass. Ixvii. 
 
 14 'Est et DOMITILLA . CONJVX . SATRI . SILONIS . NEPTIS . VESPASIANI . IM . apud 
 
 Jo. Vignolium in Inscriptt. p. 318, quae an haec nostra esse potest, eruditiores judi- 
 cent.' From Reimar it passed into the hands of Lipsius Chron. pp. 155, 156, and of 
 Zahn Hennas p. 48, who both entertain the question whether Domitian's niece may 
 not be here intended, and Satrius Silo have been her second husband after the death 
 of Flavins Clemens, the former suggesting that he was perhaps the person whom 
 Domitian (according to Philostratus, see above, pp. 40, 112) compelled her to marry. 
 The inscription is spurious; see C. I. L. VI. 5, p. 240*. It is included however in the 
 collections of Muratori dccv. 4 and Orelli 2430 without misgiving. 
 
 8—2
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 
 
 A PERIOD of nearly two centuries and a half elapsed since the 
 Epistles of S. Clement of Rome were first published {a.d. 
 1633) from the Alexandrian MS, or as the editor describes it, 'ex laceris 
 reliquiis vetustissimi exemplaris Bibliothecae Regiae.' In this mutilated 
 condition the two epistles remained till a few years ago. The First 
 Epistle had lost one leaf near the end, while the surviving portion 
 occupied nine leaves, so that about a tenth of the whole had perished. 
 The Second Epistle ended abruptly in the middle, the last leaves of the 
 MS having disappeared. It is now ascertained that the lost ending 
 amounted to a little more than two-fifths of the whole. Moreover the 
 MS in different parts was very much torn, and the writing was blurred 
 or obliterated by time and ill usage, so that the ingenuity of successive 
 editors had been sorely exercised in supplying the lacuna. 
 
 After so long a lapse of time it seemed almost beyond hope, that the 
 epistles would ever be restored to their entirety. Yet within a few 
 months they were discovered whole in two distinct documents. The 
 students of early patristic literature had scarcely realized the surprise 
 which the publication of the complete text from a Greek ms at Con- 
 stantinople had caused (a.d. 1875), when it was announced that the 
 University of Cambridge had procured by purchase a ms containing 
 the two epistles whole in a Syriac Version. Of these three authorities 
 for the text I proceed to give an account. 
 
 I. The Alexandrian Manuscript. 
 
 The Alexandrian ms (A) of the Greek Bible was presented to King 
 Charles i by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch first of Alexandria and then of 
 Constantinople, and brought to England in the year 1628. It was
 
 MANUSCRIP^J'S AND VERSIONS. 117 
 
 transferred from the King's Library and placed in the British Museum, 
 where it now is, in 1753. More detailed accounts of this MS will be 
 found in the Introductions and Prolegomena to the Greek Testament 
 (e.g. Tregelles Hornets Introduction to the N.T. p. 152 sq; Scrivener 
 Introduction to the N.T. p. 93 sq, ed. 3 ; C. R. Gregory Froleg. Tischend. 
 Nov. Test. Graec. in. p. 354 sq). It contained originally the whole of 
 the Old and New Testaments, but both have suffered from muti- 
 lation. This MS is assigned by the most competent authorities to the 
 5th century ('the beginning or middle of the 5th century... though it 
 may be referred even to the fourth century and is certainly not much 
 later,' Scrivener p. 97 ; ' the middle of the fifth century or a little 
 later,' Tregelles p. 155; 'saeculi v ejusque fere exeuntis,' Tischendorf 
 p. ix, ed. 8; 'saeculo quinto medio vel exeunte,' Gregory p. 356). 
 Hilgenfeld is alone in placing it, together with the Sitiaiticus, in the 
 6th century; Zeitschr. f. IViss. Theol. vii. p. 214 sq (1864), Einleitung 
 in das N.T. p. 793, Clem. Rom. Epist. Prol. p. xi, ed. 2. 
 
 The two Epistles of Clement stand (fol. 159 a) at the close of the 
 New Testament and immediately after the Apocalypse. The title of 
 the First is mutilated, so that it begins ... c KopiNeioyc a. It ends 
 towards the bottom of fol. 168 a. col. i \ and below is written 
 
 KAHM€NTOCnpOCKO 
 
 piNGiOYceniCToAH 
 A. 
 
 The Second commences fol. 168 a. col. 2, without any heading. As 
 the end leaves of the ms are wanting, this Second Epistle is only a 
 fragment and terminates abruptly in the middle of a sentence, § 12 ovTf. 
 6fj\v TovTo (fol. 169 b). Both epistles are included in the table of con- 
 tents prefixed by the scribe to the ms, where the list of books under the 
 heading h kainh AiaGhkh ends thus : 
 
 AnOKAAYYIc[lOOA]NNOY 
 KAHMeNTOC€[niCT]oAH A 
 KAHMeNTOCe[niCT0A]H 8 
 
 [om]oyBiBAia[ ] 
 
 YaAmoicoAomcontoc 
 
 IH 
 
 As the edges of the leaves are worn in many places and the vellum 
 is in other parts very fragile, words or parts of words have occasionally
 
 Il8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 disappeared. Moreover the use of galls by the first editor, Patrick 
 Young, has rendered some passages wholly or in part illegible. In 
 addition to this, a leaf is wanting towards the close of the First Epistle, 
 between fol. 167 and fol. 168, § 57 aV^' wv ydp 7]8ikovv...§ 63 v/xais 
 €lpr]v€va-ai. The hiatus is detected by the numerals in ancient Arabic 
 characters at the foot of the verso of each leaf, where 834 (fol. 167) is 
 followed immediately by 836 (fol. 168)'. My attention was first called 
 to this fact respecting the Arabic numerals by the late H. Bradshaw, 
 the distinguished librarian of the Cambridge University Library ; and it 
 has since been noticed by Tischendorf (p. xv). The first editor, Patrick 
 Young, had said ' Desideratur hie in exemplari antiquo folium inte- 
 grum.' Jacobson accounts for this statement by remarking, 'Forte 
 codicem conferre contigit priusquam a bibliopego Anglico praescissus 
 fuerat et in corio compactus,' which was perhaps the case. It is strange 
 however that the Arabic numerals, which set the question at rest, 
 should have been so long overlooked. 
 
 The Epistles of Clement were transcribed with tolerable but not 
 strict accuracy, and the lacunse supplied for the most part with felicity, 
 by the first editor, Patricius Junius (Patrick Young), a.d. 1633. But an 
 ed//io princeps necessarily left much to be done. Collations were ac- 
 cordingly made by Mill and Grabe; and Wotton, in preparing his 
 edition (a.d. 17 18), not only employed these collations, but also 
 examined the ms itself Lastly, Jacobson (ist ed., 1838) recollated it 
 throughout and corrected many inaccuracies which had run through 
 previous editions. Hitherto however, while facsimiles had been made 
 of the text of the New Testament in this MS by Woide (1786) and 
 subsequently of the Old by Baber (18 16 — 1821), nothing of the kind 
 had been done for the Epistles of Clement, though here the ms was 
 unique. But in the year 1856 Sir F. Madden, the keeper of the mss 
 at the British Museum, in answer to a memorial from the Divinity 
 Professors and others of Oxford and Cambridge and by permission of 
 the Trustees of the Museum, published a photograph of this portion of 
 the MS. Hilgenfeld, when he first edited these epistles (1866), seems 
 to have been unaware of the existence of this photograph, though it had 
 appeared ten years before ; but in a foreigner this ignorance was very 
 excusable. Where the MS has not been injured by time or by the 
 application of galls, the photograph was all that could be desired ; but 
 passages which have suffered in this way may often be read accu- 
 
 1 The numbering is carried tluough (p. x) misreads the first figure (1 for 8) 
 continuously from the Old Testament. and gives 134, 136. 
 Hence the high numbers. Tischendorf
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. HQ 
 
 rately in the ms itself, though wholly illegible in the photograph. 
 For this reason Tischendorf's reproduction of these epistles, published 
 in his Appendix Codicum Celeberrimorum Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini 
 (Lips. 1867), was not superfluous, but supplied fresh materials for a 
 more accurate text. Before I was aware that Tischendorf was engaged 
 upon this facsimile, I had with a view to my first edition procured a new 
 and thorough collation of the text of these epistles through the kindness 
 of the late Mr A. A. Vansittart, who at my request undertook the work; 
 and we found that notwithstanding the labours of previous editors the 
 gleanings were still a sufficient reward for the trouble. On the ap- 
 pearance of Tischendorf's facsimile, I compared it with Vansittart's col- 
 lation, and found that they agreed in the great majority of instances 
 where there was a divergence from previous editors (e.g. in the reading 
 Tts apKCTos e^£t7r€tv § 49, where the printed texts had previously read 
 Tts apK€t ws Set etTreiv). In some readings however they differed : and 
 in such cases I myself inspected the ms (repeating the inspection at 
 three diff"erent times, where the writing was much defaced), in order to 
 get the result as accurate as possible. Tischendorf's text contained 
 several errors, which however were for the most part corrected in the 
 preface. A few still remained, of which the most important is Sta/coviav 
 (§ 35)> where the ms has Siavotav, as even the photograph shows. 
 
 My first edition appeared in 1869. A few years later Tischendorf 
 
 again edited these epistles under the title, Clementis Romani Epistulae ; 
 
 Ad ipsius Codicis Alexandrini fidcm ac viodum repetitis curis (Lipsiae 
 
 1873). In his 'prolegomena' and ' commentarius ' he discusses the 
 
 points of difference between us as to the readings of the Alexandrian ms. 
 
 At his request our common friend, Dr W. Wright, had consulted the MS 
 
 in the more important and doubtful passages ; and in some points he 
 
 decided in favour of Tischendorf, while in others he confirmed my 
 
 reading. While preparing for my Appendix, which appeared in 1876, 
 
 I again consulted the ms, where doubtful points still remained, and the 
 
 results were given in that work. Lastly; in 1879 an autotype Facsimile 
 
 of the Codex Alexandrinus {Neza Testament and Clementine Epistles) was 
 
 published ' by order of the Trustees of the British Museum,' and was 
 
 followed later by the Old Testament. This is admirably executed, and 
 
 all is now done for the deciphering of the ms which photography can do. 
 
 I congratulate myself on having had the criticisms on my work from a 
 
 writer so competent in this department as Tischendorf; and probably 
 
 the Alexandrian ms has now by successive labours been deciphered 
 
 almost as fully and correctly as it ever will be. It is a happy incident 
 
 that this result was mainly achieved before the discovery of a second
 
 I20 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Greek ms and of the Syriac Version furnished new data for the con- 
 struction of the text. 
 
 On the whole this ms appears to give a good text. The short- 
 comings of the scribe are generally such that they can be easily cor- 
 rected ; for they arise from petty carelessness and ignorance, and not 
 from perverse ingenuity. Thus there are errors of the ordinary type 
 arising from repetition or omission, where the same letters recur, e.g. 
 § 2 a/J.afxvr]cnKaKOi, § ii crepoyvtaixoa; § 12 viroTOToeyocr, § 17 8o/a€vou, 
 § 19 Ta7reLvo(f>f)ovov, § 25 TeAeurr/KOTocr, § 32 rj/xepaa; § 35 fjiov, aSeXe^oixr- 
 aov, § 48 SiaKpiaKpurei, § 50 (xaKaKapioi, ii § I ttolovv (for ttolovovv), ii § 9 
 aiMViov (for aivovaioiviov), ii § 1 1 acrovK (for acrovcrovK) : there is the usual 
 substitution of wrong case endings, arising mostly from confusion with 
 the context, e.g. § 3 tt^o-, § 16 cXOovtoo; § 19 aXAao-, § 32 tov, § 43 k€ko<x- 
 fiTjfxevw, § 44 fXCfxapTvprifievoLO-, ii § i exovreo; ii § 6 atxp.a\w(nd; there is 
 now and then a transposition, e.g. § 4 CrjXoa- and Sta^r/Xorr, § 39 o-yjtov 
 TpoTToa- for a-rjToa Tpoirov ; there are several paltry blunders of omission 
 or miswriting or substitution, which cannot be classed under any of 
 these heads, e.g. § l ^'ei'oio-, § 2 eo-Tepvio-fjievot, eSeScTo, TreiroLriOrjo-ewcT, 
 § 3 8o07], aireyaXaKTiaev, § 8 Auw aytw, 8teA.€;^^wyit£v, § lO Tncma; § 15 ava- 
 a-Tr}(TOfj.ev, § 16 ei/^erai, § 20 Kpvjjiara, §21 Xvxvov, ey/caup^w/Aei/ot ev, § 23 
 (.^aixvyja-, § 25 /x,ovoyevi^cr, Siaveuct, § 29 apidov, § 30 ayvova, i8er]6r], § 33 
 eyyoto", § 34 AtTOi;pyoi;v, § 35 KaraXtXtao", (})LXo$eviav, e^a/JaXAeo", § 38 
 TfificXeiTU), § 41 o-wetST^o-iF, KaTaiiwOrjiiev, § 44 jx^to^v, fxerayayere, § 45 
 eiTLTaaOai, cttv7]toi, § 51 oLKiaicr, 01, § 56 ovkoi/^ctoi, § 57 orap, § 59 av€7re/i,- 
 (/'are, ii § 7 atwv, ^t, ^w/xci/, ii § 9 7rov;/T€s; there is the occasional dropping 
 of words owing to homoeoteleuton or other causes, e.g. § 3 tt/o- KapStao-, 
 § 5 ^''^j § 15 ■'■"^ AaXowra k.t. A., § 35 Sia, and probably § 40 cTri/xeAwo- ; there 
 is lastly the common phenomenon of debased and ungramrnatical forms, 
 e.g. § I a(T<^aXrjv, § 14 aae^T]!', § 18 TrAuncicr, § 26 (comp. ii § 8) aapKau, 
 §§ I J 29 (.TTUiK-qv, § 32 atiTwi', § 40 VTreprarw, § 42 Ka^ecrravov, § 59 eTniro- 
 
 drjTijv, ii § I cATTiSav, ii § 1 2 Sr/Aocr, with several others, though in some 
 cases they may be attributed to the author rather than the scribe. 
 In these instances the correct text is generally obvious. But one or two 
 deeper corruptions remain, e.g. § 3 /xereAeouo-, § 12 ^wr/o-, § 45 e-rracfipoL, 
 and perhaps § 6 Saz/atSeo-KutStp/cat. 
 
 This MS also exhibits the usual interchanges of like-sounding vowels 
 and diphthongs; of o and o^, as § 48 eiofxoXoyrjaiafxaL, §54 tottojct, ii § 4 
 avTwy, and on the other hand, § 25 (iaa-ralov, § 45 etTro/xei/, ii § 6 oio/xiOa; 
 of ■>] and t, as § I aL<bvi^hiova, KadtKovaav, § 4 rjvXrja-O-qcrav, § 8 TrpoaTrjOeia; 
 § 39 IJ-VKTLp7]!^ovfTLv, § 47 irpoa-KXrjcreLo; ii § 10 rjXrjKtjv ; of c and at, as § 14 
 anrepo/xcvov (for eTraipofxevov), § 6 oo-ratoj/, § 10 opaiwv, §§ 21, 52 vaiouo".
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 12 I 
 
 vaiov, §§ 25, 26 opvaiov, opvaiov, § 39 CTreo-ev (for eV aicrev), § 4 TratStoi/, TratStw 
 (for ireSioi', TreSop), §§ 2, 9, 1 8, 2 2, ii § 3 cAatocr, eXatovcr, etc. (for lAeos, 
 eAcoKS, etc.); and lastly, of i and «, e.g. § 26 to /xeyaXiov T-qcr eTrayye- 
 Xetao", § 27 TTOLTjcreLv for ttoitjo-lv, § 40 AeiToupyeiao", but § 41 XtToi;pytacr 
 and § 44 AtTovpyetao", § 2 etAeiKpivetcr, but § 32 tAtKptv[cocr] and ii. § 9 
 tAiKptrooJO", § 14 o-racrtcr for orrao-eicr, but §§ 6, 44 epeKX for epia. In all 
 such cases I have substituted the ordinary classical spelling: ijut when 
 we call to mind that half a century later the heretic Marcus (Iren. Haer. 
 i. 15. I, Hippol. Ref. vi. 49) founds a theory on the fact that criyT/ con- 
 tains five letters (ceifH) and ^pnjTo<i eight (xpeiCTOc), and that about 
 this very time the Roman biographer confuses Xpto-rds and X/jt/o-tos 
 (Suet. Claud. 25), we cannot feel at all sure that Clement might not in 
 this respect have allowed himself the same latitude in spelling which we 
 find in our scribe. 
 
 The contractions which I have noted in these ej^istles (besides the 
 line over the previous letter as a substitute for the final v) are the follow- 
 ing; ANuc, ANoy, etc., for av^pwTros, avdpiOTrov, etc.; oyNoc, uYNoy, etc., 
 for ovpavo?, ovpavov, etc. ; nup, npoc, etc., for iraTtjp, -n-arpos, etc.; MHp 
 for [j.r]T7]p; Qc, Wf, etc., i<c, ky, etc., yc, xy, etc., ic, iy, etc., for deos, 
 deov, etc., Kvpios, KvpLov, etc., •)(pL(TTo<i, XJUCTTOV, etc., LTjaovs, Lrjcrov, etc. 
 (but, where Joshua is meant § 12, it is written in full); una, unc, hni, 
 etc., for TTfev/xa, irvevfiaTos, TTvevfjMTi, etc.; AaA for Savei8 ; iAhm for upov- 
 aaXrjix; \0, (§§ 4> 29, 43, 55) and ihA (§ 8) for idparjX. 
 
 2. Constaiitinopolitan Manuscript. 
 
 At the close of the year 1875 a volume was pubHshed at Constanti- 
 nople, bearing the title : 
 
 Tot) €1/ ayt'ots Trarpos ly/xwv KAT^/zei/TO? Ittktkotvov Vwp.r]'; at 8uo- vrpos 
 YiopivOiovi iirLUToXai. Ek ^etpoypacfiov rrjs iv ^arapto) KwrcrravTtvov- 
 TToAcws fii(iXio9y']Ki]% rov Ilavaytou Tdcfiov vvv irpMTOV eK0t8op,erai TrXrjpi.vi 
 fierd TTpoAeyo/Aei/cov kol cny/xetwcrewi/ utto ^tXoOiov ^pvuvtov fxrjTpoTroXiTov 
 2eppw^' K.T.A. 'Ev 1^0iV(TTavTLVOvTroX(.L, 1875. 
 
 ['The Two Epistles of our holy father Clement Bishop of Rome to 
 the Corinthians ; from a manuscript in the Library of the Most Holy 
 Sepulchre in Fanar of Constantinople ; now for the first time published 
 complete, with prolegomena and notes, by Philotheos Bryennios, Metro- 
 politan of Serrae. Constantinople, 1875'.] 
 
 This important MS is numbered 456 in the library to which it 
 belongs. It is an 8vo volume, written on parchment in cursive characters,
 
 122 EPISTLES OF S. CEEMENT. 
 
 and consists of 120 leaves. Its contents, as given by Bryennios, are as 
 follows : 
 
 fol. I a — 32 b Tou ei' ayt'ois 'Iwdvvov tou XpvcrotTTOfxov avvo\pt<; t^s 
 
 TraXatas koX Katvrjs SiadrjKrjs if ra^et VTrofxvr](TTLKOv\ 
 fol. 33 a — 51 b Bapva/8a ctticttoAt;. 
 fol. 51 b — 70 a KAT/'/xevTos Trpos Kop/i/^tous A'. 
 fol. 70 a — 76 a KA.ry/xevTOS Trpos Koptv^tovs B'. 
 fol. 76 a — 80 b AtSai^vJ Twv SojSeKtt 'AttoctoXwi/. 
 fol. 81 a — 82 a ^FiTTLaToXyj Mapias KacrcrojSo'Xwv Trpo? toi' uyioi/ Koi 
 
 lefjofxapTvpa lyvaTLOv ap)(L€TtLcrKOivov ©couTToXews 'Avrto^^etas. 
 fol. 82 a — 120 a Tow ayiov ^lyvaTLOv ©eouTToXews 'AvTto;(€ttt9 
 
 Trpos Mapi'av 
 
 Trpos TpaXXiavous 
 
 Trpos Mayvr/criovs 
 
 Trpos Tous €1/ Tapo-Q) 
 
 Trpos ^iXnnrrjaLOVS Tvepl /3aTrTC(Tp.aTO<i 
 
 Trpos <J'iXaS€X<j!)£rs 
 
 Trpos 2/Avpvatovs 
 
 Trpos IIoXvKapTrov eTrtcrKOTrov '^p.vpvrjs 
 
 Trpos A vTioT^eis 
 
 Trpos HpcDva SiaKovoi' 'Avrto^^ea 
 
 Trpos E^ecrtous 
 
 Trpos Pcop-at'ous. 
 
 The genuine Epistle of Clement is headed KXr/p.ei'Tos Trpos Kopiv^tovs 
 A'; the so-called Second Epistle likewise has a corresponding title, 
 KXr/p,ei/Tos Trpos Koptr^tous B'. At the close of the Second Epistle is 
 written, Srixot x- PV'"- i^^- At the end of the volume is the colophon ; 
 'EtcXciw^t; fiTjvi lovvto) eis ras la'. rjixipav y . 'Ii'S. 6'. iTOVs arcfi^B'. x^'-l^'- 
 Aeoi/Tos vorapiov kol dXecTov. The date A.M. 6564 is here given accord- 
 ing to the Byzantine reckoning, and corresponds to a. d. 1056, which is 
 therefore the date of the completion of the ms. 
 
 A facsimile of a page of this manuscript is given in the plates of the 
 Palicographical Society 2nd Series, no. 48 (1880). A full account of it, 
 likewise containing a facsimile, will be found in Schaff's Teaching of the 
 T^velve Apostles p. i — 7. 
 
 It is strange that this discovery should not have been made before. 
 
 1 This is the same work whicli is ment and ends with Malachi. Mont- 
 
 [irintcd in Montfaucon's edition of S. faucon stops short at Nahum. For a full 
 
 Chrysostom, vi. p. 314 sq. The treatise account see Bryennios Didache p. 109 sq. 
 in this MS contains only the Old Testa-
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. I 23 
 
 The Library of the Most Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople is attached 
 to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in that city, and therefore has something 
 of a public character. It has moreover been examined more than once 
 by learned men from Western Europe. A catalogue of its mss, com- 
 piled in 1845 by Bethmann, appeared in Pertz Archiv der Gesellsch. 
 f. dltere deutsche Geschichtskiinde ix. p, 645 sq. ; but it does not mention 
 this volume (see Pair. Apost. Op. i. i. p. xi sq., Gebhardt u. Harnack, 
 ed. 2). Some years later, in 1856, M. Guigniant read a report of the 
 contents of this library before the French Academy of Inscriptions, 
 which is published in the journal General de V Instruction Publiqiic 
 1856, XXV. p. 419; and again this MS is unnoticed. M. Guigniant 
 seems to have attended chiefly to classical literature, and to have made 
 only the most superficial examination of the Christian writings in this 
 collection ; for he says, somewhat contemptuously, that these mss 
 'unfortunately comprise little besides Homilies, Prayers, Theological 
 and Controversial Treatises, written at times not very remote from our 
 own,' with more to the same effect (as quoted in the Academy, May 6, 
 1876). Again, two years later, the Rev. H. O. Coxe, the Librarian of 
 the Bodleian, visited this library and wrote a report of his visit {Report 
 to H. M. Government on the Greek MSS in the Libraries of the Levant 
 PP- 32, 75j 1858); but he too passes over this volume in silence. A 
 serious illness during his stay at Constantinople prevented him from 
 thoroughly examining the libraries there. 
 
 This MS is designated I ('lepoo-oXv^triKo?) by Bryennios, and by 
 Hilgenfeld after him. But this designation is misleading, and I shall 
 therefore call it C (Constantinopolitanus) with Gebhardt and Harnack. 
 
 Facsimiles of C are given by Bryennios at the end of his volume. 
 He has added a fuller account of the minor features of the MS in a 
 later publication, Didache p. 93 scp (1883), where also he gives (p. 103) 
 Addenda and Corrigenda to the readings in his edition of Clement. 
 The contractions are numerous and at first sight perplexing. It 
 systematically ignores the i subscri])t or adscript with two exceptions, 
 ii. § I 7171 deX-rja-ei, ii. § 9 ev r-iji aapKi Tavrrj (sic); it generally omits 
 before consonants the so-called v e(/)£A.KucrrtKoV, though there are some 
 exceptions (§27 XeXr]9ev rrjv, § ^T^ iaT7]pLcrev koI, ^irXao-ev Tfj<;, § 49 ior-^iev 
 Trpos, § 53 eiTTcv Trpos, Utt^v Kijpios, § 55 i^rjXOev 8l ayaTrv^v, ii. § 2 eiTTCr 
 
 (TT^lpa) ; and it writes oiJtw or oiJrojs capriciously. It is written with 
 a fair amount of care throughout, so far as regards errors of tran- 
 scription. In this respect it contrasts favourably with A, which con- 
 stantly betrays evidence of great negligence on the part of the scribe. 
 But, though far more free from mere clerical errors, yet in all points
 
 124 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 which vitally affect the trustworthiness of a MS, it must certainly yield 
 the palm to the Alexandrian. The scribe of A may be careless, but 
 he is guileless also. On the other hand the text of C shows manifest 
 traces of critical revision, as will appear in the sequel. 
 
 But notwithstanding this fact, which detracts somewhat from its 
 weight, it still has considerable value as an authority. More especially 
 it is independent of A- for it preserves the correct reading in some 
 instances, where A is manifestly wrong. I pass over examples of slight 
 errors where one scribe might blunder and another might correct his 
 blunder (e.g. § l ^eVois A, ^eVr;? C; § 2 ea-repvicr/AeVot A, eveaTepvicr/Aevot C 3 
 § 3 a7rey(iAaKTt(r€j/ A, aTreXaKTiacv Cj § 25 Siavevci A, SLavvu C j § 35 
 
 (jtiXoievLav A, ucpiXoieviav C)- These are very numerous, but they prove 
 nothing. Other instances however place the fact of its independence 
 beyond the reach of doubt : e. g. § 2 y^er eAeous (/xereXatovo-) A, which is 
 read fjiera Se'ous in C, where no divination could have restored the right 
 reading; § 3 /cara ms e7rt^u/x,ia§ avrov Trj<; 7roi'7?pas A, where critics with one 
 accord have substituted ms Trovrjpds for tt^s 7rov>7pas without misgiving, 
 thus mending the text by the alteration of a single letter, but where the 
 reading of C shows that the words rr/s KapStas have dropped out in 
 A after iindviXLas ; § 2 1 8ta Trj<; cjiwvrj<; A, where C has Sto. ri]<; CTLyrjs, as the 
 sense demands and as the passage is quoted by Clement of Alexandria; 
 § 34 7rpoT/3€7r€Tat (TrpoTpeTrere) ovv ijixd^ i$ 6Xr]s Trj<s KapSt'as iv ain-w fxr] 
 dpyov<; fiTJre Trapctynevors etvat iirl irdv epyov dyaOov, where SOme critics 
 have corrected ctt' avTw in various ways, while others, like myself, have 
 preferred to retain it and put a slightly strained meaning on it, but 
 where C solves the difficulty at once by inserting Trto-reuoi'ras after rJ/Aas 
 and thus furnishing a government for eV' avrw; § 37, where cuetKTtKCJo-, 
 or whatever may be the reading of A, could not have suggested ektikms 
 which appears in C. It follows from these facts (and they do not 
 stand alone) that C is not a lineal descendant of A, and that the text 
 which they have in common, must be traced back to an archetype older 
 than the 5th century, to which A itself belongs. 
 
 On the other hand, the critical revision, to which I have already 
 referred, as distinguishing the text of C when compared with that of A, 
 and thus rendering it less trustworthy, betrays itself in many ways. 
 
 (i) C exhibits harmonistic \Q.^.^vs\g% in the quotations. Thus in § 4 
 it has Tw Kvptw for tw ©ew in Gen. iv. 3 in accordance with the lxx ; 
 and again dp^ovra koI SiKacrr^v for KpiTTJv rj SiKaa-njv in Exod. ii. 14, also 
 in accordance with the lxx (comp. also Acts vii. 27). In § 13 it gives 
 Tovs Xoyovs for Tct Xo'yta in Is. Ixvi. 2 in conformity with the lxx. In 
 § 22 again it has ror eA.7rt^oiTa for tous c/Wt^oi/Ttts in Ps. xxxii. 10 after
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 125 
 
 the Lxx. In § ;^2, having before spoken of justification by faith and 
 not by works, Clement writes tI ovv Trotrfo-w/Aev, a'SeX^ot ; dpyijaoifxev ctTTo 
 T^s aya^oTToua? ; as read in A : but this sentiment is obviously sug- 
 gested by Rom. vi. I sq, tl ovv ipovfxev ; eTn/xeVco/Aci' rfj dfxapTia k.t.X., 
 and accordingly C substitutes rt ovv ipov[M€v for tl ovv Troiijarwfjiev. In 
 § 34 Clement quotes loosely from Is. vi. 3 Trdcra 77 KTia-c;, but C sub- 
 stitutes Trao-a 17 yi] in accordance with the lxx and Hebrew. Later 
 in this chapter again Clement gives (with some variations) the same 
 quotation which occurs in i Cor. ii. 9, and C alters it to bring it into 
 closer conformity with S. Paul, inserting a before o(;t^aA/xos and sub- 
 stituting Tots dyaTTwariv for Tois vTrofiivovariv, though we see plainly from 
 the beginning of the next chapter that Clement quoted it with rot? vvo- 
 fievova-Lv. In § 35, in a quotation from Ps. 1. 16 sq., C substitutes Sia 
 (TTOfxaTo^ for fTTt crTo,uaTos SO as to conform to the lxx. In § 36, 
 
 where A reads oVo/xa KiKXrjpovofxrjKev, C has KeKXr]pov6 [x-qKev ovo}xa with 
 
 Heb. i. 4. In § 47 for avrov re Koi K-q(f)d re koI 'AttoAAw, C substitutes 
 iavTov Koi 'AttoXXw kuI K-r](f>d, which is the order in i Cor. i. 1 2. 
 Though A itself is not entirely free from such harmonistic changes, 
 they are far less frequent than in C. 
 
 (2) Other changes are obviously made from dogmatic motives. 
 
 Thus in ii § 9 we read Xpto-ros 6 Kuptos 6 crwo-as rj^u-a?, Sw fxev to tt/jojtoi' 
 
 TTvevjxa, iyeveTo o-dpt k.t.X. This mode of speaking, as I have pointed 
 out in my notes, is not uncommon in the second and third 
 centuries ; but to the more dogmatic precision of a later age it gave 
 offence, as seeming to confound the Second and Third Persons of the 
 Holy Trinity. Accordingly C substitutes Xoyos for Trrev/xa, ' Jesus 
 Christ, being first Word, became flesh,' thus bringing the statement into 
 accordance with the language of S. John. Again, in § 30 of the 
 genuine epistle, rot? KaTtqpap.ivoi'i vtto tov ©eoi), the words vtto tov Oeoil 
 are omitted in C, as I suppose, because the scribe felt a repugnance to 
 ascribing a curse to God ; though possibly they were struck out as super- 
 fluous, since they occur just below in the parallel clause rots -qiXoyy^fxi- 
 vots VTTO Tou ©eov. Again in § 1 2 'FaajS 7} -Kopv-q, C reads 'VadjS y iTTiXr)- 
 yofxa'T] iropvr], the qualifying word being inserted doubtless to save the 
 character of one who holds a prominent place in the Scriptures. Under 
 this head also I am disposed to classify the various reading in § 2, tois 
 e^oStots TOV ®€ov dpKOvp.€voi, where C reads tou XpicrroiJ for roi? ®eov; but 
 this is a difficult question, and I reserve the discussion of it till the 
 proper place. In § 14 too the substitution of aipeaets for epiv is probably 
 due to an orthodox desire to give definiteness to Clement's condemna- 
 tion of the factious spirit.
 
 126 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (3) But more numerous are the gram ma fi'ca/ and rhetorical changes, 
 i. e. those which aim at greater correctness or elegance of diction. These 
 are of various kinds, {a) The most common perhaps is the substitution 
 of a more appropriate tense, or what seemed so, for a less appropriate : 
 e. g. § I ^Xaa<f)r][jie.'L(T6aL for (3Xa(T<f)rifji7]6rjvaL ; § 7 Ikctcvovtcs for iKercvcrav- 
 T€s ; § I 2 AeAaAiyKa? for iXa.XT]cra<;, iyevijOr] for yeyovev j § 1 7 arcvtcra? for 
 arei'L^MV ; § 20 Trpoa(f)evyovTa<; for Trpoo-Trec^euyoTas J § 2 1 avatpct for 
 aveXct ■ § 25 TeXcirrT;fravT05 for TcreXewTT^Koros, 7rXr]povfji^vov for TreTrX-qpia- 
 fiei'ov ; § 35 VTroTTtTrrei for I'TrcTT/.Trrcv ; § 40 npoo-Tayela-i for TrpocTTCTay- 
 p.€VOL<i ; § 44 fo-TU' for ecrrai, 7roAtTewcra/U.e7'OVS for TToAirevo/AeVotis ; § 49 
 SeStoKCv for e8o)K€i' ; § 5^ crracrtao'ai'TWV for crTaCTta^oj'Twi^ j § 53 dvafSavTO^ 
 for (xvaySat [vovTOs] ; ii. § 4 0[XoXoyq(T(aiif.v for o/toXoyw/ACv ^ ii- § 7 (f>6eLpMV 
 for <fiOeipa<; ; ii. § 8 TroirjO-Q for ttoi^ and j3or]6€L for l3or]6i](7€i. (/>) The 
 omission, addition, or alteration of connecting particles, for the sake of 
 greater perspicuity or ease: e.g. § 8 yap omitted ; § 12 oVt... koi inserted; 
 § 16 Se omitted; § 17 trt Se omitted, and again 8e inserted; § 30 Te...Kat 
 inserted ; § 33 8e substituted for ovv ; § 65 kuI omitted before 81' auVov ; 
 ii. § 2 Sc omitted; ii. § 3 ovv omitted; ii. § 7 ovv omitted; ii. § 10 Se 
 substituted for yap. (<-) The substitution of a more obvious preposition 
 for a less obvious : e.g. § 4 aVo for uVo (twice), § 9 cv t^ Xurovpyia for 
 Ota Trj<; Xctrovpyta?, § 1 1 ets avrov for eV avTov, § 44 Trepi tov ovo/xaros for 
 eVi TOV oVo'/xaros. (c/) An aiming at greater force by the use of super- 
 latives : § 2 o-£/3acrp,iojTaT77 for o-e/?ao-/x.i'w, § ^^ TrafifieyeOea-Tarov for 
 7ra/x/x£yc^€9. (r) The omission of apparently superfluous words: e.g. 
 § I d8eX(fiOL, vfj.wv ; § 4 ovTws; § 7 €'s (after SteX^w/xev) ; §8 yap (after ^w); 
 §11 TouTo ; § 15 ctTTo ; § 19 Tas...yev€as (tovs being substituted); § 21 
 7]fiwi/ ; § 30 ttTTo ; § 38 [rJTOi] kul (if this mode of supplying the lacuna 
 in A be correct), where the meaning of the words was not obvious; 
 § 40 o before toVos ; § 41 [Jf-ovrj ; § 44 avSpes (with the insertion of rtvcs in 
 the preceding clause) ; ii. § 7 ai;Tajv ; ii. § 8 eV before rats x^P^^^ (with 
 other manipulations in the passage which slightly alter the sense) ; 
 ii. § 8 p.^Tavota'i : and (though much less frequently) the insertion of a 
 word ; e.g. § 14 tov before da-ijSrj ; § t,t, aya^ots (but conversely dyad?]^ is 
 absent from C but present in A in § 30) ; ii. § i tov before fi-q ovtos ; ii. § 8 
 ert. (/) Alterations for the sake of an easier grammatical construction 
 or a more obvious sense : e. g. § 2 twv irXiqcriov for rots ttXtjo-lov ; § 4 to 
 TTpocrojTToi/ for Tw TTpoawTTu) ; § 15 'i^i^av avTov for iif/evaavTO avTou; § 20 ett' 
 avT^s for evr' avTTjv ; ii. § 3 rfjs aXr^^cias boldly substituted for 77 Trpos avToV 
 on account of the awkwardness ; ii. § 8 dTroXdj3r]T€ for d-n-oXd/Sw/xev. 
 (g) The substitution of orthographical or grammatical forms of words, 
 either more classical or more usual in the transcriber's own age: e.g.
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 27 
 
 § 6 ocTTwv for ocTTeoJv, § 15 €vX6yovv for evXoyovcrav, § 38 €la"i]X6oiJ.(v for 
 dcrrjXOaixev, § 57 TrpoeiXovTo for TrpoelXavTO, §§ 4, 6 ^y;Aov for ^17X05, § 13 
 rvcjiov for TV(f)0?, iXeetTe for eXeare, § 20 vyteiav for vyeiav, § 33 dydX- 
 Xcrai for dyaXXLarai, § 37 xP^Tat for XPV'^"-'- C^ut conversely, ii. § 6 
 ■^prjcrOaL for yfidcrdai), § 39 evavrtoj/ for evavri, § 40 vTr(.pra.rij for uTrep- 
 TttTO), § 50 Tafxiela for Ta/x^la (ra/tta), § 53 Mwcr-^ for Mwvcr*; (and 
 similarly elsewhere), § 65 iTrnvoQ-qTov for iimroOyT-)]!/, ii. § 2 iKKaK<2p.ev 
 for iyKaKMfia', ii. § 5 aTroKTeVovTa? (sic) for aTroKTfVvovTas, ii. § 7 TretcreTat 
 for iradelTai, ii. § 12 Svo for Suo-t, Sv^At; for 8rjXo<;. So too ii€ppLt,(i}ac, 
 ippx'xraro, (jtvXXoppoei, for i^epLt^ioae, ipvaaTo, cjivXXopoel ; Trpao?, Trpaorr;?, 
 for 7rpav<;, TrpavTr]^ ; etc. And again C has commonly eaDrou etc. for 
 avTou etc., where it is a reflexive pronoun. In many such cases it is 
 difficult to pronounce what form Clement himself would have used ; 
 but the general tendency of the later ms is obvious, and the scribe 
 of A, being nearer to the age of Clement than the scribe of C by 
 about six centuries, has in all doubtful cases a prior claim to atten- 
 tion. (//) One other class of variations is numerous ; where there is an 
 exchange of simple and compound verbs, or of different compounds of 
 the same verb. In several cases C is obviously wrong; e.g. § 20 -n-apa- 
 ^dcr€oj<; for TraptKySao-cw?, yu,€Ta8i8oao-iv for /xeraTrapaStSoao-tv ; while Other 
 cases do not speak for themselves, e.g. § 7 i-mjveyKe for v-mjveyKev, § 12 
 iKKpipidcrr} for Kpep-day, § 16 direXOovTes for eX06vT€<;, § 25 eyyervarat for 
 yevvaTai, § 37 reXovaL for imTeXova-LV, § 43 t^KoXovOrja-av for i7rrjKoXov6r]aav, 
 § 5 5 e^e'SwKav for TrapeSwKav, ii. § I dTroXafSelv for XafSe^v, ii. § 12 cpw- 
 rrjOeU for iireponrjOeis, but the presumption is in favour of the MS which 
 is found correct in the crucial instances. (/) Again there are a 
 few instances where C substitutes the active voice for the middle ; 
 § 24 €7ri8etKVUcrt for i-mSeiKwrai, § 43 eTreSetfe for eVeSet^aro, in both which 
 the middle seems the more correct. In § 8 C has dcfteXere for dcfi^XeaOe, 
 but here the active appears in Is. i. 16, the passage which Clement 
 quotes. Conversely in § 38, ivrpcTrccrOo) the reading of C must be 
 substituted for the soloecistic evrpeTreVw which stands in A. 
 
 In some passages, where none of these motives can be assigned, 
 the variations are greater, and a deliberate change must have been 
 made on the one side or the other. In these cases there is frequently 
 little or no ground for a decision between the two readings from 
 internal evidence; e.g. § i Trepio-rao-cts for TreptTTTwcrets, § 5 eptv for (pdovor 
 (where however eptv may be suspected as an alteration made to conform 
 to the expression IrjXov kol tpiv just below), § 6 KaTen-Kafe for Kare- 
 (TTpexj/ei', § 8 if/vx'rj'i for KapSi'a?, § 28 fiXa/Sipds for /Aiapa'?, § 35 TrnvrjpLav 
 for avo/xiav, § 51 dvOpoiivov for ^cpaTrovra, § 55 JTro/AVT/'/xaTa for UTroSety-
 
 128 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 /Liara. But elsewhere the judgment must be given against C; e.g. § 32 
 Ta^et for ^o^T], § $^ TrpocToi/xttcra? for Trpo^rjfjuovpyrjaas, § 41 Trpocrcv^aiv 
 for euxwi', § 47 o.ya.-n-q<i for ayayyrj'i (possibly an accidental change), § 53 
 Sea-TTOTYjs for Oepdiroiv, § 56 Ki;pto? for St/catos, ii. § i irovqpoX for TrrjpoL, 
 ii. § 10 dvdirava-iv, cxraTravo-ts, for arroAavcrtr, aTToXavcrts : while in no 
 such instance is A clearly in the wrong; for I do not regard § 41 tu^apto-- 
 T£tTco A, €vap€(TTiLTU) C, as an exception. And generally of the variations 
 it may be said that (setting aside mere clerical errors, accidental trans- 
 positions, and the like) in nine cases out of ten, which are at all deter- 
 minaljle, the palm must be awarded to A'. 
 
 The above account of the relation of C to A has received confirma- 
 tion from two different quarters. 
 
 (i) The Syriac Version, discovered since it was written, bears 
 strong testimony in its favour. We shall see in the sequel that in nearly 
 every case which is indeterminable from internal evidence this version 
 throws its weight into the scale of A. 
 
 (ii) The readings of C in other parts besides the Clementine 
 Epistles have since been collated and they furnish an additional 
 confirmation of my views. Thus we are now able to compare its 
 readings in the Ignatian Epistles with the normal text as found in other 
 MSS ; and they exhibit just these same features of a literary revision 
 which we have discovered in the case of the Clementine Epistles (see 
 Ig;/. and Poly c. i. p. no sq). 
 
 It will be unnecessary to give examples of the usual clerical errors, 
 such as omission from homteoteleuton, dropping of letters, and so forth. 
 Of these C has not more than its proper share. Generally it may be 
 said that this ms errs in the way of omission rather than of insertion. 
 One class of omissions is characteristic and deliberate. The scribe 
 becomes impatient of copying out a long quotation, and abridges it, 
 sometimes giving only the beginning or the beginning and end, and 
 sometimes mutilating it in other ways (see §§ 18, 22, 27, 35, 52). A 
 characteristic feature of this ms also is the substitution of r/Act?, vfxQ>v, 
 etc., for T/'/xets, 17/x.wi', etc. I say characteristic; because, though the 
 confusion of the first and second persons plural of the personal pro- 
 noun is a very common phenomenon in most mss owing to itacism, yet 
 
 ^ This estimate of the relative value xxxv, li. p. xxx). Ililgenfeld takes a 
 
 of the two MSS agrees substantially with different view, assigning the superiority 
 
 those of Harnack {Theolog. IJteraturz., to C (ed. i, p. xx ; comp. Zeitschr. f. 
 
 Feb. 19, 1876, p. 99), of Gebhardt (ed. 2, Wiss. Thcol. xx. p. 549 sq.). 
 p. xv), and of Funk {Pair. Afost. i. p.
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 129 
 
 in this particular case it is far too frequent and too one-sided to be the 
 result of accident. The motive is obvious. When read aloud, the 
 appeals in the letter gain in directness by the substitution of the second 
 person. 
 
 Instances will be given in the notes which show how at some 
 stage in its pedigree the readings of C have been influenced by the 
 uncial characters of a previous MS from which it was derived : see §§ 2, 
 
 21, 32, 40, 43- 
 
 From the list of contents given above (p. 122) it will have appeared 
 that the importance of this ms does not end with Clement's Epistles. 
 All the interesting matter however has now been published. The 
 various readings in the Epistle of Barnabas were communicated to Hilgen- 
 feld for his second edition (1877) and have been incorporated by later 
 editors of this epistle. The very important ^LSaxrj tiSv SwSoca 'Attoo-toAwv 
 was given to the world by Bryennios himself (Constantinople, 1883); in 
 which volume also he gives the various readings in the 2vvot/^ts for 
 the portion which was published by Montfaucon (see above p. 122, 
 note i) and supplies the missing end. Lastly, for the Ignatian Epistles 
 Bryennios supplied collations of this MS to Funk {Patr. Apost. 11. p. 
 xxix sq) and to myself {Ign. and Poly c. i. p. no). 
 
 In addition to the absolute gain of this discovery in itself, the 
 appearance of the volume which I have been discussing is a happy 
 augury for the future in two respects. 
 
 In the first place, when a ms of this vast importance has been for 
 generations unnoticed in a place so public as the official library of a 
 great Oriental prelate, a hope of future discoveries in the domain of 
 early Christian literature is opened out, in which the most sanguine 
 would not have ventured to indulge before. 
 
 Secondly, it is a most cheering sign of the revival of intellectual 
 life in the Oriental Church, when in this unexpected quarter an editor 
 steps forward, furnished with all the appliances of Western learning, 
 and claims recognition from educated Christendom as a citizen in the 
 great commonwealth of literature.^ 
 
 3. Syriac Version. 
 
 A few months after the results of this important discovery were 
 given to the world, a second authority for the complete text of the two 
 epistles came unexpectedly to light. 
 
 The sale catalogue of the mss belonging to the late Oriental 
 scholar M. Jules Mohl of Paris contained the following entry. 
 
 CLEM. 9
 
 I30 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 '1796. Manuscript sjTiaque sur parchemin, contenant le N. T. 
 (moins rx\pocalypse) d'apres la traduction revue par Thomas d'Heracle'e. 
 ...Entre I'epitre de S. Jude et I'e'pitre de S. Paul aux Romains, se trouve 
 intercale'e une traduction syriaque des deux epitres de S. Clement de 
 Rome aux Corinthiens.' 
 
 It was the only Syriac MS in M. Mohl's collection. 
 
 The Syndicate of the Cambridge University Library, when they gave 
 a commission for its purchase, were not sanguine enough to suppose 
 that the entry in the catalogue would prove correct. The spurious 
 Epistles on Virginity are found in a copy of the Syriac New Testament 
 immediately after the Epistle of S. Jude taken from the Philoxenian 
 version; and it was therefore concluded that the two epistles in question 
 would prove to be these. It seemed incredible that such a treasure as 
 a Syriac version of the Epistles to the Corinthians, forming part of a 
 well-known collection, should have escaped the notice of all Oriental 
 scholars in France. It was therefore a very pleasant surprise to Mr R. 
 L. Bensly, into whose hands the MS first came after its purchase, 
 to discover that they were indeed the Epistles to the Corinthians, He 
 at once announced this fact in a notice sent simultaneously to the 
 Academy and the Athenaeum (June 17, 1876), and began without 
 delay to prepare for the publication of this version. 
 
 To Mr Bensly's volume, which, I trust, will appear no long time 
 hence, I must refer my readers for a fuller account of this unique MS and 
 the version which it contains. It will be sufficient here to give those 
 facts which are important for my purpose. 
 
 The class mark is now Add. AISS 1700 in the Cambridge Uni- 
 versity Library. The ms is parchment, 9^ inches by 6^, written in 
 a current hand; each page being divided into two columns of from 37 
 to 39 lines. It contains the Harclean recension of the Philoxenian 
 version of the New Testament; but, like some other mss of this 
 recension, without the asterisks, obeli, and marginal readings. The 
 books are arranged as follows: 
 
 1. The Four Gospels. These are followed by a history of the 
 Passion compiled from the four Evangelists. 
 
 2. The Acts and Catholic Epistles, followed by the Epistles of 
 S. Clement to the Corinthians. 
 
 3. The Epistles of S. Paul, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 which stands last. 
 
 At the beginning of the volume are three tables of lessons, one for 
 each of these three divisions. 
 
 Quite independently of the Clementine Epistles, this volume has the 
 
 1
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 131 
 
 highest interest; for it is the only known copy which contains the whole 
 of the Philoxenian (Harclean) version, so that the last two chapters of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the colophon following them, appear 
 here for the first time. 
 
 At the end of the fourth Gospel is the well-known subscription, 
 giving the date of the Philoxenian version a.d. 508, and of the 
 Harclean recension a.d. 616; the latter is stated to be based in this 
 part of the work on three mss (see White's Sacr. Evang. Vers. Syr. 
 Philox. pp. 561 sq, 644 sq, 647, 649 sq; Adler Nov. Test. Vers. Syr. 
 p. 45 sq ; Catal. Codd. AfSS Orient. Brit. Mus. i. p. 27, no. xix, ed. 
 Forshall). The history of the Passion, which follows, was compiled 
 for lectionary purposes. A similar compilation is found in other mss 
 (see White 1. c. p. 645, Adler 1. c. p. 63 ; so too Harclean Gospels, 
 Add. MSS 1903, in Cambr. Univ. Libr.). 
 
 In the second division the colophon which follows the Epistle 
 of S. Jude is substantially the same with that of the Oxford MS given 
 by White {Act. Apost. et Epist. i, p. 274). The Catholic Epistles are 
 followed immediately on the same page by the Epistles of Clement, 
 the Epistle of S. Jude with its colophon ending one column, and 
 the First Epistle of Clement beginning the next. This latter is 
 headed : 
 
 The Catholic Epistle of Clement the disciple of Peter the Apostle 
 to the Church of the Corinthians. 
 
 At the close is written : 
 
 •i\=D^^^r<'.i '. .flfl>s?iAj3.i r<'^v«;2»3.'»o K*^!^^ ^vsoix. 
 
 Here endeth the First Epistle of Clement, that was 7tiritten by 
 him to the Corinthians from Rome. 
 
 Then follows : 
 
 Of the same the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 9—2
 
 132 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 At the close of the Second Epistle is 
 
 Here endeth the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 
 
 This subscription with its illumination ends the first column of a 
 page; and the second commences with the introductory matter (the 
 capitulations) to the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and occupying the first 
 column of the last page in the volume, is the following statement : 
 
 ^ K'oco )ajjAA\T<' ocn AK'.i oco .• K'^i^.vsa 
 K'^v-i^.V^ f^JQo r<lnn K'ocn [^a3C\]A^*r<'.i t<^ijl i>^ 
 
 .en ."UK' ^ix^a K'ocn .n^^^.i 
 
 This book of Paul the Apostle was written and collated from 
 thai copy which was ivritten in the city of Mabug {Hierapolis) ; 
 which also had been collated with {from) a copy that was in Ccesarea 
 a city of Palestine in the library of the holy Pamphilus, and was 
 written in his own handwriting, etc. 
 
 After this follows another colophon, which occupies the last column 
 in the ms, and begins as follows : 
 
 K*- >»i\t..i .Qr»iflns'-i°i.io : ,.^_OLA^Or<'.l r^^ Kliaj 
 
 K'n^^ai sniK'o .SlAk'.i ^cfs p<'Aax_3 .rClAiiijj 
 ^0.^73.1 r<'AuJCvi-».V3 .r<lxiCV.*.i r<\i»c\ ^r^\ *g3^0 
 rdxt.To K'icu^.a.i .nl^oxix* ^uass.i Sco K^aA^ 
 ^.1 o^v&^K* .K'Av^inra K'^via.v^n ^cnioK'.i
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 133 
 
 rtLti^asQO r^jtiAjon r^.\ierjc\ kIia^^ctA ctA K'aorxii 
 
 iV2?7£' this life-giving book of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Holy 
 Apostles ', and the two Epistles of Clement, together with the teach- 
 ing of Paul the Apostle, according to the correction of Thomas of 
 Heraclea, received its end and completion in the year one thousand 
 four hundred and eighty one of the Greeks in the little convent of 
 Mar Saliba, which is in the abode of the monks on the Holy Moun- 
 taift of the Blessed City of Edessa. And it 7vas ivritten with great 
 diligence and irrepressible love and laudable fervour of faith and at 
 the cost of Rabban Basil the chaste 7?ionk and pious pi-esbytcr, luho 
 is called Bar Michael, from the city of Edessa, so that he might 
 have it for study and spiritual fneditation and prof t both of soul 
 and of body. And it was written by Sahda the meajiest of the monks 
 of the same Edessa. 
 
 The remainder of this colophon, which closes the volume, is 
 unimportant. The year 1481 of the era of the Seleucidae corresponds 
 to A.D. 1 1 70. 
 
 On the last page of each quire, and on the first page of the following 
 quire, but not elsewhere, it is customary in this ms to give in the 
 upper margin the title of the book for the time being. This heading, 
 in the case of the First Epistle of Clement, is 
 
 .T^^U^'icUl ^CU.l .IWi*gli\n.i K'^x^.TD K'^i^r*' 
 
 The First Epistle of Clement to the Cori?ithians. 
 
 In the case of the Second Epistle no occasion for any such heading 
 arises. 
 
 1 Under the title 'Acts' the writer here as a designation for the whole division, 
 
 evidently includes the Catholic Epistles. comprising the Clementine as well as the 
 
 At the beginning and end of the table of Catholic Epistles. 
 lessons for the second division it is used
 
 134 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 The Epistles of Clement are divided into lessons continuously with 
 the Acts and Catholic Epistles, which constitute the former part of the 
 same division. They are as follows : 
 
 94. 26th Sunday after the Resurrection j Inscr. 'H iKKX-qarla k.t.X. 
 
 95. 27th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 10 'A/?paa/i, 6 (jiiko^ k.t.X. 
 
 96. 34th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 16 TaTravo^poi/owTwv yap 
 
 K.T.\. 
 
 97. 35th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 16 'Opart, avSpcs ayaTrq- 
 
 TOt K.T.X. 
 
 98. 36th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 19 Tw too-ovtmv ovv k.t.X. 
 
 99. 37th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 21 Toi/KJpiov'Ir/o-ow k.t.A. 
 100. The Funeral of the Dead; § 26 Meya koL Bavixaa-rov k.t.X. 
 
 loi. 38th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 30 'Ayiov ['Ayta] ovv /xcpt? 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 102. 39th Sunday after the Resurrection; § ;^2 Tt ovv Tronja-oifiev k.t.X. 
 
 103. 28th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 50 At yevcat Tracrai k.t.X. 
 
 104. 29th Sunday after the Resurrection; §52 'ATrpoo-Se-^'s, aSeX^ot, 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 105. 30th Sunday after the Resurrection; § 56 BXeireTc, ayaTnjToi k.t.X. 
 
 106. 31st Sunday after the Resurrection; § 59 'Eai' Se rtvcs k.t.X. 
 
 107. 32nd Sunday after the Resurrection; §62 Ilepi fxlv twc civt/ko'twv 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 108. The Mother of God; ii. § i 'ASeX</)ot, ovtws k.t.X. 
 
 109. 33rd Sunday after the Resurrection; ii. § 5 ""OOev, aScXi^ot, k.t.X. 
 no. 25th Sunday after the Resurrection; ii. § 19 "Octtc, dSeX<f>0L kuI 
 
 aSeX^at, k.t.X. 
 
 These rubrics, with the exception of the numbers (94, 95, etc.), are 
 imbedded in the text', and therefore cannot be a later addition. The 
 numbers themselves are in the margin, and written vertically. 
 
 I have been anxious to state carefully all the facts bearing on the 
 relation of the Clementine Epistles to the Canonical Books of the New 
 Testament in this MS, because some questions of importance are affected 
 by them. As the result of these facts, it will be evident that, so far as 
 regards the scribe himself, the Clementine Epistles are put on an absolute 
 equality with the Canonical writings. Here for the first time they appear, 
 not at the close of the volume, as in A, but with the CathoUc Epistles — 
 the position which is required on the supposition of perfect canonicity. 
 Moreover no distinction is made between them and the Catholic 
 
 ' With the exception of the last rubric, which is itself in the margin, having ap- 
 parently been omitted accidentally.
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 135 
 
 Epistles, so far as regards the lectionary. Lastly, the final colophon 
 renders it highly probable that the scribe himself supposed these epistles 
 to have been translated with the rest of the New Testament under the 
 direction of Philoxenus and revised by Thomas of Heraclea. 
 
 But at the same time it is no less clear that he was mistaken in this 
 view. In the first place, Avhile each of the three great divisions of the 
 New Testament, the Gospels, the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the 
 Pauline Epistles, has its proper colophon in this MS, describing the 
 circumstances of its translation and revision, the Clementine Epistles 
 stand outside these notices, and are wholly unaccounted for. In the 
 next place the translation itself betrays a different hand, as will appear 
 when I come to state its characteristic features ; for the Harcleo- 
 Philoxenian version shows no tendency to that unrestrained indulgence 
 in periphrasis and gloss which we find frequently in these Syriac Epistles 
 of Clement. Thirdly, there is no indication in any other copies, that 
 the Epistles of Clement formed a part of the Harcleo-Philoxenian 
 version. The force of this consideration however is weakened by the 
 paucity of evidence. While we possess not a few mss of the Gospels 
 according to this version, only one other copy of the Acts, Catholic 
 Epistles, and Pauline Epistles is known to exist'. Lastly, the table of 
 lessons, which is framed so as to include the Clementine Episdes, and 
 which therefore has an intimate bearing on the question, seems to be 
 unique. There is no lack of Syriac lectionaries and tables of lessons, 
 whether connected with the Peshito or with the Philoxenian (Harclean) 
 version, and not one, I believe, accords with the arrangement in 
 our MS ; though on this point it is necessary to speak with reserve, 
 until all the mss have been examined. These facts show that the 
 Clementine Epistles must have been a later addition to the Harclean 
 New Testament. What may have been their history I shall not venture 
 to speculate, but leave the question to Bensly for further discussion. 
 It is his opinion that they emanated from the school of Jacob of Edessa. 
 I will only add that the Syriac quotations from these epistles found 
 elsewhere (see below, pp. 180 sq, 182 sq) are quite independent of this 
 version, and sometimes even imply a different Greek text. This fact 
 
 ^ This is the Ridley MS, from which e.g. Acts i. i — lo [Catal. Cod. Syr. Bibl. 
 
 White printed his te.xt, now in the Bodi. no. 24, p. 79, Payne Smith) ; James, 
 
 Library of New College, Oxford. It 2 Peter, i John [Catal. of Syr. Mamisc. 
 
 contains the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epi- in the Brit. Mus. no. cxxi. p. 76, Wright) ; 
 
 sties, and Pauline Epistles, as far as Helx 1 Peter, ■2, 3 John, Jude, in an Amsterdam 
 
 xi. 27. Separate books however and Ms ; besides lessons scattered about in 
 
 portions of books are found elsewhere ; different lectionaries.
 
 136 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 however does not help us much ; for they occur in collections of extracts, 
 which we should expect to be translated, wholly or in part, directly 
 from the Greek. 
 
 As a rendering of the Greek, this version is (with notable exceptions 
 which will be specified hereafter) conscientious and faithful. The trans- 
 lator has made it his business to reproduce every word of the original. 
 Even the insignificant connecting particle re is faithfully represented by 
 au^. The several tenses too are carefully observed, so far as the 
 language admitted : e.g. an imperfect is distinguished from a strictly past 
 tense. To this accuracy however the capabilities of the Syriac language 
 place a limit. Thus it has no means of distinguishing an aorist from a 
 perfect (e.g. § 25 rcXtuTT^cravTo? or TCTfXdnrjKoro^, § 40 TrpoarcTay/xci'ois 
 or Trpoarayetcn), or a future tense from a conjunctive mood (e.g. § 16 ti 
 TToiyja-oixev or ti TroirjGwfiev). And again in the infinitive and conjunc- 
 tive moods it is powerless to express the several tenses (e.g. § 1 ySAao-- 
 cfirjfji.r)6yvaL and l3X.a<r(fi7]ixe'iaOaL, § 13 cTTrjpt^wfiev and (rr-qpi^iMfxev). 
 
 So far it is trustworthy. But on the other hand, it has some charac- 
 teristics which detract from its value as an authority for the Greek text, 
 and for which allowance must be made. 
 
 (i) It has a tendency to run into paraphrase in the translation of 
 individual words and expressions. This tendency most commonly takes 
 the form of double renderings for a word, more especially in the case of 
 compounds. The following are examples : § i TrepiTTTwo-eis lapsus et 
 damna ; § 6 naOova-aL qinon passi essent et sustinuissent; § 15 )U€^' v-n-oKpC- 
 o-co)? cttm assiimptione persona rum et illi/sione ; § 19 iTravaSpdfxiofxev cur- 
 ranms demio {et) revertamus, aTcvtcroj/xev videamus et contemplenmr ; § 20 
 T<3v SeSoy/taTtcr/AeVcov vir avrov quae visa sunt Deo et decreta sunt ab illo, 
 TrapcKySatVet exit aut transgreditur, Stera^tv fnandavit et ordinavit; § 25 
 7ra/3tt8o^oi/ gloriosutn et stupendu/n, ai/arpe^o/xevos nutritus et adultus, ycv- 
 vaios fort is et Jir?nus ; § 27 dva^oyrrvprjo-dTij) inflanDuetur denuo et re- 
 novetur ; § 30 o/Aovoiav consensimi et paritatem aninii ; § 34 Trapet/AcVovs 
 solutos et laxos, KaTavoTJcruyfJuv contempletmtr et videamus ; § 44 eAAoyi)xwv 
 peritorinn et sapientium (a misunderstanding of eXAoyi/Aos, which is re- 
 peated in § 62); § 50 (f>avep(a07Jaoi'Tat revelabuntur et cognoscetitur ; 
 § 58 vTraKovcrw/Aet/ audiamus et 7-espondeamus ; § 59 dp'^fr^ovov caput {pri7i- 
 cipium) et creatorem ; ii. § 2 d Aaos tJ/xwv congregatio nostra et populus, 
 ar-qpt^eiv sustentaret et stabiliret ; § 4 aVo^uXtj educam et projiciam foras ; 
 § II dvorjTOi stu/ti et expertes niente / § 13 /xeravoT^'cravrfs Ik ^v)(^s 
 revcrtentes et ex corde poenitentes (comp. § 15), &av[xdt,ovcriv obstupescunt 
 et admirantur ; § 14 avBiVTiKov idea/n et veritatetn ; § 18 rdv evxapt-a-- 
 TovvTuiv eoruni qui cojifitcntur et accipiunt gratia 7n igratias agunt) ;
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 137 
 
 § 19 ayavaKrwfx(.v crude!?iMr et murmuremus ; with many others. Some- 
 times however the love of paraphrase transgresses these hmits and 
 runs into great excesses : e. g. § 21 fxr) XinoraKTw ^jxas diro tov 
 6e\T]f/.aT0'i avTov ne rebellantes et deserentes ordinem faciamus aliquid 
 extra vohintatem ejus ; § 53 dvvTrep/^XTjTov exaltataiti et super quain non est 
 trausire ; § 55 ttoWoi fiacriXiis koL ijyovfxevoi Xol/xikov tivos evcTTavros 
 Kaipov viulti reges et duces de principibus populorjim siquando tetnpus 
 afflidionis aut famis alicujus instaret popido ; ii. § 3 Ttapa.Kovf.iv avjov twv 
 kvToX^v ?iegligemus et spernemus mandata ejus dum remisse aghmis 7ieque 
 facitnus ea (comp. § 6, where idv TrapaKOva-w/xev twv ivToXtjjv avrov is 
 translated si avertimus auditum nostrum a majidatis ejus et spernivius ea) 
 with many other instances besides. 
 
 (ii) The characteristic which has been mentioned arose from the 
 desire to do full justice to the Greek. The peculiarity of which I have 
 now to speak is a concession to the demands of the Syriac. The trans- 
 lation not unfrequently transposes the order of words connected to- 
 gether: e.g. § 30 TaTrcLVO(^po(Tvvy] koX Trpaurr^s J § 36 ajxwpLov Kat VTrepTarrjv, 
 ao-v^eros Kat k(TKOTwp.ivr]. This transposition is most commonly found 
 where the first word is incapable of a simple rendering in Syriac, so that 
 several words are required in the translation, and it is advisable therefore 
 to throw it to the end in order to avoid an ambiguous or confused 
 syntax (the Syriac having no case-endings). Thus in the instances 
 given Ta7reivo(f>poarvvr] is hundlitas cogitationis, and dp.(tip.os, ao-tVero?, are 
 respectively quae sine labe, qjiae sine iyitellectu. Where no such reason for 
 a transposition exists, it may be inferred that the variation represents a 
 different order in the Greek : e. g. §12 o Tp6p.o<; kol 6 <f>6^o<;, § 1 8 ra 
 ^etAiy. ..xai to (TTOfxa, ii. § 15 ayaTrijs Kal tticttcws, ii. § 17 Trpocre^^eiv Kat 
 7rto-T€U€iv. Sometimes this transposition occurs in conjunction with a 
 double or periphrastic rendering, and a very considerable departure 
 from the Greek is thus produced: e.g. § 19 rais fieyaXoirpeirecrt Kal virep- 
 jSaXXovtrais avrov Sojpcais donis ejus abundantibus et excelsis et niagnis 
 decore ; § 64 to /xeyaA.07rpe7res Kal ayiov ovofia avrov nomen ejus sanctum 
 et decens iti niagnifudine et gloriosum. 
 
 To the demands of the language also must be ascribed the constant 
 repetition of the preposition before several connected nouns in the 
 Syriac, where it occurs only before the first in the Greek. The absence 
 of case-endings occasioned this repetition for the sake of distinctness. 
 
 In using the Syriac Version as an authority for the Greek text, these 
 facts must be borne in mind. In recording its readings therefore all 
 such variations as arise from the exigencies of translation or the pecu- 
 liarities of this particular version will be passed over as valueless for my
 
 138 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 purpose. Nor again will it be necessary to mention cases where the 
 divergence arises simply from the pointing of the Syriac, the form of the 
 letters being the same : as e.g. the insertion or omission of the sign of 
 the plural, ribui. A more remarkable example is § 39, where we have 
 rc. in^ epyojv in place of t%."V3J^ iraihiav. Experience shows that 
 even the best Syriac mss cannot be trusted in the matter of pointing. 
 In all cases where there is any degree of likelihood that the divergence 
 in the Syriac represents a different reading, the variation will be men- 
 tioned, but not otherwise. Throughout the greater part of the epistles, 
 where we have two distinct authorities (A and C) besides, these instances 
 will be very rare. In the newly recovered portion on the other hand, 
 where A fails us, they are necessarily more frequent ; and here I have 
 been careful to record any case which is at all doubtful. 
 
 Passing from the version itself to the Greek text, on which it was 
 founded, we observe the following facts : 
 
 (i) It most frequently coincides with A, where A differs from C. 
 The following are some of the more significant examples in the 
 genuine Epistle: § l i7ju,rv...7rcpt7rTojo-ets AS, Ka& •)7/i,ojv...7rept(rTa(T£i? 
 C ; § 2 ocrtas AS, ^ctas C ; tb. /act' eAeoCs (eAaiovs) AS, /X€Ta Se'ors C j 
 ib. cre/3acr/xta> AS, (Te(3a(TfJ.i(iiTdTrj C ; § 4 /Sao-t/Vcoj; 'Iapa-q\ AS, om. 
 C ; § 5 <l>96vov AS, tpiv C ; § 6 KaTeVrpei/'ev AS, KariaKaif/e C ; § 7 
 iv yap AS, KOL yap ev C ; § 8 vfjiwv AS, rov Xaov fxov C J § 9 Sid Trj<s 
 Xctrovpyias AS, iv rfj Xenovpyia C; § 10 tuJ ©£<5 AS, om. C; § 13 ws 
 KpLvere k.t.X., where AS preserve the same order of the clauses against 
 C; § 14 epLv AS (so doubtless S originally, but it is made Ipeis by the 
 
 diacritic points), aipeVcis C; § 15 et/'evo-avro AS, tij/e^av C; § 19 Ttts TTpo 
 7]fiwv yeveas /SeXTtous AS, tov<; irpo t^/xcov /SeAtious C j § 23 Trpwrov fikv 
 tfivWopoil AS, om. C ; § 25 eTrtTrrds AS, om. C ; § 28 fXiapd<; AS, /3Aa- 
 (Sepas C ; tb. CK€t 7) Se^ia crov AS, av £/<et cl C ; § 30 aTro lov ®€ov AS, rov 
 ®€ov C; tb. dyaOrjs AS, om. C; ib. vtto rov Ocov AS, om. C; § 32 86$r] 
 AS, ra^ei C ; § 33 TroLrjcrwixev AS, ipovfxiv C ; § 34 17 KTiVts AS, 17 y^ C; 
 § 35 o hrjp.iovpy6s KOL irar-qp k.t.X. AS, where C has a different order; 
 
 tb. Ta evapiCTTa koX €i'7rpoo"ScKTa aurw AS, ra dyaOa koL evapecTTa avTw kol 
 cuVpo'o-ScKTa C; § 39 a<^pove? kol davveroi k.t.X. AS, where C transposes 
 and omits words; § 43 avVas AS, avrds C; § 47 avTOv [tc] koL Ki]<f>d 
 K.T.X., where the order of the names is the same in AS, but different in 
 C; tb. iJL€p.apTvpi^ixivoi<;...8eSoKiiJ.a(rfJi€vio irap avrots AS, 8e8oKt/zao-/xevoi9... 
 fxeixapTvpr]p.iv<a Trap' aurwv C; tb. aywy^s AS, dydirr]? C; § 51 OepdirovTa 
 Tov Qeov AS, avOpwTTOV tov ®eov C ; tb. AlyvwTov AS, avTov C ; § 53 
 oepdiriov AS, oianr6Tr]<; C; § 55 viroheiyfxaTa AS, VTrop-vrj/jLaTa C j § 56 
 StKato? AS, Ku'ptos C ; § 65 Kal 81' avTOv AS, 81' avTOV C. The so-
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 39 
 
 called Second Epistle furnishes the following examples among others : 
 § I TT-qpol AS, TrovTjpol C ; § 3 Kol ov Trpo(TKVvovfJi€v aurois AS, om. C ; ib. 
 ■q irpo'i O.VTOV AS, for which C substitutes Tri% dX.rj6€ta<; ; § 9 TTvevfjLa AS, 
 Xdyos C (see p. 125) ; § 10 dTroXavaiv, aVo'Xavcrts AS, dvaTravaLV, araTrawcris 
 C ; § 1 1 fierd raura AS, cira C. 
 
 (ii) On the other hand there are some passages, though com- 
 paratively few, in which S agrees with C against A. Examples 
 of these are : § 2 tov Xpto-roi! CS, tov @eov A ; § 3 rrj'i KapStas 
 CS, om. A; § 4 a.p-^ovra koI BiKaaT-qv CS, Kpirrjv t] BiKaaTrji' A; 
 § 8 ^v)(rj<; CS, Kaphia<; A ; § 1 2 7^ iiriXeyofjiivr] Tropvr] CS, t] Tropvrj A ; 
 lb. TTjv yrjv CS, Trjv [ttoJAiv A; ib. oTi...KaX CS, om. A; § 15 Sta 
 Tovro CS, om. A ; § 2 1 cnyTJ<i CS, (^wvr;? A ; lb. dvaipu. CS, aVeXet A ; 
 § 22 TOV 8e eATTi^ovra CS, tous Se €A.[7rt^oi']Tas A; § 25 eyyevvdrai 
 CS, yewdrai A ; § 33 Trpoeroi^ao-as CS, 7rpo8ij/xtovpy?/o-as A ; § 34 Trio-Tcu- 
 ovra? CS, om. A ; //;. a ocfiOaXfxos CS, 64>0aXix6's A ; ib. Kuptos CS, om. A ; 
 ib. ayaTr<Zcnv CS, viroixivovaLv A ; § 35 8ta o-Top-aros CS, eiri crTop,aTos A; 
 § 38 TT] fieXeLTU) CS, where A has fxrjTfXfjieXeLTU) ; ib. the words [^tw] koL 
 omitted in CS, but found in A ; § 40 SeSorat CS, ScSerai A ; § 41 evapea-- 
 TciTO) CS, CT;;(apicrTetTco A; § 51 AlyvirTio CS, yy Atyv[7rTou] A; § 56 
 eXaiov CS, eAco5 (eXatos) A. In the Second Epistle the examples of 
 importance are very few : e.g. § 8 Trotyjur] {-n-oifj) crKevo<s rats x^epalv avVoiT 
 Ktti OLa(rTpa(firj CS, Troifj (rKevo<i kol iy rais p(€p(rtv avrov Stao-rpa^Ty A ; 
 tb. a7roXa/?7jTC CS, a7roXa/3ajp,£v A. 
 
 Of these readings, in which CS are arrayed together against A, it 
 will be seen that some condemn themselves by their harmonistic 
 tendency (§§ 4, 22, 34, 35); others are suspicious as doctrinal changes 
 (§12 livLX(.yop.^vq) ] others are grammatical emendations of corrupt texts 
 (§ S^X or substitutions of easier for harder expressions (§12 oTL...Ka.\, 
 § 21 dvaipd); others are clerical errors, either certainly {§ 40) or pro- 
 bably (§ 41) : while in the case of a few others it would be difficult from 
 internal evidence to give the preference to one reading over the other 
 (§§ 25, Z2t> 51)- There are only three places, I think, in the above list, in 
 which it can be said that CS are certainly right against A. In two of 
 these (§§ 3, 34 Triareuoi'Tas) some words have been accidentally omitted 
 in A ; while the third (§ 2 1 o-tyi7s for (ftwvrj^) admits no such explanation. 
 
 (iii) The independence of S, as a witness, will have appeared 
 from the facts already stated. But it will be still more manifest 
 from another class of examples, where S stands alone and either cer- 
 tainly or probably or possibly preserves the right reading, though 
 in some cases at least no ingenuity of the transcriber could have 
 supplied it. Such instances are : § 7 tw irarpl avrov, where C has tw
 
 HO EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Trarpt avTov tw ©ew, and A apparently rw ®ew [kol irarp]! avTov ; § 15, 
 where S supplies the words omitted by homoeoteleuton in AC, but in a 
 way which no editor has anticipated; § 18 eXacw for iXcei (cXatci), but 
 this is perhaps a scribe's correction ; § 22 TroAXat at 6\iil/ei<; k.tX supplied 
 in S, but omitted by AC because two successive sentences begin with 
 the same words: § 35 8ia ttio-tcws, where A has ttiVtcws and C ttio-toj?; 
 § 36 €1? TO ^ws, where AC insert Oavfjiaa-Tov [avrov] in accordance with 
 I Pet. ii. 9 ; § 43 waavTw; koL ras 6vpa<;, where AC read pa/3Sov9 to the 
 injury of the sense, and some editors emend waavrws ws koI ras pa'/?Sov9, 
 still leaving a very awkward statement ; § 46 TroAe/xos (iroXeixoL) re, where 
 S adds Koi fidxai, an addition which the connecting particles seem to 
 suggest, though it may have come from James iv. i ; id. era twv ckXcktw 
 fiov SiaaTpeij/aL, where AC have eva ruiu ixiKpuiv fxov CTKavSaXia-ai, though 
 for reasons which are stated in my notes I cannot doubt that S pre- 
 serves the original reading; § 48 Lva...i$ofjLoXoy>](T(afxaL, where A has 
 i$oixoXoy7](To}ixai (without tva) and C iiofj-oXoyija-o/jLai ; ii § i 01 ctKovovrcs ws 
 TTcpl fiLKpwv [dp.apT(xvova-LV, Koi ly/xeis] afxaprdvofjiev, where the words in 
 brackets are omitted in AC owing to the same cause which has led 
 to the omissions in §§ 15, 22 ; ii. § 3, where S alone omits ivwinov twv 
 di'dpwTTuyi' and fiov, which are probably harmonistic additions in AC ; 
 ii § 7 Oeo}fj.€v, where AC have the corrupt Owfiev. These facts show that 
 we must go farther back than the common progenitor of A and C for the 
 archetype of our three authorities. 
 
 But beside these independent readings S exhibits other peculiarities, 
 which are not to its credit. 
 
 (i) The Greek text, from which the translation was made, must 
 have been disfigured by not a few errors ; e. g. § 2 Iko'i'tcs for aKovres ; 
 § 8 CLirwv for cTttov; § 9 rcAetovs for TcActws ; § il Kptaiv (?) 
 for KoXaa-iv; § 14 Oeiov (eeiONi) for oo-iov (ocion); § 17 aTcvio-oo (?) for 
 aVcvt^wv; § 20 SiKatwcrct for 8loik7](T€1, Sia for 8t;^a, dvep-OL T€ crTaOfiiov (?) 
 for dvefJLOiv T€ o-TaOfJiol, (tvXXtJi(/€l? (?) for (xvveXevcrw; ; § 21 ^etcos (06l(oc) for 
 ocrt'ws (ociooc) ; § 24 Koip-drai vvktos dvLo-Tarai rjp.ipa'? (?) for KOL/j-drai rj vv$ 
 di'LO-Tarai 77 rjp-ipa, ^rjpdv SiaXuerat for f/^/aa koX yvfJLvd SiaXvcrat ; § T^^ ckol- 
 fxrjOrjaav for tKoafxijOrjaav; § 35 viroirtinovTa for viriirnvTev (uVoTrtTTTci) vdvTa, 
 some letters having dropped out ; § 36 Sia tovto for ota tovtov several 
 times, Oavdrov for rrjs dOavdrov (the Tiys having been absorbed in the 
 termination of the preceding BeaTroT-rjs) ; § 37 virap-^oL (?) for hrapxot; 
 § 39 Ka6aLpeTr]<; (?) for Ka6ap6<i, eirea-ov auTOu for tiraia-cv avTOv<;; § 40 iSibis 
 TOTTots for t8tos[o]T07ros ; § 42 K6VWS for Kaivws; § 45 fxiapwv, ctStKwv, for 
 p.iap6v, dSiKOV ; § 50 €1 p.rj add. iv dydirrj from jUSt below ; § 51 §€ iavT<2v 
 
 omitted, thus blending the two sentences together ; § 59 dv6pwTrwy
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 41 
 
 (avcji/) for iOviZv, ewpcTT^v for evepyeTr^v, iTna-rpa^yjOt for i-mffiavrjOt, aaOe- 
 vcis (?) for do-e/Scts ; § 60 xpr](TTd^ for ttiotos ; § 62 17 8t' wv for ■17810 v, 
 eSei /Acv for r/8etyu,ei/ ; ii. § 2 ra Trpos inserted before ras 7rpoo-6u;(ds 
 (TATrpoCTACTTpoC-) ; § 5 irapoifjLLav (ov TrapoiKiav, irot^crav (?) for TrotTyo-avrasJ 
 § 6 ourot for [ol tol]ovtol [StKaioi], the letters in brackets having been 
 omitted ; § 9 e'A^e (^XOe) for €A[€uo-£(T]^e, again by the dropping of some 
 letters; § 10 npoBoTrjv for npooBoLTropov, perhaps owing to a similar muti- 
 lation ; § 1 1 TTiaTivcrMfxev 8ta to Seiv for SovXiv<x<j)[JL€v 8ia tou fir] ; § 1 6 
 Trarepa S€;^o'/xci/oi' for 7ra/3aSe;^o'/Atvov (npA for HApA-) ; § 1 7 7rpocrev;^o'/x,€voi 
 for Trpoaepy(6fX€VOL (?), ctSores for i8oi'tcs ; § 19 Tpv(f)7](rov(riv foY Tpvyrjaovaiv. 
 There are occasionally also omissions, owing to the recurrence of the 
 same sequence of letters, homoeoteleuton, etc. : e.g. § 12 Kai eX;rt^oi;crii' (?), 
 § 14 01 8e irapavo/xovvTe^ k.t.X., § 58 kol TrpoarayfiaTa, § 59 tods raTrctvous 
 IXifjo-ov, ii. 6 Ktti (f>Oopdv ; but this is not a common form of error in S. 
 
 (ii) Again S freely introduces glosses and explanations. These 
 may have been derived from the Greek MS used, or they may have been 
 introduced by the translator himself. They are numerous, and the 
 following will serve as examples: § 10 tovs aorepas, add. tov ovpavov ; 
 § 19 TOV ®eov for avTov, God not having been mentioned before in the 
 same sentence ; § 25 tov )(p6vov, add. 717? ^w^s ; i7k ol Upeis explained ol 
 TTJs Alyvirrov ; § 42 TrapayyeAtas ovv Aa^ovTes, add. oiaTroo-ToAot j § 43 t<3i' 
 (fivXwv, add. iraawv tov 'la-patjX; § 44 t>}v dvaXva-iv, add. T»;r ivOevSe; §51 
 <f>6/3ov, add. tou ©eov; § 62 roVov, add. t-^s ypa^^? ; § 63 jxuijjiQv, add. koX 
 (TKavhaXov; ii. § 6 aVaTraucrti^, add. ti)i/ ckci; ib. to (SaTnLajxa, add. 6 iXaj3o- 
 fjLiv ; § 8 jiaXdv, expanded by an explanatory gloss ; ib. l^ofjLoXoyrja-aa- 
 6ai, add. -rrepl twv dfxapTiwu ijfxtZv; § 9 CKaAeo-ev, add. oji' ev rj; aapKL ; 
 § 12 vVo' TIV05, add. TCJi/ aTrocToAtoi/ ; § 13 to ovo/xa, add. Tou Kupiou 
 in one place and tou Xpio-Toi? in another; § 14 cV t^s ypa(f)rj<; t^s 
 Aeyovo-rjs, altered into ^x m de quibiis scriptmn est ; ib. to. /3i^Ata, add. 
 Toiv 7rpo(fir]T<j)v ; ib. 6 Ir]crovi yfjioiv, an explanatory clause added; § 17 
 etrovTai, add. iv ayaAAtao"£t j § 1 9 tov avaytvoxTKOvTa iv vplv, add. Ta Aoyta 
 (or Toiis Adyovs) tou ©eou. 
 
 (iii) Again : we see the hand of an emender where the original text 
 seemed unsatisfactory or had been already corrupted ; e.g. § 14 i$iCi]Tr]a-a 
 TOV TOTTov K.T.A., altered to agree with the lxx; § 16 ttjs /AcyaAwawr;? 
 omitted ; ib. navTaq dvOpwirovs substituted for to £1805 tu»v dvOpwirwv, 
 in accordance with another reading of the lxx; § 17 kukov changed 
 into Trovrjpov TrpayyaaTos, in accordance with the lxx ; § 20 to, substituted 
 for Tovs...p-a^ovs, the metaphor not being understood by or not pleasing 
 the corrector; § 21 tov <^6(3ov omitted ; § 30 'Ayta substituted for 'Aytov, 
 the latter not being understood; § ^;^ KaTu. StaVotai/ omitted for the sanie
 
 142 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMExNT. 
 
 reason; § 35 o-c omitted, and ra? a/xopTta? crov substituted, in accordance 
 with a more intelligible but false text of the lxx ; § 38 the omission of 
 firj before T77/x€/\etrw, and of [r/Tw] koI before firj aAa^ovtueo-^co (see above, 
 p. 126); § 40 the omission of eTrtTeAeio-^^at icat (see p. 143); § 44 iwl 
 8oKLfxi]v, an emendation of the corrupt i-mSofxyjv ; § 45 riHv /xy dvrjKovToiv, 
 the insertion of the negative (see the notes) ; ii>. the insertion of 
 dWa before vtto irapavo/jiwv and vrru twi/ fxtapov (jxiapiSv) k.t.X., for the 
 sake of symmetry; § 59 the alteration of pronouns and the insertion 
 of words at the beginning of the prayer, so as to mend a mutilated 
 text (see below, p. 143 sq) ; § 62 the omission of eis before ivdpcrov 
 fiiov, and other changes, for the same reason ; ii § 3 eTreira hi on substi- 
 tuted for dWa, to supply an antithesis to Trpturov jxiv ; § 4 dyairdv [tovs 
 TrXrjcriov ws] caurou'?, the words in brackets being inserted because the 
 reciprocal sense of iavTov<i was overlooked ; § 1 2 avrov for tou ®cov, 
 because tov @€ov has occurred immediately before ; § 13 the substitution 
 of 7]iJ.a.<;...Xiyofx.€v for vp.d<;.. .(SovXofiai, from not understanding that the 
 words are put into the mouth of God Himself; § 14 the omission of ort, 
 to mend a mutilated text; § 17 the omission of ev tw 'Irjaov owing 
 to its awkwardness. 
 
 There are also from time to time other insertions, omissions, and 
 alterations in S, which cannot be classed under any of these heads. The 
 doxologies more especially are tampered with. 
 
 In such cases, it is not always easy to say whether the emenda- 
 tion or gloss was due to the Syrian translator himself, or to some earlier 
 Greek transcriber or reader. In one instance at all events the gloss 
 distinctly proceeds from the Syrian translator or a Syrian scribe : § i, 
 where the Greek word o-raVis is adopted Avith the explanation /loc autem 
 est tumultus. This one example suggests that a Syrian hand may have 
 been at work more largely elsewhere. 
 
 The inferences which I draw from the above facts are the following: 
 
 (i) In A, C, S, we have three distinct authorities for the text. 
 Each has its characteristic errors, and each preserves the genuine text in 
 some passages, where the other two are corrupt. 
 
 (2) The stream must be traced back to a very remote antiquity 
 before we arrive at the common progenitor of our three authorities. 
 This follows from their mutual relations. 
 
 (3) Of our three authorities A (if we set aside merely clerical 
 errors, in which it abounds) is by far the most trustworthy. The in- 
 stances are very rare (probably not one in ten), where it stands alone 
 against the combined force of CS. Even in these instances internal
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 143 
 
 considerations frequently show that its reading must be accepted not- 
 withstanding. 
 
 Its vast superiority is further shown by the entire absence of what 
 I may call tertiary readings, while both C and S furnish many examples 
 of these. Such are the following. In § 8 (i) StcAcyx^w^ci', the original 
 reading; (2) [St]e/\€x6'aj/i.ev A, its corruption; (3) StaAcx^w/xcv CS, the 
 corruption emended. In § 15 (i) "AAaAa k.tX. S, the full text; (2) 
 some words omitted owing to homoeoteleuton, A; (3) the grammar of 
 the text thus mutilated is patched up in C by substituting yAwo-o-a 
 for yAwcro-av, and making other changes. In § 21 (i) eis Kpi^La Tracriv 
 riltlv A; (2) €ts KpLixara crvv rjjjiiv C, an accidental corruption; (3) cis 
 K/jt/xara (or Kpt'/Aa) ijfxiv S, the avv being discarded as superfluous. In 
 § 30 (i) 'Ayi'ou ow fucpU A ; (2) 'Ayta ovv /xepU S, a corruption or emen- 
 dation ; (3) "Ayia ovv [xeprj C, a still further corruption or emendation. 
 I'^ § 35 (^) ^^^^ original reading Skx TTLaTewq S; (2) 7rto-T£w? A, the 
 preposition being accidentally dropped ; (3) the emendation Trto-rws C 
 In § 38 (i) fxrj arr^/xeAetTw, the original reading ; (2) ^77 TT^/xcAetVo) (written 
 apparently iJi-qriMfjiiXeLTU)) A, the a being accidentally dropped ; (3) tt^/xc- 
 AeiTw CS, the /x.^ being omitted to restore the balance, because the words 
 now gave the opposite sense to that which is required. In § 39 erraia-ev 
 avTov's C, or cTreo-ev aurou's, as by a common itacism it is written in A ; 
 (2) e-TTca-ev avToS, the final o- being lost in the initial o- of the following 
 o-rjTo's ; (3) ETreo-ov auroi; S, a necessary emendation, since a plurality of 
 persons is mentioned in the context. In § 40 (i) eVi/xcAws eTrircActcr^at 
 Koi ovK eiKrj . . .yLvtarOai, presumably the original text; (2) lTnr(.Xd(j6ai koI 
 ovK dK7J...yiV€(j6aL AC, the word eVi/xeAw? being accidentally omitted 
 owing to the similar beginnings of successive words; (3) ow dK-fj... 
 yividOai S, the words eViTcAcio-^at *cai being deliberately dropped, be- 
 cause they have now become meaningless. In § 44 (i) the original 
 reading, presumably lirifxovriv ; (2) the first corruption iTnvofxrjv A; (3) 
 the second corruption i-TnSofjiijv C ; (4) the correction eVt Soki/xt/V S. In 
 § 45 (i) the original reading twv p.iap6v kui ahiKov C^Aov av€iA7y0oTwv C ; 
 
 (2) Tcov fxiapwv KOL dSiKov ^rjXov dvciXrjffioTwv A, an accidental error; 
 
 (3) Twv ixiapwv KOL aSiKwv t,rjXov dvtLXr]<f>6T0}v S, where the error is con- 
 sistently followed up. In § 48 (l) Iva ela-eXOwv . . .i^o/xoXoyrja-wfiaL S with 
 Clem. Alex.; (2) €LcreX6u>v...iioiJioXoyy](Toi/xaL A, Iva being accidentally 
 dropped; (3) d(T(.X9u)v..A^oixoXoy^croixaL C, an emendation suggested by 
 the omission. In § 59, where A is wanting, (i) the original text, pre- 
 sumably ovo/xaros avTov. [Aos i^/xtv, Kupt€,] iXTTL^eiv iirl To...ovop.d aov 
 K.T.X. ; (2) the words in brackets are dropped out and the connexion 
 then becomes cVaAeo-ev T^/xas.-.eis i-n-Lyvwa-Lv So^rjs 6v6fj.aTo<i avTOv, iXm^eLv
 
 144 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 cTTt To...6vofjLd (Tov, as ill C, whcrc the sudden transition from the third 
 to the second person is not accounted for ; (3) this is remedied in S 
 by substituting avrov for aov and making similar alterations for several 
 lines, till at length by inserting the words ' 7ae 7vill say ' a transition to 
 the second person is effected. In § 62 in like manner (i) the original 
 
 text had presumably eis ivap^rov ^iov . . .huvOvvav [riyv TTopetW auTwi'] ; 
 
 (2) the words in brackets were omitted, as in C; (3) a still further 
 omission of cts was made, in order to supply an objective case to 
 huvOvvuv, as in S. In ii. § i (i) ttoioi/ ovv C; (2) ttolow A, a corruption; 
 
 (3) TToiov S. In ii. § 14 (i) the original reading, presumably on m 
 
 (3i(3Xia...Trjv iKKXy](Tiav ov vvv €ri'at...[A.eyoi^o-tv, Srj Xoi'j ; {2) the WOrds in 
 
 brackets are accidentally omitted, as in C ; {3) this necessitates further 
 omission and insertion to set the grammar straight, as in S. In some of 
 these examples my interpretation of the facts may be disputed ; but the 
 general inference, if I mistake not, is unquestionable. 
 
 The scribe of A was no mean penman, but he put no mind into his 
 work. Hence in his case, we are spared that bane of ancient texts, the 
 spurious criticism of transcribers. With the exception of one or two 
 harmonistic changes in quotations, the single instance wearing the 
 appearance of a deliberate alteration, which I have noticed in A, is 
 r^s 4>o}vrj<: for Trjq (nyrjs (§ 21); and even this might have been made 
 almost mechanically, as the words to cTrtctKes riys yXcJo-ori^s occur im- 
 mediately before. 
 
 (4) Of the two inferior authorities S is much more valuable than C 
 for correcting A. While C alone corrects A in one passage only of any 
 moment (§ 2 /Aem Seov<; for fjier eAeous), S alone corrects it in several. 
 In itself S is both better and worse than C. It is made up of two 
 elements, one very ancient and good, the other debased and probably 
 recent ; whereas C preserves a fairly uniform standard throughout. 
 
 (5) From the fact that A shares both genuine and corrupt readings 
 with C, C with S, and S with A, which are not found in the third authority, 
 it follows that one or more of our three authorities must give a mixed 
 text. It cannot have been derived by simple transcription from the 
 archetype in a direct line, but at some point or other a scribe must 
 have introduced readings of collateral authorities, either from memory 
 or by reference to mss. This phenomenon we find on the largest scale in 
 the Greek Testament ; but, wherever it occurs, it implies a considerable 
 circulation of the writing in question. 
 
 (6) We have now materials for restoring the original text of Clement 
 much better than in the case of any ancient Greek author, except 
 the writers of the New Testament. For instance the text of a great
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 45 
 
 part of ^schylus depends practically on one MS of the loth or nth 
 century ; i. e. on a single authority dating some fifteen centuries after 
 the tragedies were written. The oldest extant authority for Clement 
 on the other hand was written probably within three centuries and 
 a half after the work itself; and we have besides two other independent 
 authorities preserving more or less of an ancient text. The youngest of 
 these is many centuries nearer to the author's date, than this single 
 authority for the text of ^schylus. Thus the security which this com- 
 bination gives for the correctness of the ultimate result is incomparably 
 greater than in the example alleged. Where authorities are multiplied, 
 variations will be multiplied also ; but it is only so that the final result 
 can be guaranteed. 
 
 (7) Looking at the dates and relations of our authorities we may 
 be tolerably sure that, when we have reached their archetype, we have 
 arrived at a text which dates not later, or not much later, than the 
 close of the second century. On the other hand it can hardly have been 
 much earlier. For the phenomena of the text are the same in both 
 epistles ; and it follows therefore, that in this archetypal MS the so-called 
 Second Epistle must have been already attached to the genuine Epistle 
 of Clement, though not necessarily ascribed to him. 
 
 (8) But, though thus early, it does not follow that this text was in 
 all points correct. Some errors may have crept in already and existed 
 in this archetype, though these would probably not be numerous; e.g. 
 it is allowed that there is something wrong in ii. § 10 ovk co-tiv evpeiv 
 avOfnnTTov omves k.t.X. Among such errors I should be disposed to 
 place § 6 AavaiScs koX At'pKat, § 20 Kpifi-ara, § 40 the omission of eTri/AcAws 
 before tViTcXeto-^at, § 44 ItTLvofxYiv, and perhaps also § 48 the omission of 
 •7T0) yopyos (since the passage is twice quoted with these words by Clement 
 of Alexandria), together with a few other passages. 
 
 And it would seem also that this text had already undergone slight 
 mutilations. At the end of the First Epistle we find at least three 
 passages where the grammar is defective in C, and seems to require the 
 insertion of some words; § 59 6\'6p,aT<><; avTov...iX7ri^€Lv i-rrl to dp^iyovov 
 K.T.X., §60 ev TTLareL kol d\.7]0eLa. . .vTrrjKOov; yevofxevov;, § 62 SiKat'ws SievOv- 
 vetv...iKavdj5 e7reo-T£tXa/A£i/. Bryennios saw, as I think correctly, that in 
 all these places this faulty grammar was due to accidental omissions. 
 Subsequent editors have gone on another tack ; they have attempted 
 to justify the grammar, or to set it straight by emendations of individual 
 words. But, to say nothing of the abrupt transitions which still remain 
 in the text so amended, the fresh evidence of S distinctly confirms the 
 view of Bryennios ; for it shows that these same omissions occurred 
 
 CLEM. 10
 
 146 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 in a previous us from wliich the text of S was derived, though in S 
 itself the passages have undergone some manipulations. These lacunae 
 therefore must have existed in the common archetype of C and S. And 
 I think that a highly probable explanation of them can be given. I find 
 that the interval between the omissions § 59, § 60, is 35^ or 36 Hnes in 
 Gebhardt (37^ in Hilgenfeld), while the interval between the omissions 
 § 60, § 62 is 18 lines in Gebhardt {19 in Hilgenfeld). Thus the one 
 interval is exactly twice the other. This points to the solution. The 
 archetypal MS comprised from 17 to 18 lines of Gebhardt's text in a 
 page. It was slightly frayed or mutilated at the bottom of some pages 
 (though not all) towards the end of the epistle, so that words had dis- 
 appeared or were illegible. Whether these same omissions occurred 
 also in A, it is impossible to say ; but, judging from the general relations 
 of the three authorities and from another lacuna (ii. § 10 ovk tcmv tvpeiv 
 av9pu)-ov omves k.t.X.) where the same words or letters are wanting in all 
 alike, we may infer that they did so occur. Other lacunae (e.g. ii. § 14 
 aXXa avwOev k.t.X.) may perhaps be explained in a similar way. 
 
 Whether other Manuscripts of these Epistles may not yet be dis- 
 covered, it is impossible to say. Tischendorf (p. xv) mentions an eager 
 chase after a palimpsest reported to be at Ferrara, which turned out 
 after all to be a copy of the legendary Life of Clement. The unwary 
 may be deceived by seeing 'dementis Epistolae Duae' entered in the 
 Catalogues of mss in some of the great libraries of Europe. These are 
 the two spurious Latin Epistles to James. It should be added that a 
 record is preserved of a copy of the Epistles to the Corinthians of a 
 different character from our extant mss. Photius {Bibl. 126 ; see below, 
 p. 197) found these two Epistles of Clement bound up in one small 
 volume (^i/SXi^dptov) with the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. 
 
 No other ancient Version of the Epistles of Clement is known to 
 have existed besides the Syriac. I cannot find any indications that it 
 was ever translated into Latin before the seventeenth century; and, if 
 so, it must have been a sealed book to the Western Church. This 
 supposition is consistent with all the known facts ; for no direct quota- 
 tion is found from it in any Latin writer who was unacquainted with 
 Greek'. 
 
 1 A quotation or rather a paraphrastic century, with the heading In Epistola 
 
 abridgment of Clement's account of the Sancti dementis ad Corinthios (Spicil. 
 
 institution of the ministry (§ 44) is given Solesin. i. p. 293). Pitra, the learned 
 
 by one Joannes a Roman deacon, who editor, suggests (pp. Ivii, ■293) that this 
 
 may have written at the end of the sixth John must have got the quotation from a
 
 MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 
 
 147 
 
 Latin translation cf the epistle by Pauli- 
 nus of Nola, adding 'A Paulino Nolano 
 conditam fuisse Clementinam versionem 
 tarn Paulinus ipse {Epist. xlvi) quam 
 Gennadius [Calal. xlviii) diserte testatur.' 
 I do not understand the reference to 
 Gennadius, who says nothing which 
 could be construed into such a statement. 
 The reference in the passage of Paulinus' 
 own letter addressed to Rufinus {Epist. 
 xlvi. § 1, p. 275) is obscure. He says 
 that he has no opportunity of getting a 
 more thorough knowledge of Greek, as 
 Rufinus urges him ; that, if he saw more 
 of Rufinus, he might learn from him ; 
 and that in his translation of S. Clement 
 he had guessed at the sense where he 
 could not understand the words. His com- 
 mentator Rosweyd supposes that he al- 
 ludes to the Recognitmis, and that Rufinus 
 
 himself afterwards translated them, not 
 being satisfied with his friend's attempt. It 
 seems to me more probable that Paulinus 
 had rendered only an extract or extracts 
 from some Clementine writing for a 
 special purpose ; for he calls Greek an 
 'ignotus sermo' to himself, and with this 
 little knowledge he would hardly have 
 attempted a long translation. Among the 
 extracts so translated may have been this 
 very passage, which is quoted by Joannes 
 in illustration of the narrative in Num- 
 bers xvi. But we do not even know 
 whether the Clement meant by Paulinus 
 is the Alexandrian or the Roman, and 
 all speculation must therefore be vague. 
 At all events the loose quotation of a 
 single very prominent passage is not suffi- 
 cient evidence of the existence of a Latin 
 version. 
 
 10 — 2
 
 4. 
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 
 
 THE course which was adopted with Ignatius and Polycarp {Ig>i. and 
 Polyc. I. p. 127 sq, p. 536 sq) is followed in the case of Clement also. 
 All references however to the Homilies and Recognitions, with other 
 writings of the Petro-Clementine cycle, are omitted here, unless they 
 have some special interest as illustrating the traditions respecting 
 Clement. In hke manner I have excluded references to the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, except when they claimed admission for the same reason. 
 And generally only passages are given which refer either to the two 
 'Epistles to the Corinthians', or to the character and history of Clement 
 himself. 
 
 I. 
 
 Barnabas [c. a.d. ?]. 
 
 The following resemblances to Clement may be noted in the 
 Epistle bearing the name of Barnabas. In § i ySXeVa) ev vfiiv iKKex^y-^'ov 
 a-TTo Tov TrXovfxiov Trj<; ayaTTT^s Kvpiov 7rv£i)/xa i(f) v/aus the language 
 recalls Clem. 46 eV irvevfjia -n^s x<^P''''05 to iKx^Oiv i(j> v/xas, but ' the out- 
 pouring' of the Holy Spirit is a common expression (e.g. Acts ii. 17, 18, 
 and esp. Tit. iii. 6, after Joel iii. i). Again the words § 17 iX-Tri^n 
 fiov 6 vovs KOI -q i}nj)(7] Trj cTTi^u/Ata fiov firj TrapaXcXoiTrevai ti Ttov avrjKovToyv 
 €t? a-uiTTjpiav resemble Clement's exhortation to his readers (§ 45) to be 
 ^T^XwTat TTcpi Ttov dvrjKovTOiv £is (jiHTqpiav, but the expression might have 
 occurred to both writers independently. Again the language used in 
 describing the appearance of the Lord to Moses on the Mount (Exod. 
 xxxii. 7, Deut. ix. 12) by Barnabas §§ 4, 14, closely resembles that of 
 Clement relating to the same occurrence (§ 53), more especially in the 
 reduplication of the name Mnivarj, Mwuony, which is not found in the 
 O. T. in either account of the event, though it occurs elsewhere 
 (Exod. iii. 4).
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 49 
 
 'These are the most striking of several parallels which Hilgenfeld 
 {Clem. Rom. Epist. p. xxiii sq, ed. 2) has collected to prove that Barna- 
 bas was acquainted with Clement. The parallels however, though they 
 may suggest a presumption, cannot be considered decisive. The two 
 writers, having occasion to discourse on the same topics, the evil times 
 in which they live, the approaching end of the world, and the attitude 
 of believers at this crisis, and to refer to the same passages in the O. T., 
 would naturally use similar language. Even if the connexion were 
 more firmly established, it would still remain a question whether 
 Barnabas borrowed from Clement or conversely. 
 
 2. 
 
 Ignatius [c. a.d. iio]. 
 
 Certain resemblances to Clement's language and sentiments may be 
 pointed out; e.g. Polyc. 5 et rts Swarai iv ayve.La fj.€V€Lv k.t.A.. to § 38 
 o ayvos iv rr} (rapKL [t^tw] koi firj aXa^ovcuccr^w, or Ephes. 1 5 iva...8t' c5v 
 criya ytvwcTKr^TaL tO § 21 to cTrtet/ces rrj^ y\(0(rar]<; avT(2v Sid tt^s cnyyj^ 
 (jiavepov TroirjaaTincrav, and again /T". ov'Sev XavOdvei tov Kvptov aAXa Koi ra 
 KpvTTTa rjfiwu eyyvs avT<2 lariv to § 27 Travra eyyus a.vrw iaTa'...Kai ovSkv 
 Xik-qOiv rrjv fiovXrjv avTov. But more Stress should perhaps be laid on 
 the language which Ignatius addresses to the Roman Church (see esp. 
 §§ 3j 4> with the notes, pp. 203, 209), and which seems to be a reference 
 to Clement's Epistle. The evidence however falls far short of demon- 
 stration. 
 
 3- 
 
 POLYCARP [c. A.D. Iio]. 
 
 The following passages furnish ample proof that Clement's Epistle 
 was in the hands of Polycarp. 
 
 PoLVCARP. Clement. 
 
 Inscr. Trj eKK\7](ria tov Qeov ttj napoi- Inscr. ttj iKKKrja-ia tov Qeov tjj irapoi- 
 
 KovfTT) <t>iK[mTovs Kova-r/ Kopivdov 
 
 eXfOf iifiiv Koi elp^VT) napa 6eoC nau- X"P'^ '^Z^'" ''^'' f'P'f'"/ ^^o iravTOKpa- 
 
 TOKparopos koi ^Irjaov XptoroG tov (tco- rnpos Qeov 8ia ^Irjaov XpicTToii nXtjOvv- 
 
 TTJpos rjpwv Tv\ri6vv6('iri Oeirj 
 
 ^ I ayionpeneaiv bea-pols §13 ayiowpfiTeat Xoyoij 
 
 ^ I Tav dXrjBais vtto Qfov Kol roii § 50 Toiis eKXfXfyptpovs vTro tov Qeov 
 
 Kvpiov -qpoav iKKikiypivwv Sta 'iTja-oC Xptcrrov roC Kvpiov T]pwv
 
 I50 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 POLYCARP. 
 
 ^ I j^ ^f^aia TTjs TTiaTfcos vfia>v pi^a 
 e^ apxaionv KuTayyeXXofiei'j] xP""^" 
 
 § I eas davarov Karavrr^aai 
 
 § 2 iv ^o/3(» Kai aXrjdda 
 
 § 2 aTToXiTTourfs (c.r.X., see below § 7 
 
 § 2 ixVTjfiovevovTfs 8e cov ftnev o Kvpios 
 
 8i8aaK(ov' MH KpiNere, Tna mh Kpi- 
 GHTe- A,4)feTe kai (>,4)e6HceT<M y'wTn- 
 eAe&re, Tna eAeHGHre- cp Merpcfi 
 MerpeTre, <\NTiMeTpH9HceTAi y'wTn 
 
 § 3 ■'""^ fiaKapLov KOL evbo^ov TlaiXov 
 ...OS Ka\ anav vfi'iv 'dypa^fv iivKTTokas, 
 eis as 
 
 K.T.A, 
 
 3 (iS as iav iyKvnTrjTC k.t.X. 
 
 c « > 
 
 g 4 (T^fiTa Kai Tas yvvamas vpcov ev 
 Tjj 8o6ei(rr] avTa7s TTiarei kuI dydnj) Kai 
 dyvda, crrepyovaas roiis eavrmv avSpas 
 iv TTaar] dXrjdeia, 
 
 Kai dyaTr(0(ras navras i^ \<jov iv ttclvt] 
 iyKpareia, 
 
 Kai TO. TtKva Trai8ev€iv ttjv TraiSemv 
 Tov (f)6(^ov Tov Oeov 
 
 § 4 paKpav oiKTas TTaar/s Sia/3oXijs, Ka- 
 ToKakias, k.t.X. 
 
 § 4 TTavra pa>p.o<TKOTrelTai, 
 Kul \e\r]6ev avrov ov8iv ovre Xo-yto"- 
 pciv ovre ivvoia>p k.t.X, 
 
 § 5 <? *'«'' fvapf(TT^a<i>pfv...idv ivoXi- 
 revacopfda a^ias avriw 
 
 § 5 viroraaaofiipovs rois Trpfcrfiv- 
 repois 
 
 § 5 Tas napdivovs iv dpoipa Kai dyvf/ 
 (rvvei8i]aei inpinaTeiv 
 
 Clement. 
 
 ^ I Tis... rrjv... ^f ^a'lavvpav ttI(Ttivovk 
 idoKipaafv; comp. §47 rrjv ^f^aioruTijv 
 Kai dpxaiav Kopivdiav iKKXrjaiav 
 
 § 5 eas davarov fjdXrjaav, Comp. §§ 6, 
 63, Karavrfjaai inl bpopov {(tkottov) 
 
 § 19 iv 0o/3a) Kai dXrjdda 
 
 § 13 pepmipivoiTOiv Xoymv tov Kvpiov 
 'irjcrov ovs iXdXTjcrev 8i8daKa)v iTtu'iKfiav 
 Kai paKpodvpiav eXeATS Tna eXeH- 
 
 0HTe- A^jfere, Tna A())e9H y'wTn — 
 tp Merptfj MerpeTre, cn aytcp MerpH- 
 BHcerAi yaaTn 
 
 § 47 dvaXd(3eTe ttjv imaToXrjv tuv 
 paKapiov TlavXov Toii aTToaruXov' t'l npH- 
 Tov...eypa\j/€v ; in dXridelas TrvtvpariKms 
 iniaTfiXev vpiv k.t.X. 
 
 § 45 iyK€Kv(paTe fls Tas ypa(f)as tcis 
 dXr]dels, ^53 iyi^f<v(})aT€ els to. Xoyia 
 Toi) Qeov, comp. §§ 40, 62 
 
 § I yvvai^iv re iv dpcipat Kai (repvfj 
 Kai dyvTj crvveihrjaei iravra imreXelv 
 TraprjyyeXXere, arepyovaas KadrfKovT(os 
 Tovs av8pas eavrav k.t.X. 
 
 § 21 Tas yvvalKas ^p(iv...8u)pda)a(o- 
 peda...TTjv ayaTTTjv avr6iv...ncicnv Tois 
 (fiolBovpevois TOV Qeuv ocricos larjv Trap- 
 exeTdJcrav 
 
 § 21 TOVS veovs Trai,8evaa)p,ev Tr)U Trai- 
 8eiav TOV cf)6^ov tov Qeov 
 
 § 30 dno navTos ■^idvpiapov Kai KaTa- 
 XaXids TToppfo eavToiiS TTOiovvres, COmp. 
 
 §35 
 
 § 41 pa>po(TKOTrr]6ev TO Trpo(r(f)epopevov 
 
 § 21 Kai OTi ovdev XeXrjdev avTov 
 
 Twv ivvoimv ripu>v ovbe Tav diaXoyiap^v 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 § 21 iav pf) d^ias avTov noXirevopevoi 
 TCI KaXd Kai evapeaTa evoiniov avTov 
 TToicopev, comp. § 62 066) otrt'toy evapev 
 Telv 
 
 § 57 vTToTayijTe Tols Tzpea^vTepois 
 
 § I yvvai^lv re iv dpapa Kai a-epvi] 
 Kai dyvfi avvei8i'](T€i irdvTa iniTeXelv
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 
 
 151 
 
 POLYCARP. 
 
 § 6 eiicTTTKayxvoi 
 
 § 6 eTTiaKfTTToiMfvoi navTai acrdeve'is, 
 inKTrpeffiovTes ra dnoTTeTTkavrnxtva 
 
 § 6 a7r€\6fifvoi nnrrTjs opyrjs, Trpocrco- 
 iroXrjyp'las 
 
 § 6 oi fvayyfXicrdixevoi, rjiias dnocTTo- 
 Xoi 
 
 § 6 ^TjXarai TTfpt to koXou (on dvrjKdv 
 els see § 13) 
 
 § 7 Sio dnoXiTrovTes rrjv fMaraioTrjTa 
 T(ov TToWwp Koi ras ■v//'eiiSoStSa(TKaXtas 
 eVi roi/ e^ apx^* '?/*'" 'J^o-pahodiura Xoyov 
 €7n(rTpe-J/Mp.ev, comp. ^ 2 Sto SouXeu- 
 (Tore rco Geoi . . ■ OTToXiTroi^es tj^i' ksvtjv 
 IxaTniokoylav k.tX. 
 
 § 7 TTpo(TKapr€povvT€S vrjcrreiais, 8ei]- 
 aecriu alrovfievoi tov rravTenonTriv Ofov 
 
 § 8 jxifirfTaL ovv yevcifitda TTJs vtto- 
 fxovTis avTov-.-TovTov yap i]p.'Li' tod vtto- 
 ypaixfiov edrjKe St* eavToii, COllip. § lO 
 ' Domini exemplar sequimini' 
 
 § 9 *?" '^Q' f\8are kut o4>do-Xp.ovs... 
 Kai (V avTot IlavXco /cat toIs Xoiirois dno- 
 
 (TTokoiS 
 
 § 9 ovTOL irdvTes ovk els Kevov e'bpa- 
 
 flOV 
 
 § 9 els TOV d(petXoiievov avTols tottov 
 eicrt TTaph rw Kuptw 
 
 § 10 fraternitatis amatores 
 
 § 10 Omnes vobis invicem subjecti 
 estote (see the note) 
 
 § 10 Dominus in vobis non blas- 
 phemetur. Vae autem per quern no- 
 men Domini blasphemattir 
 
 § II qui estis in principio epistu- 
 lae ejus 
 
 § II ut omnium vestrum corpus 
 salvetis 
 
 § 12 Confido enim vos bene exerci- 
 
 Clement. 
 
 §§ 29}54> fV(r7rXay;^;/oj, § 14 eva-nXay- 
 XVia 
 
 § 59 Toiis TrXavcojj.ii'ovs tov Xaov crov 
 eVt'(n-/3e\|/-of, tovs dadeve'is Taaai 
 
 § 13 dno6ep.fvoi, rrdaav dXa^oveiav... 
 Koi opyas, § 1 dTTpoaa>7roXr]iXTTT<os iravra 
 eVotetTf 
 
 § 42 01 aTTooToXot riyiiv eiiTiyyeXia-drj- 
 uav 
 
 § 45 C^XaToi nep\ Tav dvrjKovTcov els 
 aa>TT]piav 
 
 ^ 7 ^'o OTToXtVco/Ltef Tas Kevds Koi 
 p.aTaias (^povribas koi eXOcofiev eVi tov 
 evKXe^ Kul aepivov t^s Trapadoaeas rjjxuiv 
 Kavova, § 9 bu) v7TaKovcra)p,€V...Ka\ eVt- 
 arpeyp-copeu eVi tovs olKTipp.ovs avTov, 
 aTvoXiTTovres Trjv p.aTaiOTTOviav, % 19 €7ra- 
 vabpdfioitpiev eVi tov e^ dpxrjs TrapaSeSo- 
 fxevov vp.lv TTJs elpi]vr]s ctkottov 
 
 § 55 ^'^ yap TTjs vrjo-Teias Ka\ rrjs ra- 
 7reiv(ocreu)s avTrjs Tj^ioiaev tov navTenoTT- 
 Tt]v SecnroTrjv, § 64 6 TravTeir6iTTr]s Qeos 
 
 § 5 vTTopovTJs yev6p.evos /xeyto-roy viro- 
 ypanpos (Christ himself is called our 
 VTr6ypapp.os in g^ 1 6, 33) 
 
 ^ 5 Xdficopev Tvpo 6<pdaXp^v ijpwv 
 TOVS ayaOovs dirouToXovs 
 
 8 6 eVi TOV TTjs 7ri(TTea>s ^e^aiov 8p6- 
 fiov KaTTjVTTjaav 
 
 ^ 5 ^T^opevOr) els tov 6<^eiX6p,evov to- 
 ttov TTJs 86^T]S 
 
 §§ 47, 48, (j)iXa8eX<pia 
 
 8 3^ "vTroTauaecrda) eKucrTos rco TrXrjcriov 
 avToii 
 
 § 47 coo-re (cat jBXatKprjpias eVt^e- 
 peaBai rw ovofiaTi Kvplov 8id Tqv vpe- 
 Tipav acjipoavvrjv, eavTols 8e Kiv8vvov 
 ene^epyd^eadai, COmp. v^ i 
 
 § 47 Tt TTpaTov vpiv ev dpxfj tov ev- 
 ayyeXiov eypaxjrev; 
 
 §?5 37^ 3^5 f'S' TO (Tio^ecrdai oXov to 
 au>p,a, ScofeV^co oiiv iqpcov oXov To aap-a 
 
 § 62 aaipws fi8eip.ev ypd(f)eiv iqp,as
 
 152 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 POLYCARP. 
 
 tatos esse in sacris Uteris 
 
 Clement. 
 
 dv8pda-i,...fyKfKv(ji6aiv etr TaXoyia k.t.X. 
 (comp. § 53 KoXds fnicTTaa-df rds If pas 
 ypac^as K.T.X.) 
 
 §§ 36, 61, 64, Jesus Christ is called 
 
 apxtfpfvs 
 
 § 12 aedificet vos in fide et veri- § 62 irtpl yap TriWecoy koi perauoias 
 
 tate, et in omni mansuetudine et koI yvr^aias ayairris Kn\ fyKpardas koi 
 
 sine iracundia et in patientia et in o-axfypna-vurjs koI vnopovfji iravra tottov 
 
 § 12 ipse sempiternus pontifcx 
 
 longanimitate ct tolerantia et casti- 
 tate, 
 
 et det vobis sortem et partem inter 
 
 eyl^rjXacji^aapei', VTTopipvqaicovTfs hflv v- 
 pas iv 8iKaioavvr] Koi dXrjdda Ka\ paKpo- 
 Ovpla K.T.X. 
 
 ^ 59 cdi'^copfda...(m<x)s rov dpidpov 
 sanctos suos et nobis vobiscum, et tov Karr^pidpr^pivov tcoj/ (KkeKTau avrov 
 
 omnibus qui sunt sub caelo, 
 
 qui credituri sunt 
 
 § 14 Haec vobis scripsi per Cre- 
 scentem, quem in praesenti commen- 
 davi vobis et commendo, conversatus 
 est enim nobiscum inculpabiliter. 
 
 fv oXo) TW Kocrpo) BiaCJivXa^rj adpavarov 
 K.T.X., § 65 77 ;^apts.../Lie^' vpcov Koi peTa 
 navTcov navTaxfi rav KfKXrjpevau vtto 
 TOV Qeov 81 avToii, COmp. §§ 42, 58 
 
 § 42 Tav peWovTav TricrTfveip. 
 
 § 63 inip'^apfv Se av8pas ttlcttovs Kai 
 <Tco(f)povas, ajTO veoTujTos opaaTpacfyevTas 
 eo)s yrfpovs dpepnToas fv riplv. 
 
 In compiling this table of parallel passages I have made great use of those drawn 
 up by previous writers, Hefele, Zahn, Funk, and Harnack, more especially the last 
 mentioned. 
 
 Hermas [c. a.d. ?]. 
 
 Vzsio ii. 4. 3. 
 
 rpai//ei9 ovv Suo /St^XiSapta [v. 1. ^t/3Xa/ot8ta] koX nefji- 
 
 xpeis ev KXnjixeuTL koL €u TpanTfj. irefJixljeL ovv KXijixr)'; et? 
 
 Tcts e£a> 7roA.et9, eKeiuo) yap eTTiTeTpaTnai' FpavTrj 8e vov- 
 
 OeTtjcrei ra? ^paq /cat rovs 6p(j)avov<^' av oe duayvcocrrj 
 
 €ts TavTiqv TYju TToXiv fxeTOL Tcov Trpecr^vTepcou tcju Trpo'CcrTa- 
 
 fxei>(ov T'179 eKK\rjcria<;. 
 
 See also the notes on §§ 11, 21, 23, 39, 46, 56, 60, where we seem to 
 discern echoes, though somewhat faint, of Clement's language. In the 
 notes on the so-called 'Second Epistle,' §§ i, 7, 9, 14, will be found 
 some resemblances to this Clementine writing in Hermas, but here it 
 may be a question to which author the priority must be assigned. 
 
 i
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 153 
 
 5- 
 
 Second Clementine Epistle [c. a.d. ?]. 
 
 See the notes on §§ 15, 34, of the First Epistle and on § 11 of the 
 Second. 
 
 6. 
 
 Justin Martyr [c. a.d. 150]. 
 
 In Dial. 56 (p. 274) Justin uses the same combination of epithets 
 as Clement (§ 43) in speaking of Moses, 6 ixaKapLO'; [koL] ttio-tos OeptxTroiv: 
 and in Di'a/. iii (p. 338) he in like manner with Clement (§ 12) uses 
 Rahab's scarlet thread as a symbol of the blood of Christ. These 
 resemblances suggest a presumption of acquaintance with Clement's 
 Epistle, but not more. 
 
 7. 
 
 Letter of the Smyrn^eans [c. a.d. 156]. 
 
 The obhgations of the writers of this letter, giving an account of 
 Polycarp's martyrdom, are best seen by comparing its beginning and 
 end with the corresponding parts of Clement's Epistle, as I have done 
 elsewhere {/gn. and Polyc. i. p. 610 sq). 
 
 Hegesippus [c. a.d. 170]. 
 (i) Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 
 
 'O [l\v ovv HyrycrtTTTro? ev irevre roL<i et? ■rj/aas iXOovcnv 
 VTTOfJLVTJixacTi TTj^ iSttt? yvcofirfq TrXrjpea-TaTrjv [JLuiJixrjv Kara- 
 Xikoiirev, ev oi<; Sy)\o2 ojs TrXetcrrotg iTTLCTKOTTOLi; avix^i^etev, 
 airo'^y)lxiav crTeikdiJLevo^ H'^XP'' 'P^/xt^?, kol ws ort Trji' avr-qu 
 irapa iravTcov TrapeiXyjcfie SiSacrKaXtav. aKOvaaC ye tol 
 TrdpecTTL fxerd nva irepl rrjq KX-qfievTO^ Trpos KopLV0Lov<; 
 e7r(,o"ToXT75 avrw elp-Qjxepa eTnXeyovTo<i Tavra'
 
 154 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ka'i eneMeNGN h ekkAhcia h KopiNBi'ooN eN TtL opBco Adrco 
 Mexpi rFpiMoy enicKoneyoNTOc eN KopiNSoi' .oTc cynemiSa 
 nAeooN eic 'Pcomhn, ka'i cyNAieTpiyA toic KopiNBioic HMepAC 
 JKANAC, GN Aic CYNANenAHMeN TO) opSo) AoTtp- reNOMeNOc Ae 
 eN 'PooMH AiaAo)(hn enoiHCAMHN Mexpic 'Anikhtoy, of AlA- 
 KONOC HN 'EAeYQepoc kai nApA 'Anikhtoy AiAAexexAi ZcoTHp, 
 Me6' ON 'EAeY6epoc. 6n eKACTH Ae AiaAoxh kai eN ckacth 
 noAei ofrooc e'xei (x>c 6 nomoc KHpyccei kai oi npo(t)HTAi ka'i 
 6 Kypioc 
 
 I have had no misgiving in retaining the reading Siadoxn^', for (i) It alone has 
 any authority, being read not only by all the Greek Mss, but by the very ancient and 
 perhaps coeval Syriac Version (see Smith and Wace £>tcL of Chi-ist. Ant., s. v. 
 Eusebius, ii. p. 326). On the other hand SiarptjSijj' is not found in a single MS. 
 It is a pure conjecture of Savile founded upon Rufinus. But the general looseness 
 of Rufinus deprives his version of any critical weight, and his rendering of this very 
 passage shows that he either misunderstands or despises the Greek, 'Cum autem 
 venissem Romam permansi inibi donee Aniceto Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus,' 
 where not only this list of succession but all mention of the diaconate of Eleutheras 
 has likewise disappeared. In the next sentence again he translates eV iKa^arr] 5iadoxv 
 'in omnibus istis ordinationibus,' thus showing that he entirely misapprehends the 
 gist of the passage. There is no adequate reason therefore for supposing that 
 Rufinus read diarpi^riv. (2) It is quite clear that Eusebius himself did not read 
 diarpi^rjv, for he says elsewhere (iv. 11) that Hegesippus visited Rome in the time of 
 Anicetus and remained there till the time of Eleutherus. (3) The context requires 
 dLaSoxv" (Ti'oirjcrafirjv, 'I drew up a list of (the episcopal) succession.' He says that 
 originally his list had ended with the then bishop Anicetus, and accordingly he now 
 supplements it with the names of the two bishops next in order, Soter and Eleutherus, 
 tlius bringing it down to the time when he writes these 'Memoirs.' It is therefore 
 with some surprise that I find Harnack (Clem. Rom. /'ro/. p. xxviii, ed. 2) adopting 
 Biarpi^Tjv confidently and declaring that ' ne levissima quidem dubitatio relicta est.' 
 
 (ii) Euseb. H. E. iii. 16. 
 
 Kat ort ye Acara rov SriXovixeuou ret T179 KopLvOiOJV 
 KeKivTjTo aTdcr€oj<;, d^i6)(pea)<; jxapTv^ 6 'Hyi^crtTTTTOS. 
 
 This statement is considered below, p. 165. 
 
 9. 
 
 DioNYSius OF Corinth [c. a.d. 170]. 
 
 Epist. ad Ro7n. (Euseb. Hist. Ecd. iv. 23). 
 
 Ert 70V ALOvvdLov /cat 7r/309 Pw/xatofs eincrTokrj (f)epe- 
 rac, eiTKTKOTTOi T(o Tore %o}Trjpi TrpoacfiMuovaa. i^ 1^9 ovSep
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 55 
 
 otov TO Koi irapaOiaOai Xe^et?, oC (hv to f^^XP'' ^°^ ^a^' 
 T^fxa^i Stwy/xoC (^v\a)(0€.v 'Pw/xatwi' e9o<i d7ToSe)(6fxevo<; ravTa 
 ypdcfieL' 
 
 el ApXHC r^p YMiN e'eoc ecTi toyto, nANXAc MSN Ahekfpoic 
 
 noiKiAcoc eYeprereiN, eKKAHciAic xe noAAA?c taTc kata hacan 
 
 - noAiN ec})dAiA neiuneiN, wAe iweN thn toon AeoMeNOON ncNiAN 
 
 ANAYYXONTAc, GN MeTAAAoic Ae AA6A(t)o?c YHApyoYciN eni- 
 
 XopHfOYNTAc* Ai' (Ln neMnere Ap)(H9eN e^oAi'ooN, nAxponApA- 
 
 AOTON eGOC 'PoOMAKON 'PoOMaToI A I AC}) Y A ATTO N TeC, O OY MONON 
 AlATeTHpHKEN 6 MAKApiOC Y^OON eni'cKOnOC SoOTHp, aAAA KAI 
 
 enHY^HKeN, eni)(opHrooN m6n thn AiAneMnoMeN hn Aa^iAgian 
 
 THN eiC TOYC AflOYC, AofOIC Ae MAKApi'olC TOYC ANIONTAC 
 OjC TEKNA nATHp (jilAdcTOprOC nApAKAAtON. 
 
 iv avTrj he Tavrrj kol tt^s K\'rj[xepTO<; 7Tp6<; KopLv6iov<; 
 [xejJLvrjTaL iTTL(TTo\rj<;, Sr]Xcov dveKaOev i^ dpxoLiov e6ov<? iirl 
 rrjq eK/cXT^crtas ttjv avdyvoicriv avTrjq TTOieiaOai. Xeyet yovv 
 
 THN CHMepON OYN KYpiAKHN AflAN HMepAN AlHrAfOMeN, EN 
 H ANerNOOMGN fwoON THN fcniCTOAHN" HN elOMGN Aei nOT6 
 ANAriNOJCKONTeC N Y6 6Te?C AI, (jl)C KAI THN npOTepAN HmIn 
 AlA KAHMgNTOC rpA(})eiCAN. 
 
 This letter was written in the lifetime of Soter, as appears not only from the 
 expression of Eusebius ry rare, but also from the perfect tenses of Dionysius himself, 
 dtaT€Tijp7]Kev, iTTTjO^riKev. The epithet fiaKcipioi in these times is frequently used of 
 living persons ; see the note on Clem. Rom. 47. The episcopate of Soter extends 
 from about A. D. 166 — 174. 
 
 10. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch [c. a.d. 180], 
 
 The passage, ad Autol. i. 13, on the resurrection of the dead, may 
 have been suggested by Clem. Rom. 23, 24; but no stress can be laid 
 on the resemblances. See also the note on § 7, with the reference to ad 
 Autol. iii. 19. 
 
 A resemblance to the Second Epistle (see the note on § 8) appears 
 in ad Autol. ii. 26.
 
 156 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 II. 
 
 iRENiEUS [c. A.D. 180]. 
 
 Adv. Haereses iii. 3. 3. 
 
 ©e^eXtaJC^a^'T€s ovv koX ol- Fundantes igitur et instru- 
 
 KoSo[x'r](rai>Te<s ol jxaKoipLOL dno- entes beati apostoli ecclesiam 
 
 crroXot Tyv iKKXrjaiav, Atvoj ttjv Lino episcopatum administran- 
 
 rr^s iTTLCTKOTTrjq Xeirovpylav eVe- dae ecclesiae tradiderunt. Hu- 
 
 Xeiptcrai/. tovtov rov Aivov jus Lini Paulus in his quae 
 
 naOXo? eV Tals Trpo? TcfMoOeov sunt ad Timotheum epistolis 
 
 iTno-ToXat? lxeixvr]TaL. StaSexe- meminit. Succedit autem ei 
 
 rat 8^ avTOt' ' Av€yKXrjTO<;. fxera Anacletus ; post eum tertio loco 
 
 Todrovhe rpircoToiTo, dn6 r^v ^^ ^p^^^^^^ episcopatum sorti- 
 
 anocTTokoju rrjv eTncrKOTTr)V kXy}- ^ r-^ •. j- • 
 
 ' , ^ / ^' tur Clemens, qui et vidit ipsos 
 
 povrai KXr)ar)<;, o /cat ewpa/cws , ,. . 
 
 ' y / , ,. V apostolos et contuht cum eis, 
 Tov<; ua/captous aTTocrroAovs /cat 
 
 ^ ^ ^ , ^ ^ V et quum adhuc msonantem prae- 
 avixpepXrjK(x)<; avTois, /cat ert 
 
 V ^ V , -^ > dicationem apostolorum et tra- 
 evavkov to K-qpvyfxa tojv airo- 
 
 /x \ V /CN V ditionem ante oculos haberet, 
 (TTokctiv /cat ry]v napaooo'Lv npo 
 
 ' //) \ ~ V ' ' . y "on solus: adhuc enim multi 
 
 0(puaA.fJLOJV €r)((i)V, OV [JLOPOS €TL 
 
 ^ w ^ ' \ ' ' « ^ supererant tunc ab apostolis 
 
 yap TToXXoL vireXenrovTo rore vtto ^ c^pv^onjna 
 
 70}V aTTOCTToXoiv SeStSay/AeVot. 
 
 'EttI to<,tov oZv tov KXf ^"^ ^°^ ^S^^"^ Clemente, 
 
 /Ltei/Tos o-Tcto-etus oO/c oXtyTys ror? dissensione non modica inter 
 
 eV Kopivdco yepoixeuYj? a8eX(/)ors ^°^' '1''^ Corinthi essent, fratres 
 
 inecTTeLXeu t] eV 'Pco//,27 e/c/cX7^crta ^^^ta, scripsit quae est Romae 
 
 iKavoiTaTrjv ypa<f)r)v rot? Koptv- ecclesia potentissimas litteras 
 
 ^tot9, et? elpT]vr)v (Tvix^L^dtflva-a Corinthiis, ad pacem eos con- 
 
 av70V9, /cat dvaveovcra rrjv TTtcr- gregans et reparans fidem eo- 
 
 Tiv avTOJV, /cat yju ueojcrrl diro rum et annuntians quam in 
 
 TCiv aiToaToXoiv TrapdSocnu et- recenti ab apostolis acceperat 
 
 Xr)cf)€L, traditioneni, 
 annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, 
 plasmatorem hominis, (^ui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abra-
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 157 
 
 ham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Aegypti, qui coUocutus sit 
 Moysi, qui legem disposuerit et prophetas miserit, qui ignem prae- 
 paraverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hunc patrem Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi ab ecclesiis annuntiari ex ipsa scriptura, qui velint, discere 
 possunt, et apostolicam ecclesiae traditionem intelligere ; quum sit 
 vetustior epistola his qui nunc falso decent, et alterum Deum super 
 Demiurgum et factorem horum omnium, quae sunt, commentiuntur. 
 
 Tov Se KXTijiJLevTa tovtov Sta- Huic autem Clementi succedit 
 Sexerat Evdp€crTO<;. Evaristus. 
 
 In the expression, aScX^oi? e7recrT€tX€v...iKava)TaT7^v ypacfirjv, Irenceus 
 echoes the words of Clement himself, § 62 iKavw? iTreareiXafjiev vfuv, 
 avSpcs dSeX(f>OL. 
 
 Immediately before this passage Irenreus has spoken of 'maximae et antiquis- 
 simae et omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae 
 fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae' (iii. 3. 2). 
 
 The Greek portions are preserved by Eusebiiis //. E. v. 6. 
 
 12, 
 
 Clementine Homilies and Recognitions [c. a.d,?]. 
 
 The writings of the Petro-Clementine cycle cannot be dated earlier 
 than the latter half of the second century. The story which they tell, 
 though a pure fiction in itself, became the source of a powerful and 
 wide-spread tradition respecting Clement. As Clement is a chief actor 
 in these writings and they are full of references to him, it would be im- 
 possible to give all the passages at length, as I have done in most other 
 cases. The whole subject will be more fitly discussed elsewhere. I 
 would only call attention to two main points in this Petro-Clementine 
 story, as bearing directly on the critical investigations which have already 
 engaged our attention and will occupy us again — the one affecting the 
 natural, the other the spiritual parentage, of the hero, but both alike 
 contradicting the notices of a more authentic tradition or the probable 
 results of critical investigation. 
 
 (i) Clement is represented as a scion of the imperial family. His 
 father, who bears the name Faustus in the Homilies and Faustinianus in 
 the Recognitions^ is a near relative of the emperor {Horn. xii. 8, xiv. 6, 
 10, Recogn. vii. 8, ix. 35). His mother ivlattidia likewise is apparently 
 represented as connected by blood with tlie emperor {Hont. xii. 8, but 
 see Recogn. ix. 35). His two brothers are named, the one Faustinus, the
 
 158 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 other Faustinianus in the Homilies and Faustus in the Recognifiofis. 
 It will thus be seen that the names are borrowed from the imperial 
 families of Hadrian and the Antonines ; though Clement is represented 
 as a young man at the time of the crucifixion, and the emperor spoken 
 of as his father's kinsman is therefore Tiberius. 
 
 (ii) Not only is Clement a direct disciple and constant follower of 
 S. Peter so that he faithfully represents his teaching, but he is con- 
 secrated to the Roman episcopate directly by him. Thus Clement 
 becomes to all intents and purposes his spiritual heir. This fact is 
 emphasized and amplified in the ' Letter of Clement to James,' prefixed 
 to the Homilies; in which Clement gives an account of S. Peter's last 
 charge and of his own appointment and consecration as the Apostle's 
 immediate successor. 
 
 These fictions are a striking testimony to the space occupied by 
 Clement's personality in the early Church; but beyond this the indica- 
 tions of the use of Clement's genuine epistle are only slight. The 
 language however, which is used of S. Peter in Epist. Clem, i, seems 
 certainly to be suggested by the description of S. Paul in the genuine 
 Clement (§ 5, see the note on the passage) ; and the same chapter of 
 this epistle (§ 5 toiis dyaOov^ ttTToo-ToAous' ITeTpov OS K.T.A.) furnishes 
 an epithet which the Clementine romance (Hom. i. 16 d a'ya^ds Xler/jos) 
 applies to S. Peter. In the main body of the Homilies again there are 
 passages which recall the genuine Epistle to the Corinthians : e.g. the 
 description of the marvels of creation (Hom. iii. 35), which has several 
 points of resemblance with the corresponding panegyric in Clem. Rom, 
 20, and the lesson derived from the different gradations in the Roman 
 military and civil government (Hom. x. 14), which likewise has its 
 counterpart in Clem. Rom. 37. 
 
 13- 
 
 Clement of Alexandria [c. a.d. 200]. 
 (i) S^rom. i. 7. 38 (p. 339). 
 TToAA(2)N ToiNYN ANeoorweNooN nyAwN en Aikaiocynh, ayth 
 
 HN eN XpiCTCU, KN H MAKApiOl HANTeC 01 eiCeAGONTeC KAI 
 
 KATeyBYNONTec thn nopeiAN aytcon gn ociothti yvuKJTLKrj. 
 avTLKa o K\y]ixr]<; ev rfj irpo^ Koptz^^tov? inLaroXfj Kara 
 Xe^iv <(>r]crl rets SLa(j)opa<; iKTL0eix€vo<; tcop Kara ttjv eKKkiqcriav 
 
 hoKlUiCOV' HTW tic niCT()C, HTO) AYNATOC tic rN(OCIN e5ein6?N,
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 159 
 
 HTOO co(t)6c EN AiAKpi'cei AofooN, fiTo) foproc eN epfoic 
 (Clem. Rom. § 48). 
 
 (ii) Strom, iv. 6. 32, 33 (p. 577 sq). 
 
 ETaon ya/3, (f)y)(rL, ton AceBfi ynepYyoYMeNON /c.r.X oyk 
 
 enAipoMeNOjN eni Tci noiMNiON aytoy- 
 
 Use is here made of Clem. Rom. 14, 15, 16, though no obligation is 
 acknowledged. 
 
 (iii) Strom, iv. 17 — 19. 105 — 121 (p. 609 sq). 
 Nat iLy)v iu ry 77/309 YLopivOiov^ eiricrTokfj o arrocTToXof; 
 KXtjixt]'^ kol auTo? rjixip tvttov riva rov yvcocTTLKOv vwo-ypa- 
 (hcou XeyeL' tic r^p nApeniAHMhicAc npdc ymac k.t.X. (Clem. 
 Rom. §1), 
 
 In the passage which follows, Clement of Alexandria sometimes 
 quotes verbati7n from his namesake and sometimes abridges the matter. 
 The passages in the Roman Clement of which he thus avails himself 
 range over a great part of the epistle (§§ i, 9, 17, 21, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41, 
 48, 49, 50, 51). Twice again he names his authority. 
 
 iv. 17. 112 (p. 613) ort 6 Iv rfj 7rpo<; K.opiv6iov<; eTTLaToXrj 
 yeypairrai, Aia 'Ihcoy XpicTof h ACYNeToc kai fcCKoxicweNH 
 AiANOiA HMooN anaBaAAgi cic TO 0a)c (Clem. Rom. § 36). 
 
 iv. 18. 113 (p. 613) H ceMNH ovv rrf; (f)LXap0pu>TrLa<; rjixaju 
 
 KCLl AfNH Artt)rH KttTtt TOV KXrjfJLei'Ta T() KG I N 00 (}) 6 Ae C ZHTe? 
 
 (Clem. Rom. § 48). 
 
 (iv) Strom, v. 12. 81 (p. 693). 
 AXXa Kau ry 77/309 KopLvOiovi; I*(oixaLcop iTncTToXrj 
 coKCANOc AnepANTOc ANepajHOic yeypaTTTac ka'i 01 Met' ay- 
 ton KocMOi (Clem. Rom. § 20). 
 
 (v) Strom, vi. 8. 64 (p. 772). 
 
 ^E^rjyovjxeuo'i Se to prjTov tov TrpocjiTJTov Bapm/3a9 eVt- 
 
 <p€p€L' nOAAoaN HYAoON A'NeooryKjON H tN AlKAIOCYNH AYTH 
 eCTlN H EN XpiCTU), CN H MAKApiOl HANTCC 01 eiceAGONTec 
 
 (Clem. Rom. 48). 
 
 He wrongly attributes the words to Ijamabas, though in a passage quoted above 
 {Strom, i. 7. 7,S) he lias correctly ascril)e(l them to Clement. For a similar blunder
 
 l6o EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 see Hieron. Ach'. Pelag. iii. 2 {Op. Ii. p. 783), where Jerome ascribes some words 
 of Barnabas to Ignatius. 
 
 He continues the quotation a little lower down ; 
 
 vi. 8. 65 (p. 777 sq) ecToo Toivvv nicToc d toiovto'^, ecTco 
 Ay'natoc TNtJi^ciN e2eine?N, htoo co(|)Oc In AiAKpi'cei Adr<Ji>N, 
 HTOi roproc eN eproic, HTOO ATNOC. TOCOYTO) T'^p maAAon 
 TAneiNO0poNeTN d(t)eiA6i, occo Aokgi maAAon meizoon cinai, 
 d K\rjixr]<5 iv rrj 7rpo<; KopLv6iov<; (f)r)(TL (Clem. Rom. 48). 
 
 Other passages likewise in the Alexandrian Clement seem to betray 
 the influence of his Roman namesake. Thus in the form and connexion 
 of the quotations (Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6) in Strom, iii. 18. 107 (p. 561) 
 there is a close resemblance to Clem. Rom. 46 (see the note on the 
 passage). Again Strom, iv. 22. 137 (p. 625) has a conflate quotation 
 which must be attributed to Clem. Rom. 34 (see the note), while imme- 
 diately below we meet with the same quotation a 6(}>6aXfjL6<; ovk elSev 
 K.T.X. (though quoted more closely after S. Paul, i Cor. ii. 9) which 
 appears in this same chapter (34) of the Roman Clement. 
 
 14. 
 
 Tertullian [c. a.d. 200]. 
 
 Z>e Praescr. Haeret. 32. 
 
 Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostoHcae census suos deferunt, sicut... 
 Romanorum [ecclesia] Clementem a Petro ordinatum [refert]. 
 
 The passage de Resurr. Carn. 12, 13, is a parallel to Clem. Rom. 24, 
 25, in the order of the argument and in the mention of the phoenix, 
 though the subject is worked up with a fresh vigour and eloquence 
 characteristic of Tertullian. The obligation however, though probable, 
 is not certain. In de Virg. Vel. 13 'si adeo confertur continentiae 
 virtus, quid gloriaris', there is a parallel to Clem. Rom. i^. 
 
 15- 
 
 Clementine Epistles to Virgins [c. a.d.?]. 
 
 These forgeries were doubtless instigated by the fame of Clement's 
 genuine Epistle; but they show only very slight traces of its influence. 
 The faint resemblances which have been discerned will be found in 
 Beelen's Proleg. p. Ix sq to his edition. In the heading of the epistle 
 the MS describes Clement as ' disciple of Peter the Apostle.' 
 
 i
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. l6i 
 
 i6. 
 
 HiPPOLYTUS [c. A.D. 2IO — 230]. 
 
 For a somewhat striking resemblance in thought and diction to 
 the Second Clementine Epistle in a passage ascribed to this writer see 
 the notes on §§ 17, 19, of that epistle. 
 
 17. 
 
 OrIGENES [t A.D. 253]. 
 
 (i) de Princip. ii. 3. 6 {Op. i. p. 82). 
 
 Meminit sane Clemens apostolorum discipulus etiam eorum quos 
 dvTLx6ova<; Graeci nominarunt, atque alias partes orbis terrae ad quas 
 neque nostrorum quisquam accedere potest neque ex illis qui ibi sunt 
 quisquam transire ad nos ; quos et ipsos mundos appellavit, cum ait, 
 Oceanus intransmeabilis est hominibus, et hi qui trans ipsum sunt inundi, 
 qui his eisdem dominatoris Dei dispositionihus guberfiantur (Clem. Rom. 
 20). 
 
 This treatise of Origen is only extant in a translation of Rufinus. 
 
 (ii) Select, in Ezech. viii. 3 {Op. iii. p. 422). 
 
 ^T^crt Se /cat d K\TJfxr)<;, o^KeANoc Anep^Toc ANOpoonoic 
 KAi 01 mct' ayton kocmoi TOCAY'rAic Ai<\T(\r<^i^c TOY AecnoTOY 
 
 AlOIKOYNTAI. 
 
 (iii) In Joann. vi. § 36 ((9/. i v. p. 153). 
 
 MefxapTvprjTat Se koi irapa toI^; eOveonv, on ttoWol TLve<; 
 XoilxLKOiv ivcrKTjxpdi'Tcop iv Talq eavTcov TraTpLcn vocrrjfxdTcop 
 eavTov; a^dyta vTrep tov kolvov TrapaSeScoKacn. koI irapa- 
 oe^erat rajvd^ ovTOi^ yeyovivai ovk dk6y(o<; TrtcrTeucra? rat? 
 Krropiai^i o ttlo'TO'^ KXt^/xt^? vtto llavXov fxaprvpovfievo^; 
 
 eyOVTO<i MCTA KAHMeNTOC KAI T(ON A 1 n W N CYN6pr(J3N MOY, 
 d)N TA ONOMATA eN BlBAOO ZCOHC. 
 
 I 
 
 (iv) Ifom. in Hebr. (Euseb. H. E. vi. 25). 
 
 Tt9 8e d ypd\jja<; tyju i7ncrTo\rjp [tt}v 7rp6<; 'JEySpatov?] to 
 ^ev a\-r}0€<i ©ed? olSev, 7) Se et? "xj/aa? (fiddaacra Icrropia vtto 
 CLEM. 1 1
 
 1 62 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 TLVO)v fxev XeyovTOiv on K\rjfJLr)<; 6 yei^o/xevo? eTTtcrKOTro? 
 'Pwjaaicov eypaxpe rrjv iTTicTToXrjp, vtto tlvcjv Se ore Aov/ca? 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 It is probable also that in other passages, as in the interpretation of 
 the scarlet thread of Rahab {Injes. Horn. iii. § 5, Op. 11. p. 405 ; comp, 
 Clem. Rom. 12) and in the allusion to the story of the phoenix (c. Ceh. 
 iv. 98, Op. I. p. 576; comp. Clem. Rom. 25) he may have had the 
 language and thoughts of Clement in his mind. 
 
 18. 
 
 DioNYSius OF Alexandria [c. a.d. 260]. 
 
 Epist. ad Hierac. (Euseb. H. E. vii. 21). 
 
 o TToXv? K<xi AnepANTOC AN0pcjc>noic aiKCANOc, an expression 
 borrowed from our Clement (§ 20) ; but he may have got it from Origen 
 who in his extant works twice quotes the passage. 
 
 19- 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions [a.d. ?]. 
 (i) vi. 8. 3. 
 
 'O fievTOL Xiixcov e'/xot HerpM irpaJrou iv Katcro.peLa Trj 
 '^TpaTOivo';, eu9a KopvT^Xto? d ttictto? e-mcTTevcreu cov iduiK6<5 
 inl rov Kvpiov 'Irjcrovv Sl ifiov, (rvvTV)(c6p fxot iireipaTo 
 SLaaTpe(f)eLV rov Xoyov rov ©eou, crvixTrapovrcov fxoL tojv 
 lepcov reKVdiv, ZaK)(aiov rov irore reXcovov kol Bapvd^a, KaL 
 NtAO^TOu KOL 'AKvXa dheX(f)(ov KXr^/xei^ro? rov Fcoixatajv eiri- 
 (TKOTTOv re Koi TToXiTOv, fJLa0y]Tev0evTO<; Se kol UavXco rw 
 avvaiToaToXci) -qjjlcov koI crvvepyco iv ra» evayyeXio). 
 
 The allusions to Zacchceus and Barnabas, and to Clement's brothers Nicetes and 
 Aquila, are explained by the story in the Hofnilics and Recognitions. 
 
 (ii) vi. 18. 5. 
 
 Kat Tavra Kara ttoXlv iravraxov et? oX-qv tyjv olKov[X€vr)v 
 
 Tov KocriJLOV 7re7roLiJKa(x^v, KaTaXiirovTes vplv rols iinaKOTTOis
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 63 
 
 KoX XotTTots lepevcTL TtjpSe TTjv KadokiKTjv StSao"KaXtaz/...Sta- 
 Trefx^dixevoL Sta tov crvWeLTOvpyov tjixcov }D\.rjixevTo^ tov 
 
 TTLCTTOTOLTOV Kol OIXOxjjV^OU T€KPOV TJIxaJV iv KvpLCp, (XjUa KOi 
 
 Bapvd/Ba koI Tt/xo^ew k.t.X. 
 (iii) vii. 46. I. 
 
 Trj<i Se 'Vo)[JiaLO)v eKKXrjcrias Atvo? [xev 6 KXavSta? 7rpa)T0<; 
 VTTO IlavXov, KXt^/xt^? 8e jnera rot' Kivov Odvarov vtt ifjiov 
 Uerpov SevTepos Ke)(eipoT6vr]Tai [eVtV/coTTO?]. 
 
 The name is generally accentuated Mvos by patristic editors, but this is clearly 
 wrong. His namesake, the mythical poet and son of Apollo, always has the first 
 syllable short in Greek and in Latin. Moreover the Pseudo-TertuUian (see below, 
 p. 176) so scans the name of the pope. I have therefore written it At'cos with the chief 
 recent editors of the Greek Testament (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, 
 but not Tregelles) in 1 Tim. iv. 11. 
 
 (iv) viii. 10. 2. 
 
 'Tnep TOV eTnorKOTTov rjixcuv KkijfjLevTos kol tcov TrapoLKiuyv 
 avTOv SerjOcofxev. 
 
 Besides the direct references to Clement which I have given, this 
 work exhibits from time to time traces of the influence of Clement's 
 Epistle. Thus the opening salutation ;(a/3ts vfjuv koL elp-^vrj diro tov 
 iravTOKpdropo'i ©eov hid tov Kvpiov ijfjiwv 'I. X. irXrjOvvOzir} is borrowed from 
 Clement, while immediately below the word iveo-Tepvia-fjicvot {Ap. Const. 
 i. i) is doubtless suggested from Clem. Rom. 2. Again the account of 
 the phoenix {Ap. Const, v. 7) betrays in its language the influence of 
 Clement's description (§ 25). Again in describing the characteristics of 
 a faithful miinistry, the two writers use the terms a/?ai/auo-o?, d(3avavaw^, 
 respectively (Ap. Const, ii. 3, Clem. Rom. 44). Again in Ap. Const, ii. 27 
 (comp. vi. 3) the language respecting Dathan and Abiron resembles Clem. 
 Rom. 5 1 ; and other examples might be produced, where the use made of 
 O. T. quotations and incidents recalls the treatment of Clement. Again 
 in Ap. Const, vi. 12 cTvt,7]TovvT€<; Trpos TO Kotvwe^cAe's we are reminded of 
 Clem. Rom. 48 ^rjTdv to /cotrwt^eXe?, this word Kotvwt^eXes not being 
 common. The parallels to the eighth book of the Constitutions in 
 the concluding prayer of Clement (§59 sq), which are given in my 
 notes, are too numerous to be explained as the result of accident. 
 
 Some parallels also to the Second Clementine Epistle will be found; 
 e.g. Ap. Const, ii. 8, comp. § 13; ii. 17, comp. § 14; iii. 7, comp. § 15 ; 
 V. 6, comp. § ID. 
 
 II — 2
 
 1 64 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 20. 
 Peter of Alexandria [c. a.d. 306]. 
 
 De Poenitentia c. 9 (Routh's Rel. Sacr. iv. p. 34, ed. 2). 
 
 OuTft)? o 7rpoK/3tT09 ToiV aTTOCTToXwv Ilerpo? TToXXa/ci? 
 arv\\r](f)0el<; kol ^vXaKLo-del-? koI ariiJiaa6e\<; vcrrepov iv 
 'Vco[xy} icTTavpMOr). 6jxolco<; kol 6 TTepi/36r]To<? IlavXo? TrXeoi^- 
 (XKiq TrapaSo^el? Kat ecos Oavdrov KivSvv€vaa<; TroXXa re 
 d6Xy](Ta<; kol Kav')^r)ad[jievo<; iv ttoXXoi? Stwy/xot? Kat dXtxpeaLv 
 iv Trj avTTj iroXei Koi aOro? jaa^atjoo, ri^t' KecfyaXrjv aTre/cetparo. 
 
 Evidently founded directly or indirectly on Clem. Rom. 5. 
 
 21. 
 
 EusEBius OF Caesarea [c. a.d. 310 — 325]. 
 
 (i) Chroiiicon 11. p. 160 (ed. Schoene). 
 
 Ann. Abrah. Domit. Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum iii ex- 
 2103 7 cepit Clemes annis ix. 
 
 The corresponding words in vSyncellus are t^s 'Fufialwv iKK\r]fflas -q^yiaaro 5' 
 K\i)tn)i irr) 6', Clement being thus made the fourth in order. In Jerome's recension 
 this notice is assigned to the 12th year of Domitian. 
 
 (ii) Historia Ecclesiastica. 
 
 {a) H. E. iii. 4. 
 'AXXa KoX d KXrJjai79 ttJ? 'Pwjaatwi/ koX auro? iKKXr)(TLa<; 
 TpLTO<s €7rto"/co7ros K-aracTTa? TIavXov avvepyo<; Kat crvva- 
 6X7)77]^ yeyovevai irpo^ avTov fxaprvpeirai. 
 
 By avTov is meant tov l\av\ov, the reference being to Phil. iv. 3, as in the next 
 extract. 
 
 {b) H. E. iii. 15, 16. 
 15. AwSeKctrw Se eret T175 avTr]<^ -qyeixovta'; T1J9 'Pco/xatwv 
 iKKXr)cria<; "KveyKX-qrov ereaiv iTnaKOTrevcravTa oeKaovo ota- 
 Se^erat KX>7/x7^?* ov avvepyov eavTov yeveadai ^iXiTnnqcnois
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 165 
 
 iirL(TTe\\o)v 6 dTT6crToXo<s StSctcr/cet XeycoV meta kai Kahmgn- 
 
 TOC KAI TWN AOinOON CYNepf^N MOY, (I) N TA ONOMATA eN 
 
 BiBAoo zooHC. 
 
 16. TOVTov St} ovv tov KXi^/xevro? o^iokoyovyievr] fxia 
 eTTicTTokrj (j^epeTau fxeydXr] re /cat OavjjLaaLa, tjv ojs airo rrj^ 
 'Vojjxaiojp iKKXr](TLa<i ttj KopLvOicov SieTvircoaaTO, crTd(7eco<; 
 TTjvLKaSe Kara rrjv KopivOov yevop^iviq^. ravTiqv he koX iv 
 TrXetcrrats 6/^^X17 cr tat? iirl tov kolvov hehy^ixocrievixevqv rrdXai 
 re Kttt KaO* rnxd.^ avrovs eypojixeu. kol otl ye Kara tov 
 Br)XoviJLevov to, Trj<; KopLvdicov KeKuvrjTO crTdcrecos, d^i6\peo}<i 
 
 [JidpTV? 6 'HyTycrtTTTTOS. 
 
 In this last sentence Harnack (p. xxviii, ed. 2) suggests that with Kara tov 
 drjXov/xevov we may understand Kai.p6v, the time of Clement's episcopate being defined 
 in the preceding chapter. But, as the word Kaipos does not occur anywhere in 
 the context, not even in the preceding chapter, this explanation is impossible. The 
 word would have been expressed, if this had been the meaning, as e.g. iii. 28, 29, Kara 
 Tovs Seor/Xw^^j/ous (d-qXovpL^vovs) xpo''oi^s. A person must be meant, and the choice 
 must lie between Clement and Domitian. Lipsius (c/e Clem. Rom. p. 156) assumes 
 the former and this is the general opinion. The nearer proximity of Clement's name 
 favours it. But I see strong reasons for preferring Domitian. (i) The succession 
 of the emperors is the backbone of the chronology in the History of Eusebius, and 
 the synchronisms are frequently introduced with this preposition /card, e.g. ii. 7, 18, 
 Kara Voliov, ii. 8, 17, 18, Kara. YSkav^iov (comp. ii. 8 ko-Q' op), ii. 25 /car' avTov 
 (i.e. JvVpw^a), iii. 32 Merd. 'Sipiova Kai Ao/J.eTiavoi', Kara tovtov ov vvv tovs xpovous 
 eferdfojuec k.t.X. (meaning 'Trajan,' whose name however is not mentioned till some 
 time afterwards), v. 2 /card t6v dedriKwixivov avTOKparopa, v. 5 /card toi)s 5ri\ovp.ivov% (the 
 emperors Verus and Marcus, about v/hom however Eusebius is hopelessly confused), 
 etc. So again in iv. 14 'Etti be tQv brfKovp-iviiop the reference seems to be to the 
 Antonines. Elsewhere however this preposition ^ard is certainly used of synchronisms 
 with other persons besides the emperors, while in other passages again the reference 
 may be doubtful; see iii. 18 Kara tovs 07)\ovp,tvovs (comp. iv. 19), iv. 11, 16, v. 11, 22, 
 vi, 23, vii. II, etc. (2) It was hardly necessary to appeal to Hegesippus to show that 
 the feuds at Corinth took place in the time of Clement, as this fact is patent enough 
 from the epistle itself. (3) The expression rbv 87]\oij/j.€pov is better suited to a more 
 distant reference, than to Clement himself who is the prominent and only person 
 mentioned in this paragraph up to this point. In the two previous chapters (cc. 14, 15) 
 and in the four succeeding chapters (cc. 17, 18, 19, 20) the narrative directly connects 
 the events related with Domitian's reign. In this chapter alone the connexion is 
 missing, unless it lies in Kara Tbv 8r]\ov/j,evov. 
 
 (c) H. E. iii. 21. 
 'Ez^ tout&i 8e 'P&jjLtatwv etfrert KXyjfxrjs ijyelTO, TpiTov koI 
 avTos eiri^ajv tcop TrjSe /Acra UayXou rs kol IleTpou imaKO-
 
 1 66 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 TrevcrdvTOiv ^aO^oV AtVos Se d TTpojTO<; %v, Kai [xer avTov 
 'AveyK\'r)To<s. 
 
 In the preceding sentence he has mentioned the accession of Ceidon third bishop 
 of Alexandria in the first year of Trajan. 
 
 (d) H. E. iii. 34. 
 
 Twv Se e77t 'Pw/xT^s eTTLCTKOTToyv eret rplrco Trj<; tov npo- 
 €Lpr)fJLevov ySacrtXew? [Tpa'iavov] apxq'i KXt^/xt;? Evapecrrw 
 '7rapaSov<5 tyjv Xeirovpyiav avakvei tov ^lov, ra navTa Trpo- 
 crra? €Tr) evvea Trj<5 tov Oetov Xoyov SiSaaKaXtas. 
 
 (e) H. E. iii. 37, 38. 
 
 37. 'A8 vmrov S' ovTO% yjixlv airavTaq i^ di/d/xaros' 
 d7rapL6[X€LO-0aL, octol ttotc /cara t^v rrpoiTr]v tojv aTTOcTToXcou 
 SiaSo)(rjv iv rats Kara 7171^ olKovixevr)v ii<KXr)cnaLS yeyovacri 
 TTOt/xeVe? 17 Kol evayyeXiCTTai, tovtojv etKoraJS eg ovojxaTO^ 
 ypa(f>y ixovoiv ttjv ixvrjixr^v KaTaTeOeifxeOa, cov ert /cat vvv ets 
 T^jaas St' VTTOjxvrjiJidTCJp ttj^ dTroorToXiKrjs SiSacrKaXta? 17 vapa- 
 Socrt? (f)€peTai' aicnrep ovv djxeXeL tov 'lypaTcov iv at? /care- 
 Xe^ay^ev iTnaToXal'?, kol tov KXrjfxevTos iv Trj dvcJixoXoyrjjxevr) 
 TTapd irdo-LV, rjv e/c 7rpoad>Trov Trj<; 'VoJixatcov eKKXrjo-Las Trj 
 KopLvOiojv SterfTTwcraTO. iv y Trj^ Trpo? 'E/3/3atovs TroXXa 
 vorjjxaTa rrapa6ei<;, 17817 8e koI avToXe^el prjToU tlg-Iv i^ auT-179 
 Xpy]o-dixevo<i, o-a^eVrara TrapiaTrjcnv ort /xiy veot' VTrap^et to 
 avyypafxfjia. oOev etK-orw? eSo^ev avTo rot? Xotuot? ey/cara- 
 Xe)(dr)V(xi ypct/xjaacrt tov aTrocTToXov. 'E/Spatot? yap Sta tiJs 
 iraTplov yXdjTTr)s iyypd(f)co<; (oixlXtjkoto^; tov IlauXov, ot /xet' 
 TOV evayyeXto-T?}!' AovKav, ol Se tw KXi^/Ltet'Ta tovtov avTOV 
 ipjxrjveva-aL Xiyovcn ttjv ypacji'rjv. 6 koI [JidXXov av evq 
 dXrjOes, T(o TOV cjxolov Trj<; (^pacrew? ^apaKTrjpa Tijv Te tov 
 KXrjixevTO'; inLO-ToXrjv /cat T17V Tipos E/3paL0V<; anocrcj^eLv, 
 Kol T(o ixr) TToppoi Ta iv eKaTepoi'^ Tot? crvyypdfJLfxacri voyixaTa 
 KaOecTTdvaL. 
 
 38. 'laTeov 8' CO? /cat Sevrepa Tt? ett'at XeyeTat tou 
 KXi^jaevTos irnaToX^q' ov ixrjv eO o/xotco? T77 irpoTepa /cat 
 TavTiqv yvcopifxov eVto'Ta/xe^a, oTt /u-T78e /cat tot)? dp^aiov^
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 167 
 
 avrfj Ke^prj^evov^ Icriiev. yjSrj oe koI erepa TroXvenrj kcli 
 (jLaKpa o'vyypdixiJiaTa cJ? tov avTov e^6e<i koX TrpwT]^ tlv€<; 
 TrpoTj-yayov, Tlerpov hrj koI 'Attcwj'os StaXoyov? 7repie)(0VTa' 
 (hv ovS' oXojg [jLVT^ixTj Tt? TTapo, Tots TTaXatot? (f)ep6TaL. ovoe 
 yap KaOapov Trj<i aTTO(TTo\iKrjq 6p6oSo^La<; dnocrco^eL tov 
 -)(apaKTrjpa. 17 fJLev ovv tov KXtq iJLevTO<; oixoXoyovixept] ypa(f)r) 
 Trp6Sr)\o<s' etprjTaL Se kol tol 'lyvartou koI HoXvKapTTOv. 
 
 (/) If.E.v. II. 
 'AXe^avSpeta? iyvcopl^eTo K\t]ix7]<; oyi0)vvp.o^ tco iraXai 
 Trj<i 'Pcofxaicov iKKXrjcTLa^ '^yrjcrajxevco cfjoLTTjTrj tojv airocTToXcju. 
 
 (g) H. E. vi. 13. 
 Kej^pT^rat 8' Iv avrots [rots STpw/xarevcrt] /cat rat? ctTro 
 Toiv 6.vTiXeyo\x.ivoiv ypa(j)cov piapTvpiai^, Trj<? re XeyofX€vr)<; 
 SoXo/u-wz/ro? cro(f)La<i Koi Trj<; 'Irycrou tov Sipa)( kol 7^79 Tvpoq 
 'Fif3paLOV<i iincTToXy]'?, Trjs re Bappd/^a kol KXijixeuTos kol 
 'lovSa. 
 
 The subject of this sentence is Clement of Alexandria. See above, p. 158 sq. 
 
 The passages of Eusebius referring to Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth and 
 Origen, in which Clement of Rome is mentioned, are given above, pp. 153 sq, 154 sq, 
 161 sq. 
 
 22. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem [c. a.d. 347]. 
 
 Catecheses xviii. 8 (p. 288, ed. Toiittee). 
 
 ^HSci ©eos TUiV dvOpcoTTcov TTjv aiTLcrTLav, Kai opveov ets 
 TovTO KaTELpydcraTO, (^oivIko. ovtcj KaXovjxevov. tovto, qj? 
 ypd(j)eL KXrj[jLr)<; kol lo'TopovaL TrXetot'e?, [xopoyeves virap^ov, 
 Kara ttjv AlyvTrTLOiv ^o^pav iv TreptoSot? TrevTaKocTLCov eTcov 
 ipxofjievov SeiKvvcTL Trjv avdcTTacnv' ovk iv ipr)ixoL<; tottoi?, 
 Lva ixTj dyvorjOfj to jxvcTTijpLOV yLvop^evov, aXX iv ^avepa 
 TToXet TrapayepofJievov, lva xjj-qXacjirjOfj to a7n(TT0V[X€P0P. 
 (rrjKOP yap eavTto TroLrjaap iK Xtfidpov Kai ap.vpp-q'^ Kai 
 
 XOLTTOJP dpCJjxdTCOP KOL ip Tjj (TVp.TTXiqpUKTei T(x)V iTOiV CtS 
 
 TovTov elcrsXOop TeXevTa <^avepo)<i Kai crrfTrerai' eWa iK Trj<;
 
 1 68 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 craTT-eto-r^g crap/cog tov rekevrrjcravTO'; (rK(6\r)^ rt? yevvdraL, 
 /cat ovTO<; av^y}del<; eU opveov jaop^ovr at... etra TTTepo^vrjcra^ 
 6 TTpoeLpr)ixeuo<? ^olvl^ koI Te\eLO<;, oto5 171^ o Trporepos, (jyolvL^ 
 y€v6ixevo<; dviiTTaTai tolovto<; ets aepa oto? Kat eVereXevrT^/cet, 
 cra(f)€(TTdTr)v veKpcov dvdcrraaiv di>9p(07roL<; eirtSet^a?. @av- 
 IxaoTTOv p.ev opveov 6 (f)olvi^ k.t.X. (Clem. Rom. 25, 26). 
 
 23- 
 LiBERiAN Chronographer [a.d. 354]. 
 The passage is given in the next chapter. 
 
 24. 
 Ephraem Syrus [t A.D. 373]. 
 
 (i) De Humilitate 33 {Op. Graec. i. p. 309). 
 
 Taura Se (/)7;/xt...tVa r\ 7Tpo(T(f)opd vfxcov evirpocr^eKTOS 
 rj...iTep\ Se T779 cf)LXo^ev[as ov -^peiav e)(ere ypdcfteadaL Vfxlv 
 eTTicTTacrde yap on rj <^Cko^evia iroWoiV ecrrt ^eit^MV aperiov' 
 /cat yap 6 irarpidp^'^ 'A^pact/x Sta rauTT^s dyyeXov<; i^evL- 
 (re, /cat d 8t/catos Acur Sta ttJ? (^iko^evia^ ov avvaTrcoXeTO rfj 
 KaTacrTpo(f)y SoSojxcov' 6[JiOL(o^ Se Kal 'Vad/3 17 ifnXeyoixevr] 
 TTopvrj Sta Tr}<; (faXo^evCaq ov crvvancoXeTo rot? aTreiOijcraaL, 
 he^afievr) tovs KaracrKOTTOv? iv elpyjvr). 
 
 These are the same three examples of cfuXo^evta, which we have in 
 Clement {§§ 10, 11, 12), and the language is similar. For the opening 
 sentence also comp. Clem. Rom. 40 m? re ■n-po(T(^opa% koX \cirovpyLa% 
 k-n-LTiX^laOai. ..Iv do-i'ws Trdvra ytvo/Acia iv ivSoKijcreL evTrpocrScKTa eir] tw 
 6e\y]fJLaTi auTOv" ol ovv 7rpoo-T€Tay/U,ei'ois KUtpots TTOtovi^Tes ras Trpoo-^opas 
 a{iT(J5v ewTrpdcrSeKTOi k.t.X., and //>. 53 'ETrto-Taa^e yap Kot xaAws eTrtCTTao-^e 
 
 K.T.X. 
 
 (ii) Z><? Virtutihis et Vitiis 3 ((?/. <7;'rt'^<r. i. p. 3). 
 
 A description of charity certainly founded on i Cor. xiii, and 
 possibly influenced by Clem. Rom. 49, 50. Cotelier says 'Ephraem 
 Syrus... utriusque vestigiis insistit,' but I do not see any indisputable 
 traces of obligations to Clement.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 169 
 
 25. 
 Basil of Caesarea [c. a.d. 375]. 
 De Spirit. Sa?tct. 29 (in, p. 61 a). 
 
 'AXXa KoX K.\rjixiq<; ap^aiiKcorepov, zh, (f)r)(TLV, o Oeoc k<m 
 6 Kypioc 'Ihcoyc Xpicrdc kai to nNeyMA to ation (Clem. 
 Rom. 58). 
 
 26. 
 
 Epiphanius [c. a.d. 375]. 
 (i) Haeres. xxvii. 6 (p. 107). 
 
 'Ei/ 'Vco[Mr} yap yeyovacn irpcoTou Herpos KaL IlafXos 
 aTTOcrroXot /cat eTTicTKOTToi, elra Alvos, elra KXtto?, etra 
 KX'r][JLrj<; avy\povo<i cop Uerpov kol JIavXov, ov imixprjixovevei 
 IlavXo? ip rfj irpos 'Pw/xatovs einaTokfj. koX yai^Sel? Oavfxa- 
 t^eroi on irpo avrov akkoL ttjp iTncTKOTrrjP SieSe^aPTO oltto tcop 
 dvocTToXcop, OPTO^ TovTov avy)(^p6pov Hdrpov Kat HavkoV 
 KOL 0UT09 yap crvyy^opo<i yiperaL tojp airodToXoiP. etr ovp 
 en TrepLOPTcov avTcop vno Uerpov \aix^dpei rrjp ^eupodecnap 
 Trjs eTTicrKOTrrj'? Kal TrapaiTTjadjxepo'^ VPY^^ (Xeyet yap ip /xta 
 
 TCOP eTTLCTToXcOP aVTOV, ANAXO^pOO, AnciMi, eycTABeiToo 6 Aaoc 
 
 TOY 06OY, rjvpo[xep yap eV TiaiP vTTOixprjfjiaTLcriJiols tovto 
 iyKeifxepop) tJtol /xem tyjp tcop aTTOcTToXcop OLaSo)(T]P vno tov 
 KXtJtov tov iiTLCTKOTrov ovTo<; KadicTTaTai, ov ttcxpv aacficos 
 LCTfJiep. TrXrjp aXXa Kal outoj? yjSvpaTO ctl rrepioPTcap tcop 
 aTTocTToXcop, (prjpl Se tcop irepl UeTpov Kal UavXop, iincTKO- 
 TTOvg aXXovs KadicTTaaOai, hid to tovs dirocrToXovs TroXXct/ct? 
 em Td<; aXXag iraTpihas CTTeXXeadau ttjp TropeCap iirl to tov 
 XptcTTov Kijpvyixa, jX'q SvpacrOat Se ttjp tcop ^PcoixaCcop ttoXlp 
 apev eTncTKOTTOv elpai. o fxep yap HauXos eVl ttjp Sirapiap 
 dcf)LKpeLTaL, nerpo? Se ttoXXciki? Uoptop re Kal ^lOvpiap 
 iirecTKe^aTo. ipe)(cipei Se jaera to KaTacrTaOrjpai KXijfxePTa 
 Kal TrapaiTrjcracrBaL (et ye ovtcos eTrpd^Or), Siapoovp^ai ydp,
 
 IJO EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ov^ opitpixat) varepov [xera to TeTekevTiqKivai Aivov /cat 
 KXrirov iTncrKonevcrai'Tas Trp6<; SeKaSvo err) eKaarov fxera 
 rrjv jov aylov HeTpov /cat navA.ov rekevTrjv ttjv iirl rco 
 SwSe/carw eret Nepw^'o? yevofxevrjv, tovtov avOiS dvayKa- 
 CTOrjvai Trju iinaKOTrrjv KaTaa^elv. ofxcoq tJ tcov ev 'PcJ^iy 
 iiriaKOTTOiV StaSo^?} ravrr]v e^eu T-qv aKoKovOtav' Il€Tpo<? koI 
 IlavXo<;, AtVo? /cat KXtJto';, KXi^/xt^?, EuapesTTO?, 'AXe^at-Spo?, 
 Svcrro9, Te\6(r(f)6po<;, Tyluos, Htog, 'Aplktjtos 6 avco iv Tca 
 KaTokoyo) TrpoSeSrjXojiJLei'os. 
 
 (ii) Haeres. xxx. 15 (p. 139). 
 
 ^pajPTat o€ /cat aXXat? rtcrt ^t/3Xot9 Srj6ev rat? IleptoSot? 
 /caXov/xeVat? ITeryoov rat? Std KXr^/xe^'ro? ypa^etcrat?, voOev- 
 cravT€<; jxeu ra Iv avTols, oXtya Se dXrjOipa idaavTe^, 6>5 
 auT09 KXyjixT]'; avTov? Kara irdvTa eXey^et d<^' w^* eypaxjjev 
 eTTicTTokcov iyKVKkioiv rutv iv rat? oytats e/c/cXi^trtats dvayivo)- 
 (TKop.iv(xiv, OTL aWov e^ei -^apaKTrj pa y avTov TTtcrrt? /cat d 
 Xdyo9 Trapa to. vtto tovtcop et? opofxa avTov iv rat? IleptoSots 
 vevoOevyiiva. auro? ydp irapOeviav StSdcrKCt, /cat avrot ov 
 Se^ot'Tat' avTO? ydp ey/cwjittd^et 'HXtav Kat AavtS /cat 'SoLfjLxjjuv 
 Koi TTdvTa<5 Tovs Trpo(f>'qTa<i, ou? ovrot /SSeXdrroi^Tat. ei^ rat? 
 ovi' IleptoSots TO TTcti' ets eavTov? fxeTijveyKav KaTOijjevcrd- 
 fxevoL Herpov Kara ttoXXous TpoTTOVs, a;§ avTov /ca^' rj^epav 
 ySaTTTt^o/xeVou dyvL(T[JLov eveKev, KaOdirep /cat ovTot, ifx\lfV)(o)v 
 T€ Tot* avTot' dTTe^ecrOai Kat Kpewv, ojs /cat avTot, kol Trdays 
 aXXiys eSojSi^s T17S aTTO crapKcov TreTTOLr)[X€V'r)<s Xiyovaiv. 
 
 „ (iii) Ancoratus 84 (p. 89). 
 
 ITept Se Tou (fioCvLKO^ tov ^Apa^LKOv opveov Trepicraov (jlol 
 TO \eyeiv' yjSyj yap ets dKorjv d<fHKTaL ttoWwv TTiarcov re koX 
 dTricTTOiv. rj Se Kar' avTov vnoOecns TotdSe ^atVerat' irevra- 
 KOCTLOCTTOV €TO<5 SiaTeXojv, indp yvoirf tov Kaipov t'yJ<; avTov 
 TeXevTTy? ivcrrdpTa, crrjKov jxev ipydt^erai apco/xdrw^' Kat (pepcov 
 epxerac els ttoXlv tcov AlyvTTTLOiv 'HXtovTroXti^ omoi koXov- 
 ixevrjv K.T.X.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 17 I 
 
 In these sentences and in the account which follows (e.g. o-Ko'yXrjKa 
 yevm, d o-KiuXrj^ Trrepocjivet vcottos yev6[xevo<;) Epiphanius appears to be 
 indebted to the language of Clement, though there is reason to believe 
 that his knowledge was indirect. Several of his statements show that 
 he had some other account before him. 
 
 27. 
 
 Pseudo-Ignatius [c. a.d. 370?]. 
 
 (i) /gn. Mar. 4. 
 
 ^Ert ov(Tr)<; crov iv Trj 'Vcoiir) napa toi ixaKapiO) Trana 
 ^KveyKkrjTco, ov SieSe^aro to, vvv o d^LOixaKdpLcrTO<; KX.7)[irj<i o 
 Herpov Kol IlavXov a.KovcTTt]'^. 
 
 ' AveyKX'i^Tcp is certainly the right reading here, though one authority has ' Cleto ' 
 and another Abc^ (see the notes on the passage). 
 
 (ii) Tra//. 7. 
 
 'fl? %Te(f)avo<; 6 dyio<^ \j.\eirovpy'iqaev hiaKovo^ 'laKw/3a> 
 Tw ixaKapiw, kol Tt/Ao^eo9 Koi AtVos UavXo), kol 'Ai/ey- 
 KXrjTos Koi KXijfjirj'? Herpo), 
 
 (iii) Philad. 4. 
 
 'fls EvoStov, 6JS KXT^/xeiTos, jo^v eV dyveia. i^eXOouTou 
 TOP l^iov. 
 
 See the note on the passage. 
 
 28. 
 
 Optatus [c. a.d. 370]. 
 
 De Schism. Donat. ii- 3 {p- 31)- 
 
 Ergo cathedram unicam, quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior 
 Petrus, cui successit Linus ; Lino successit Clemens, Clementi Anacle- 
 tus, Anacleto Evaristus, Evaristo Sixtus, Sixto Telesphorus, Telesphoro 
 Iginus, Igino Anicetus, Aniceto Pius, Pio Soter, Soteri Alexander, 
 Alexandro Victor, etc.
 
 172 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 29. 
 
 PhILASTRIUS [t C. A.D. 387]. 
 
 De Haeres. 89. 
 
 Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt 
 esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut dementis de 
 urbe Roma episcopi. 
 
 30. 
 
 AmBROSIUS [t A.D. 397]. 
 
 Hexaem. v. 23 {Op. i. p. no). 
 
 Phoenix quoque avis in locis Arabiae perhibetur degere, atque ea 
 usque ad annos quingentos longaeva aetate procedere; quae cum sibi 
 finem vitae adesse adverterit, facit sibi thecam de thure et myrrha et 
 ceteris odoribus, in quam impleto vitae suae tempore intrat et moritur. 
 De cujus humore carnis vermis exsurgit, paulatimque adolescit, ac 
 processu statuti temporis induit alarum remigia, atque in superioris avis 
 speciem formamque reparatur. Doceat igitur nos haec avis vel exemplo 
 sui resurrectionem credere etc. 
 
 Here Ambrose follows Clement (§ 25) closely. In two other passages 
 also {In Psalm, cxviii Expos, xix. § 13, i. p. 1212 ; de Fide Resurr. 59, 
 II. p. 1 149) he refers to the story of the phcenix, but does not adhere 
 so closely to Clement. In the latter passage however he has some 
 almost identical expressions, e.g. in the sentence ' cum sibi finem vitae 
 adesse... cognoverit, thecam sibi de thure et myirha et ceteris odoribus 
 adornare, completoque... tempore intrare illo atque emori, ex cujus 
 humore oriri vermem,' and again ' locorum incolae completum quin- 
 gentorum annorum tempus intelligunt'; but he mentions Lycaonia 
 instead of Heliopolis as the scene where the coffin is deposited. 
 
 The Hexaemeron seems to have been written in the later years of his Ufe. 
 HiERONYMUS [c. A.D. 375 — 410]. 
 
 (i) Chrommi Domitian. 12. 
 
 Tertius Romanae ecclesiae episcopus praefuit Clemens ann. viiii. 
 See the next chapter, respecting Jerome's edition of the Chronicon.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 173 
 
 (ii) de Vtrts Illustribiis 15. 
 
 Clemens de quo apostolus Paulus ad Philippenses scribens ait, cum 
 Clejuente et ceteris cooperatoribiis meis, quonim nomina scripta sunt in libro 
 vitae, quartus post Petnim Romae episcopus, si quidem secundus Linus 
 fuit, tertius Anacletus, tametsi plerique Latinorum secundum post apo- 
 stolum Petrum putent fuisse Clementem. Scripsit ex persona ecclesiae 
 Romanae ad ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem epistulam et quae in 
 nonnuUis locis etiam publice legitur, quae mihi videtur characteri 
 epistulae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos fertur, convenire ; sed et 
 multis de eadem epistula non solum sensibus, sed juxta verborum quoque 
 ordinem abutitur ; et omnino grandis in utraque similitudo est. Fertur 
 et secunda ex ejus nomine epistula, quae a veteribus reprobatur, et 
 disputatio Petri et Appionis longo sermone conscripta, quam Eusebius 
 in tertio ecclesiasticae historiae volumine coarguit. Obiit tertio Trajani 
 anno, et nominis ejus memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia 
 custodit. 
 
 Compare also de Vir. HI. 5 Epistula quae fertur ad Hebraeos... cre- 
 ditur...vel Barnabae juxta Tertullianum vel Lucae evangelistae juxta 
 quosdam vel Clementis, Romanae postea ecclesiae episcopi, quern aiunt 
 sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone, etc. 
 
 (iii) Adv. Jovinianum i. 12 {Op. 11. p. 257). 
 
 Ad hos [i.e. eunuchos] et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus 
 Paulus apostolus meminit, scribit epistolas, omnemque fere sermonem 
 suum de virginitatis puritate contexuit. 
 
 (iv) Comm. in Isaia?n Hi. 13 {Op. iv. p. 612). 
 
 De quo et Clemens vir apostolicus, qui post Petrum Romanam rexit 
 ecclesiam, scribit ad Corinthios ; Sceptrum Dei Dominus Jesus Christus 
 nofi venit in jactantia superbiae, quion possit otnnia, sed in humilitate 
 (Clem. Rom. 16). 
 
 (v) Comm. in Ephes. ii. 2 {Op. vii. p. 571). 
 
 Ad mundos alios, de quibus et Clemens in epistola sua scribit, Oceanus 
 et ?nundi qui trans ipsu7n sunt (Clem. Rom. 20). 
 
 (vi) Comm. in Ephes. iv. i {Op. vii. p. 606). 
 
 Cujus rei et Clemens ad Corinthios testis est scribens, Vinculum 
 caritatis Dei qui poterit enarrare 1 (Clem. Rom. 49). 
 
 The dates of the several works here quoted are; (i) a.d. 378, (ii) a.d. 392, 
 (iii) c. A.D. 393, (iv) A.D. 397—411, (v) (vi) c. A.D. 387.
 
 174 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 32. 
 Macarius Magnes [c. a.d. 400]. 
 
 Apocr. iv. 14 (p. 181, ed. Blondel). 
 
 The resemblances in this passage, which gives an account of the 
 deaths of the two Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, to the corresponding 
 account in Clem. Rom. (§5) are pointed out in the notes. 
 
 On this writer see li^n. and Polyc. i. p. 546. 
 
 33- 
 
 AUGUSTINUS [c. A.D. 400]. 
 
 Epist. liii. § 2 {Op. ii. p. 120, ed. Bened.). 
 
 Petro enim successit Linus, Lino Clemens, Clementi Anencletus, 
 Anencleto Evaristus, Evaristo Sixtus, Sixto Telesphorus, Telesphoro 
 Iginus, Igino Anicetus, Aniceto Pius, Pio Soter, Soteri Alexander, 
 Alexandro Victor, etc. 
 
 34. 
 Paulinus of Nola [before a.d. 410]. 
 
 Epistola xlvi Ad Rufinum {Patrol. Lat. lxi. p. 397, Migne). 
 
 § 2. Sane, quod admonere dignaris afifectu illo, quo nos sicut te 
 diligis, ut studium in Graecas litteras attentius sumam, libenter accipio ; 
 sed implere non valeo, nisi forte desideria mea adjuvet Dominus, ut 
 diutius consortio tuo perfruar. Nam quomodo profectum capere potero 
 sermonis ignoti, si desit a quo ignorata condiscam? Credo enim in 
 translatione dementis, praeter alias ingenii mei defectiones, hanc te 
 potissimum imperitiae meae penuriam considerasse, quod ahqua in 
 quibus intelligere vel exprimere verba non potui, sensu potius appre- 
 henso, vel, ut verius dicam, opinata transtulerim. Quo magis egeo 
 misericordia Dei, ut pleniorem mihi tui copiam tribuat etc. 
 
 35- 
 
 RUFINUS [t A.D. 410]. 
 
 (i) Praefatio in Recognitiojies. 
 
 Quidam enim requirunt, quomodo cum Linus et Cletus in urbe 
 Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerunt episcopi, ipse Clemens ad Jacobum 
 scribens sibi dicat a Petro docendi cathedram traditam. Cujus rei hanc
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 175 
 
 accepimus esse rationem, quod Linus et Cletus fuerunt quidem ante 
 Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, videlicet ut illi 
 episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero apostolatus impleret officium, sicut 
 invenitur etiam apud Caesaream fecisse, ubi cum ipse asset praesens, 
 Zacchaeum tamen a se ordinatum habebat episcopum. Et hoc modo 
 utrumque verum videbitur, ut et illi ante Clementem numerentur episcopi, 
 et Clemens tamen post obitum Petri docendi susceperit sedem. 
 
 The allusion to the ordination of Zacchceus is explained by Clem. Rccogn. iii. 
 65 sq (comp. Clem. Horn. iii. 63 sq). 
 
 (ii) Hist. Eccl. iii. 38. 
 
 Clemens tamen in epistola quam Corinthiis scribit, meminit epistolae 
 Pauli ad Hebraeos, et utitur ejus testimoniis. Unde constat quod 
 apostolus tanquam Hebraeis mittendam patrio eam sermone con- 
 scripserit et, ut quidam tradunt, Lucam evangelistam, alii hunc ipsum 
 Clementem interpretatum esse. Quodetmagis verum est; quia et stylus 
 ipse epistolae dementis cum hac concordat, et sensus nimirum utrius- 
 que scripturae plurimam similitudinem ferunt. Dicitur tamen esse et 
 alia dementis epistola, cujus nos notitiam non accepimus ; etc. 
 
 It will be seen that the statements of Eusebius in this passage (see above, p. 166) 
 have been manipulated in passing through the hands of Rufinus. The other passages 
 referring to Clement, H. E. iii. 4, 14, 15, 16, 21, 34, 37, though loosely translated 
 and frequently abridged, do not call for comment. 
 
 (iii) De Adult. Lihr. Orig. (Origen. Op. iv. App. p. 50, De la Rue). 
 
 Clemens apostolorum discipulus, qui Romanae ecclesiae postapostolos 
 et episcopus et martyr fuit, libros edidit qui Graece appellantur ava.- 
 yvojpLo-fjLo'i, id est Recognitio, in quibus quum ex persona Petri apostoli 
 doctrina quasi vere apostolica in quamplurimis exponatur, in aliquibus 
 ita Eunomii dogma inseritur, ut nihil aliud nisi ipse Eunomius disputare 
 credatur, Filium Dei creatum de nuUis extantibus asseverans...Quid, 
 quaeso, de his sentiendum est? Quod apostolicus vir, imo pene 
 apostolus (nam ea scribit quae apostoli dicunt), cui Paulus apostolus 
 testimonium dedit dicens, Ciun Clemcnte et ceteris adjutoribus meis, 
 quorum nomina sunt i?i libra vitae, scribebat hoc quod libris vitae 
 contrarium est? An id potius credendum, quod perversi homines ad 
 assertionem dogmatum suorum sub virorum sanctorum nomine, tanquam 
 facilius credenda, interseruerint ea, quae illi nee sensisse nee scripsisse 
 credendi sunt ? 
 
 The passage is quoted by Jerome, but not verbatim throughout, c. Riifui. ii. 17 
 (Hieron. Op. II. p. 507 sq, Vallarsi). 
 
 The passage relating to the phoenix in Rufinus lit Symbol. Apost. 11 bears no 
 special resemblance to the corresponding passage in Clement.
 
 1/6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 36. 
 Pseudo-Tertullian [4th or 5th cent.?]. 
 
 Adv. Marctonem iii. 276 (TertuU. Op. 11. p. 792, ed. Oehler). 
 
 Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum 
 Maxima Roma Limim primum considere jussit; 
 Post quern Cletus et ipse gregem suscepit ovilis. 
 Hujus Anacletus successor sorte locatus ; 
 Quem sequitur Clemens; is apostolicis bene notus. 
 Euaristus ab hoc rexit sine crimine legem. 
 
 On the various opinions held respecting the date and authorship of this poem, see 
 esp. Duchesne Liber Poiitificalis p. xi. Recent opinion fluctuates between Victorinus 
 Afer (c. A.D. 360) and Victor or Victorinus Massiliensis (c. a.d. 430 — 440). The 
 former view is maintained in the monograph of Hiickstadt (Leipzig, 1875); the latter 
 by Oehler, the editor of Tertullian (0/. il. p. 781 sq). 
 
 DiDYMUS OF Alexandria [before a.d. 392]. 
 Expos, in Psalm, cxxxviii {Patrol. Grace, xxxix. 1596, ed. Migne). 
 Et yap /cat ajKeANOc AnepANxoc, aXX ovv kai 01 iwer 
 ay'ton kocmoi taic toy AecnoTOY AiatataTc Aii'SYNONTAr 
 TToivTa yap ra 7rp6<i avTov yeyevrjixdva ottol ttot ecmv rayat? 
 T179 kavTov rrpovoLa<; StotKOVju-eva IdvveTai (i Cor. 20). 
 
 This work of Didymus is mentioned by Jerome in his Vir. Illustr. 109. Didymus 
 vpas still living, at the age of 83, when Jerome wrote (A.D. 392). As this commentary 
 on the Psahns stands first in his list of Didymus' writings, we may suppose that it was 
 written some years before. 
 
 38. 
 ZosiMus [a.d. 417]. 
 Epistola ii. § 2 {Patrol. Lat. xx. p. 650, Migne). 
 
 Die cognitionis resedimus in sancti dementis basilica, qui, imbutus 
 beati Petri apostoli disciplinis, tali magistro veteres emendasset errores 
 tantosque profectus habuisset, ut fidem quam didicerat et docuerat etiam 
 martyrio consecraret ; scilicet ut ad salutiferam castigationem tanti sacer- 
 dotis auctoritas praesenti cognitioni esset exemplo. 
 
 See Labb. Cone. \\\. p. 401 (ed. Coleti).
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 177 
 
 39- 
 
 Praedestinatus [c. a.d. 430]. 
 
 (i) De Haeresibus Praef. p. 231 (ed. Oehler). 
 
 Clemens itaque Romanus episcopus, Petri discipulus, Christi dig- 
 nissimus martyr, Simonis haeresim a Petro apostolo cum ipso Simone 
 superatam edocuit. 
 
 (ii) ib. cap. 14. 
 
 Hunc [Marcum haereticum] sanctus Clemens, episcopus Romanus 
 et dignissimus martyr, fixis et integris adsertionibus confutans et coram 
 omni plebe in ecclesia detegens aeterna damnatione punivit, docens 
 vere natum et passum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, nihil ab 
 60 in phantasia factum commemorans etc. 
 
 40. 
 
 EUCHERIUS OF LUGDUNUM [a.D. 432]. 
 
 Epist. Paraen. ad Valerian. {Patrol. Lat. L. p. 718, ed. Migne). 
 
 Clemens vetusta prosapia senatorum, atque etiam ex stirpe Caesarum, 
 omni scientia refertus, omniumque liberalium aitium peritissimus, ad 
 banc justorum viam transiit ; itaque etiam in ea excellenter effloruit, ut 
 principi quoque apostolorum successor exstiterit. 
 
 41. 
 
 Synod of Vaison [a.d. 442]. 
 
 Labb. Co7ic. iv. p. 717 (ed. Coleti). 
 
 Canon vi. Ex epistola S. dementis utilia quaeque, praesenti tem- 
 pore ecclesiis necessaria, sunt honorifice proferenda et cum reverentia 
 ab omnibus fidelibus, ac praecipue clericis, percipienda. Ex quibus 
 quod specialiter placuit propter venerandam antiquitatem statutis 
 praesentibus roboramus, quod suprascriptus beatus martyr de beatissimi 
 apostoli Petri institutione commemorat, dicens ; Quaedam aulan ex 
 vobis ipsis intelligere debetis, si qua sint quae propter ifisidias hominum 
 malorum etc. 
 
 The lengthy quotation which follows is taken from Rufinus' transla- 
 tion of the Epistle of Clement to James (§ 18), which we find in the 
 original prefixed to the Homilies. 
 
 This canon however is absent from one MS and appears in a somewhat different 
 form in another. 
 
 CLEM. 12
 
 178 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 42. 
 
 PSEUDO-JUSTINUS [5th CCnt.?]. 
 
 Respons. ad Orthodox. 74 (Justin. Op. in. p. 108, ed. 3, Otto, 1880). 
 
 Et TiJ? 7rapovar}<; KaTa(TTdcr€(o<? to reXoq iaTLV 17 Sta tov 
 7rvp6<? Kpi(ji<i TO)v dcrel^cov, KaOd (^yacriv al ypajyai 7rpo(f)r)T(ov 
 re Kol aTToa-ToXcDV, eTi he koX rrj<i %Lf3v\\rj<g, KaOo)^ (j^rjo-LV o 
 /jtaKctpto? K\ij[JLr)<; iu Trj rrp6<; Kopiv6iov<^ iTno-ToXfj ac.t.X. 
 
 The date of this treatise is uncertain, but it was unquestionably written after the 
 Nicene age; see Fabric. Btil. Graec. IV. p. 380 sq, Vll. p. 65, ed. Harles. 
 
 On the strength of this passage in Pseudo- Justin, I in my first edition (1869) 
 assigned this assumed mention of the fiery judgement and of the Sibyl by Clement 
 to the lacuna which then existed in the genuine epistle after § 57. This course I 
 justified as follows (p. 166 sq): 
 
 "If there were no independent reason for inserting this fragment in our 
 epistle, we might hesitate ; for (i) I have shown above (§ 47) that kv t^ 7rp6s KopiJ'^fovs 
 €Tn<TTo\rj might mean the Second Epistle; and to the Second Epistle Ussher and 
 others after him have referred it ; (2) The suggestion of Cotelier (Jud. de Epist. Ii) 
 that for KaOws (pijaiv we should read Kal ws 4>-)]<tIv, or better Kal Kadus (pTjaiv, would be 
 very plausible. But Cotelier himself points out (I.e.) that the statement of the 
 Pseudo-Justin is confirmed from another source. Irenreus (iii. 3. 3) describes this 
 epistle of Clement as preserving the tradition recently received from the Apostles, 
 'annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, plasmatorem 
 hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum 
 de terra ^gypti, qui collocutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit et prophetas miserit, 
 qui z'gnem praeparaverit diabolo et angelis ejtis '. This description corresponds with the 
 contents of our epistle, excepting the last clause which I have italicised; and the 
 insertion of a statement so remarkable could not have been an accidental error 
 on the part of Irenseus. Wotton indeed supposes that these words do not give 
 the contents of Clement's epistle, but that Irenajus is describing in his own language 
 the general substance of the Apostolic tradition. To this interpretation however the 
 subjunctive praeparaverit is fatal, for it shows that the narrative is oblique and 
 that Irenceus is speaking in the words of another." 
 
 "It seems then that Clement towards the close of the epistle dwelt upon the end of 
 all things, the destruction of the world by fire. For such an allusion the threats 
 taken from the Book of Proverbs (§ 57) would prepare the way; and it would form a 
 fit termination to a letter of warning." 
 
 "And for this statement he appealed to the authority, not only of the Apostles and 
 Prophets, but also of the Sibyl. There is no difiiculty in this. The oldest Jewish 
 Sibylline Oracle, of which a large part is preserved in the 3rd book of the extant 
 Sibylline collection and in quotations of the early fathers, appears to have been 
 written in the 2nd century B.C. by an Alexandrian Jew (see esp. Bleek in Schleier- 
 macher's Theolog. Zcitschr. I. p. 120 sq, II. p. 172 sq; Ewald Entstelmng etc. 
 der Sihyll. Biickcr, Giittingen 1858; and Alexandre Oraatla Sihyllina, Paris 1841,
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 79 
 
 1856), It is quoted and accepted as a genuine oracle of the Sibyl by Josephus {Ant. 
 i. 4. 3), in the early apocryphal Praedicatio Petri et Pmili (Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 5, 
 p. 761 sq), by the Christian fathers Melito (Cureton's Spicil. Syr. pp. 43, 86), 
 Athenagoras {Legat. § 30), Theophilus {ad Autol. ii. 3, 9, 31, 36, 38), and Clement of 
 Alexandria (very frequently), in the Coliort. ad Grace . ascribed to Justin (§ 37), and in 
 a Peratic document quoted by Hippolytus {Haer. v. 16), besides allusions in Hermas 
 {Vis. ii. 4) and in Justin {Apol. i. §§ 20, 44). Justin in the last passage (§ 44) 
 says that the reading of the Sibylline oracles had been forbidden under penalty 
 of deathj but that the Christians nevertheless read them and induced others to read 
 them; and Celsus tauntingly named the Christians Sibyllists (Orig. c. Cels. v. 61, I. p. 
 625; comp. vii. 56, I. p. 734). Clement therefore might very w^ell have quoted the 
 Sibyl as an authority." 
 
 "After the enforcement of monotheism and the condemnation of idolati-y, the 
 main point on which the Sibyllines dwelt was the destruction of the world by fire. 
 To this end the authority of the Sibyl is quoted in Justin {Apol. i. 20), Apost. Const. 
 (v. 7), Theophilus (ii. 38), Lactantius {Div. Inst. vii. 15 sq), and others. The 
 impending destruction by fire is connected in these oracles with the past destruction 
 by water, as in 2 Pet. iii. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12. The juxta-position of the two great 
 catastrophes in Melito (Cureton's Spieil. Syr. pp. 50, 51) is derived from the 
 Sibyllines, as the coincidence of language shows, and not from 2 Pet. iii. 6 sq, 
 as Cureton (§ 95) supposes: see Westcott Hist, of the Canon p. 195, 2nd ed. I have 
 pointed out above (§§ 7, 9) that Clement's language respecting the 'regeneration' by 
 the flood and Noah's 'preaching of repentance' seems to be taken from the Sibylline 
 Oracles, and this affords an additional presumption that he may have referred to the 
 Sibyl as his authority for the eKTrvpuais and iraXiyyevecrLa at the end of all things. It 
 is a slight confirmation too, that the word iravTeiroTrrrii at the beginning of § 58 seems 
 to be derived from Sibylline diction (see the note on § 55, where also it occurs). The 
 passage of Theophilus (ii. 38) shows how it might occur to an early father to combine 
 the testimonies of the Prophets and the Sibyl to the eKirvpuais, just as a similar 
 combination is found in the far-famed medieval hymn, 'Dies irae, dies ilia, Solvet 
 saeclum in favilla. Teste David cum Sibylla'; see the note in Trench's Sacred Latin 
 Poetry p. 297. For the passages in the Sibyllines relating to the conflagration of the 
 universe see Alexandre 11. p. 518 sq." 
 
 These grounds on which in my first edition I gave a place to the quotation of 
 the Pseudo-Justin in the lacuna of the genuine epistle seemed sufficient to justify its 
 insertion there. Harnack indeed objected (ed. i, pp. 155, 177) that the use of ypa<pal, 
 applied to Prophets and Apostles alike, would be an anachronism in the genuine 
 Clement. I did not mean however that the Pseudo-Justin was giving the exact words 
 of the author quoted, but, as Harnack himself says {Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch . i. 
 p. 273), a free paraphrase. The objection therefore was not, I think, valid. 
 
 Still constructive criticism has failed here, and Harnack's opinion has proved 
 correct. We have every reason to believe that we now possess the genuine epistle 
 complete, and the passage to which Pseudo-Justin refers is not found there. When 
 the edition of Bryennios appeared, the solution became evident. The newly recovered 
 ending of the so-called Second Epistle presents references to the destruction of the 
 world by fire and to the punishment of the wicked (§ 16 ^pxerai ^Si? v Tip.4pa ttjs 
 Kplcreus ws KXl^avos Kai6fJ.evos k.t.X., § 17 t^c rjfiipav eKdvrjv X^yei ttjs Kpiatui orav 
 oif/oPTai Toi)j eV 7]iiiv d(re^'^crai'Tas...07rws KoKd^ovrai detvais ^aadi'ot.s irvpl dff^icTi^) 
 
 12 — 2
 
 l8o EPISTLES OF 8. CLEMENT. 
 
 which satisfy the allusion of the Pseudo-Justin, as I pointed out in the Academy (May 
 20, 1876). liarnack and P^ink also take the same view. But there is no mention of 
 the Sibyl in these passages. How is this difficulty to be met? Harnack would 
 treat the clause containing this mention as parenthetical in accordance with a 
 suggestion of Hilgenfeld {Nov. Test. extr. Can. Rec. i. p. xviii, note i), and would 
 read accordingly; d t'^s irapovo'rjs Karaffrdaeus rb riXos icrrlv rj dia rod 7rvpb$ Kpian 
 Twv dcre^uv {Kadd. <pacnv at ypa<pal Trpo(pr]Tuv re Kal dirocTTSXuf, in bk koI t^s St^i;X- 
 Xtjs), KaOw (pvaiv 6 fxaKaptos KXrjUTjs ev ry vpbv KopLvdiovs efTLaToXrj k.t.\. But to this 
 solution it appears to me that there are two grave objections, (i) The mode of 
 expression is rendered very awkward by the suspension of the last clause, when 
 Kada. and Kadws are no longer coordinated. (2) As the writer quotes not the exact 
 words, but only the general sense, of the supposed Clement, he must quote him 
 not for his language, but for his authority. But the form of the sentence so 
 interpreted makes Clement's authority paramount and subordinates the Prophets and 
 Apostles to it ; ' If Clement is right in saying that the world will be judged by fire as 
 we are told in the writings of the prophets and apostles'. This sense seems to 
 me to be intolerable ; and I must therefore fall back upon a suggestion which is given 
 above (p. 178), that for /ca^ws we should read /cat Kaduis. The omission of Kal (which 
 was frequently contracted into a single letter Xj) before Ka^ws would be an easy acci- 
 dent, and probably not a few instances could be produced; comp. e.g. Rom. iii. 8, 
 I Joh. ii. 18, 27. The testimony of Clement then falls into its proper place, as sub- 
 ordinate to the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and even to the writings of 
 the Sibyl. For other instances of the insertion or omission of Kal before words 
 beginning with Ka in our epistle see § 7 [/cat] Karafiddcofjiev, § 8 [/cat] Kadapoi, § 53 [/cai] 
 KaXids ; comp. also Gal. iii. 29 [/cat] Kar' eTrayyeXlav, Ign. Ephes. i [/cat] /cara irlffTiv. 
 Hilgenfeld in his second edition (1876) offers another solution (p. 77). He 
 postulates a lacuna in the Second Epistle § 10, where he supposes the language (in- 
 cluding the mention of the Sibyl), to which the Pseudo-Justin refers, to have occurred. 
 Reasons are given in my note for rejecting this theory of a lacuna as unnecessary. 
 
 43- 
 
 TiMOTHEUS OF ALEXANDRIA [a.D. 457]. 
 
 Tcsti7no?iia Patruin. 
 K'AvjlSO.td K'^i^^j^' ^ r^Lsaocoi.T rd^xifio^K' ■ew.*ai.\ni 
 
 ^,,,» -n^ux-T^.i K'.'uK' K'^jjq 1 T.^vA ^r^ .^.T» T<\x< 
 K'aco JLJva^vJsa .^vsa x^d .K'Adso k'ooAk' r^unT-ra
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. l8i 
 
 r <^ W IT ?^ .:^ox* A^. cx^^i^vsaX ^ r^o r^li^cn .x^K* 
 .(<'ou.Sa.io r^^.i r**-!*."! A^.3 vyK* .K'ctAk' A^..i vyr^* 
 
 .a»<' f<'^'ia:^t •. ^cnoA^. K'^'icx:^) ^JU^i^fCn.i i^^^ ^caa 
 K'AuncLi-i Aik-.i vyK* ^^1^s*71l. :»^o ..aiflaJ.T ^u» ^*2kjaa_5a 
 
 •:^O.jr> 1*3 1 flp.t ^l*r<' ^caA_«io .r^\h\r^ r^Ju>r^Ci ctusa 
 
 . . . «^.^^\^i^ juxin r<* mr^n 
 .COXkl .vw cols.i 
 
 .^ K'io re!jL^cno K'iomn ^.i Ktocia .r^Luoi paruial 
 
 Of Clement, bishop of Rome, from the First Epistle on Virginity. 
 
 Under standest thou theii what honour chastity requires ? Knowest 
 thou then with what glory virginity has been glorified ? The womb of the 
 Virgin conceived our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word ; and when our 
 Lord was made man by the Virgin, with this conduct did He conduct Him- 
 self in the world. By this thou may est know the glory of virginity. 
 
 Of the same, from the beginning of the Third Epistle. 
 
 My brethren, thus it behoveth us to think coticerning Jesus Christ, as 
 concerning God, as concerning the Judge of the living cind the dead. And 
 it is not right for tis to think small things concerning our salvation ; for 
 by thinking s?nall things concernifig it, we also expect to receive small 
 things. And when ive hear as concerning small things, we sin, in that we 
 do not know from whence 7ve are called, and by whom, and to what place, 
 and all those things which Jesus Christ endured to suffer for our sakes 
 (2 Cor. i).
 
 1 82 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Of the same. 
 
 There is o?ie Christ our Lord, who saved us, who was first spirit, 
 became then in the flesh, and this called us (2 Cor. 9). 
 
 These extracts are taken from Cureton (Corp. Ign. pp. 212, 144), who first 
 published them. He transcribed them from the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 12 156. The 
 extracts from the Pseudo-Clement are on 69 b (Wright's Catalogue p. 644 sq.) and 
 follow immediately on the passages from Ignatius and Polycarp which I have given 
 elsewhere, Ign. and Polyc. i. pp. 167 sq, 547. For an account of this writer, and 
 of the MS, see ib. p. 168. 
 
 The first passage is from the Pseudo-Clement de Virgin, i. 5, 6 (pp. 24, 26, ed. 
 Beelen). It has been translated direct from the Greek, and has no connexion with the 
 Syriac version of these epistles ; see Ign. and Polyc. i. p. 193. 
 
 44. 
 
 EUTHALIUS [c. A.D. 460]. 
 
 Arguin. Epist. ad Hebr. {Patrol. Grace. Lxxv. p. 776, ed. Migne). 
 
 *H Se irpos 'E/3/3atov5 eTTLcrToXrj Sokel yiev ovk eivai 
 Haiikov Stct re top ^apaKTrjpa, koI to fxirj 7rpo'ypd<f>eLV k.t.X.... 
 Tov ixkv ovv aTTiqWd^dai top ^apaKTTjpa Trj<s i7n(TToXrj<s 
 (f)avepa 7) atrta' irpos yap 'El3paLov<s rfj (r(f>cov StaXeACT&j 
 ypafjieLcra vdTepov jxeOepixrjuevOrjvaL Xeyerat, ws jueV rtves, 
 VTTo AovKOL, cJs Sc ol TToXXoL, VTTo KXij [xevTO'?' TOV yap Kai 
 acj^EL TOV -^apaKTrjpa. 
 
 45- 
 Severus of Antioch [c. A.D. 513 — 518]. 
 Adv. Joannem Gratnviaticum. 
 
 .K'^ujsa.io r^u^M.l KLiJ..t A!^^ vyK' .K'ctAk' A^^^ts vyr^ 
 ^i:aiYT sqo r^^'io^i •. cp^\Ajs?3 r^'^'io^t .in?h.i^sq.i V>^
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 83 
 
 Of Clement, the third bishop of Rome after the Apostles, from 
 the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Afy brethren, thus is it right for us to think ^gncerning Jesus Christ, 
 as concerning God, as concerning the Judge of the livi?ig and the dead, atid 
 it is not right for us to think small things concerning our salvation : for if 
 we think small things concerning it, 7ue hope also to receive small things. 
 And when we hear as concerning small things, we sin, because we do not 
 know from whence we are called, and by whom, and to what place ; and 
 how much Jesus Christ endured to suffer for us (2 Cor. i). 
 
 This passage is taken from the MS Brit. Mas. Add. i'2i57, fol. 200 b, and follows 
 immediately upon the extracts from Ignatius and Polycarp which I have given else- 
 where {Ign. and Polyc. I. pp. 170 sq, 548). It is given by Cureton (Corp. Ign. p. 215), 
 from whom I have taken it. A description of the MS and of this work of Severus 
 will be found Ign. and Polyc. i. p. 174. 
 
 46. 
 
 Anonymous Syriac Writers [6th or 7th cent. ?]. 
 (i) Demonstratiojies Fatrum. 
 
 ^9Xi»xsn CLLJ=n . ,__A>lwji ,fc__ark^j3 huri A^i^cn cx-i_2q 
 rdaoi r^ocn ^^Ol^^w.'! ocrUK'.i vsordJ r^CL_sj t^lLstso 
 
 cm^ .icuAs .K'reLx^O) ^ :T£L%dvsi9.l )q.vs3 r^K* .1^12^.0 
 
 For the holy Clement, bishop of Rome and disciple of the Apostles, 
 teacheth thus in his Epistle to the Corinthians; 
 
 Who therefore is there among you that is strong ? Who compassionate 
 and full of love ? Let him say. If on my account there is disturbance and
 
 184 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 strife and schism, I go 7U hither soever ye desire and I do that jchich is 
 commanded by many. Only let the flock of Christ have peace with the 
 elders that are placed over it (i Cor. 54). 
 
 This passage is taken from the Syriac MS Brit. Mus. Add. 145331 fol. 167 b (see 
 Wright's Catalogtu p. 974), ascribed by Wright to the 8th or 9th century. It contains 
 collections of passages from the fathers directed against various heresies. This parti- 
 cular section is headed ' Charges brought by the followers of Paul [of Beth-Ukkame, 
 patriarch of Antioch], with replies to them, and chapters against them' (fol. 172 a). 
 The extract was copied for my first edition by Prof. Wright. It is translated in 
 Cowper's Syriac Miscell. p. 56. 
 
 (ii) Excerpta Fatrum. 
 
 . ^.^cv^iAnUK' i^vri ^ rdL^jsjao^K' K'acra ocn.i . rc'^vu^.i;^ 
 T<'^i_^j<' ^ .Klsaocni.i r^AOnPf7 *\t<' K'oco T<LajL.A_x. .1 
 
 001.1 •Acnoov*r^;i 
 reU-i*.T f<Li-».i A \^ *ga.i v^r^ .r<'caAr<' A ^ *j3.i vv-»r<' 
 
 ^^.i^^»3 reiA K'iflaa r^licn.i ^^cv.'iA'^ JUK* isor^J rd^a 
 • •...CL^flurf r^-WQ-s r«lica=i .1^ cy.\.T even ^K* . »o^v*»
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. l8' 
 
 : .....OL^io rdl^coc. K'ifiao r<'on3 .• KLsjoi K'ocn .acno^r^ 
 ^ 1 I An n.ro K'i flri n r^Jca-3 co-a '. ^i-u JSkr^a r^\ Acn 
 
 Of the holy Clement, archbishop of Rome and martyr, concerning 
 whom the Apostle Paul also, when writing to the PhiHppians, speaks 
 thus : IVi^/i Clement and the rest of 7ny helpers whose names are in the 
 book of life. But Eusebius of Csesarea says respecting him, in the 
 third book of his Ecclesiastical History, that he was bishop after Anen- 
 cletus, who followed Linus : but Linus was bishop of Rome after Peter, 
 the chief of the Apostles. From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 from which also the holy Patriarch Severus adduces proofs in many of 
 his writings; the beginning of which is, My brethren, thus it is right for 
 us to think concerning Jesus Christ, as concerning God, as concerning the 
 Judge of the living and the dead (2 Cor. i). 
 
 And let no one of you say that this flesh is not judged nor riscth 
 again. Know by what ye have been saved, and by what ye have seen, 
 if it be not whe7i ye are in this flesh. Therefore it is right for you that 
 you should keep your flesh as the temple of God. For as ye 7vcre called 
 when ye were in the flesh, so also in this flesh shall ye come. If it be that 
 Christ our Lord, who saved us, 7ciho at first indeed was spirit, became 
 flesh, and thus called you ; so thai we also i?i the same flesh receive the 
 reward (2 Cor. 9). 
 
 This is taken from the MS Brit. Mus. Add. iTii^, fol. 76b (see Wright's 
 Catalogue, p. 916), ascribed by Wright to the 7th century. Tlie MS contains an 
 Ignatian quotation also, and has been described by me in connexion therewith 
 (Ign. and Poly c. i. p. 190). 
 
 These same two extracts from the Second Epistle are found likewise in Brit. Mus. 
 Add. 14532, fol. '214 b (see Wright p. 966), Brit. Mus. Add. 14538, fol. 20 a (see 
 Wright p. 1004), and Brit. Mus. Add. 17191, fol. 58 b (see Wright p. 1013), con- 
 taining various collections of extracts, and ranging from the 8th to the loth centuiy. 
 They were first published by Cureton in Corp. Ign. pp. 365, 364, and afterwards Ijy 
 myself in my first edition from a fresh collation made by Wright. An English
 
 1 86 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 version is given in Cowper's Syr. Miscell. p. 57. Quite recently they have been re- 
 published in Anal. Spicil. Solesm. iv. p. i sq (comp. p. -276), where the various readings 
 of all the MSS are given. 
 
 47- 
 Liber Felicianus [c. a. d. 530]. 
 
 Liber Pontificalis i. p. 53, ed. Duchesne. 
 
 Clemens, natione Romanus, de region e Celiomonte, ex patre 
 Faustino, sedit ann. viiii, m. ii, d. x. Fuit autem temporibus Galbae 
 et Vespasiani, a consulatu Tragali et Italici usque ad Vespasiano viiii 
 et Tito. Martyrio coronatur. Hie fecit vii regiones et dividit notariis 
 fidelibus ecclesiae qui gesta martyrum sollicite et curiose unusquisque 
 per regionem suam diligenter perquireret ; et fecit duas epistolas. Hie 
 fecit ordinationes iii per mens. Decemb. presb. x, diac. ii, episcopos 
 per diversa loca v. Obiit martyr iii Trajani. Qui sepultus est in Grecias 
 viiii Kal. Decemb. Et cessavit episcopatus d. xxi. 
 
 This is the earlier edition of the Liber Pontificalis. For the dates of the tw^o 
 editions see the next chapter. 
 
 48. 
 
 Gregory of Tours [a.d. 576, 592]. 
 
 (i) Hist. Franc, i. 25. 
 
 Tertius post Neronem persecutionem in Christianos Trajanus movet ; 
 sub quo beatus Clemens, tertius Romanae ecclesiae episcopus, pas- 
 sus est. 
 
 (ii) De Glor. Mart. i. 35. 
 
 Clemens martyr, ut in passione ejus legitur, anchora coUo ejus sus- 
 pensa in mare praecipitatus est. Nunc autem in die solemnitatis ejus 
 recedit mare per tria millia, siccumque ingredientibus iter praebens, 
 usque dum ad sepulcrum martyris pervenitur ; ibique vota reddentes et 
 orantes populi regrediuntur ad littus. 
 
 He then relates two miracles wrought by the presence of S. Clement. The first is 
 the story (told in the Acts of Clement) of the child discovered sleeping by its mother 
 after a whole year, during which it had lain on Clement's tomb beneath the waves. 
 The second is the miraculous re-opening of a fertilizing spring of waters at Limoges by 
 the presence of Clement's reliques, after having been long dried up. 
 
 (iii) De Glor. Mart. i. 56. 
 
 Eutropius quoque martyr Santonicae urbis a beato Clemente episcopo 
 fertur directus in Gallias,
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 187 
 
 49. 
 
 Gregory the Great [a.d. 590]. 
 
 Oratio ad Plebem (Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc, x. i, p. 482 sq.). 
 Omnes autem mulieres conjugatae ab ecclesia sancti martyris 
 dementis cum presbyteris regionis tertiae. 
 
 The posts assigned to these several Utanies are differently given by Paulus Diaconus 
 Vit. Greg. i. 42 (Greg. Magn. Op. xv. p. 284), and the Basilica of S. Clement is not 
 there mentioned. 
 
 50. 
 
 Joannes Diaconus [a.d. 550 — 600?]. 
 
 Expositiim in Heptateuchtitn {Spicil. Solesm. i, p. 293). 
 
 In Epistola sancti dementis ad Corinthios. 
 
 Sciebat Moyses quod virga Aaron floritura esset; sed ideo con- 
 vocavit populum ut honorabilis Aaron inveniretur, et Deus glorificaretur 
 a populisj ipse autem careret invidia...Hanc formam tenentes apostoli 
 vel successores ejus, quos eligebant, cum consensu totius ecclesiae 
 ordinabant praepositos (Clem. Rom. 43 sq). 
 
 A very loose quotation or rather paraphrase. 
 
 It must remain uncertain who this John the Roman deacon was. Several persons 
 bore this name and description. Pitra {Spicil. Solesm. i. p. Iv sq) has given some 
 reasons (not however absolutely conclusive) for supposing that this work was written 
 in the latter half of the sixth century. 
 
 On Pitra's inference drawn from this passage respecting a supposed Latin transla- 
 tion by Paulinus of Nola see above, p. 146 sq ; and on his opinion with regard to 
 the meaning of 'hanc formam,' see the note on kirivofi-qv, § 44. 
 
 Apostolical Canons [6th cent. ?]. 
 Canon 85 (76). 
 
 'RjxeTepa Se [/3t/8A.ia], TovrecrTL rrj^ KaLvrj^ SiaOrJKr)^' 
 evayyeXia reaaapa, Mar^atov, MdpKOv, Aovkol, 'Tojcli/j/ov 
 IlavXov eTTicrTokai SeKaTecraapes' Herpov eTncrroXat Svo' 
 ^Xoidvvov TpeL<;' 'la/cw^ov fxia' 'lovSa jxia. KX-q/xeuTO^ ein- 
 orroXal Svo* koX at Starayat vplv rots eTrtcr/coTTOt? oC ifxov 
 KXTJixeuTOi iu 6kt(o Pl^Xlol<; Trpo(j7r^(f>o)inr]iJi€uaL, as ov xprj
 
 1 88 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 oy]ixo<TL€veLV inl iravTOiv Sta ra iv avrat? fxvaTLKd' kol at 
 Trpd^eL^ Tjixoiv tcjv diroo'ToXoiv. 
 
 On this Apostolical Canon see Westcott Canon pp. 434, 534. 
 
 52. 
 
 Stephanus Gobarus [c. a.d. 575 — 600?]. 
 
 Photius Bibliotheca 232 (p. 291 b). 
 
 'On 'l7r7roXvT09 /cat ElprjvaLO'; T-qv 77/309 'EySpatovs eTTt- 
 aToXrjv UavXov ovk eKcivov elvai <^aa"f KX7JfjL7]<; fxei^TOL koI 
 EvcreyStos /cat ttoXus aXX.os tojv 0eo(f)6p(ov Trarepcov o/xtXog 
 rat? aXXats crvvapidiLovai TavT'qv e7rto"ToXat?, Kat (f)aaLv 
 avTrjv Ik rrj<^ 'E^paf^os {JLeracfipdcraL top elprjjxevov KXij- 
 
 There is apparently a confusion here between the two Clements, unless indeed 
 the apparent error arises from the condensation in Photius' account. The words tov 
 eiprjixivov KXrifievra can only refer to the Alexandrian Clement who is the KXij/xtjs in 
 the previous part of this sentence, and has likewise been mentioned in the preceding 
 sentence as K\rifjLT}s 6 aT/JWyuarei's. On the other hand the Roman Clement is nowhere 
 mentioned in the context. If Stephanus was guilty of this error, he must have con- 
 fused himself with the statements in Euseb. //. E. iii. 37, vi. 14, 25. See also John 
 of Damascus below, p. 194. 
 
 53- 
 
 Leontius and Joannes [c. a.d. 600]. 
 
 Sacrarum Rertmi Lib. ii {Cod. Vat. Graec. 1553, fol. 22). 
 
 Tov ctytov KXT^/xet-ro? 'Poj/at^s e/c rrjs Trpo? KopLvOiov; 
 iiTLcrToXrjs. 
 
 AYTOC r^p O AHMIOyprOC KAI AeCHOTHC ToiJN AnANTCON 
 
 eni TO?c eproic aytoy Af^'^AAeTAi. tco r^p nAMwerecTATcp (sic) 
 
 AYTOY KpATei OYPANOYC eCTHpi2eN KAI TH AKATAAHnTCp AYTOY 
 
 cYNecei AieKocMHceN aytoy'c' Thn Ae AiexoopiceN Ano toy 
 nepiexoNTOc aythn y^'J^toc kai eApAceN (sic) en'i ton ac(})aAh 
 
 TOY lAl'oY OeAHMATOC 6€MeAlON" eTl\ TOYTOIC TON llOTATON (sic) 
 KAI nAMMereQH ANepCOTION TA?C IAIAIC AYTOY KAI AMcloMOIC 
 
 XepciN enAAceN thc eaytoy eiKONOc X'^P^'XTfipA* oytooc r^^^p 
 
 ({)HCIN 6 Oedc" rfolHCCOMeN AN0pCOnON KAT eiKONA KAI ka6'
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 189 
 
 OMOioiciN HMerepAN' KA\ enoiHceN 6 Oeoc ton ANOpoinoN, 
 ApccN KAi efiAy enoiHCGN AYTOYC* TAYTA oyN HANTA TeAei- 
 ojCAC enAiNec€N (st'c) ayta kai eyAdrHceN kai elneN Ay2a- 
 Necee KAI nAHGYNecee (i Cor. 55). 
 
 Tov avTov eK Trj<; 6 iTnaToXyj^. 
 
 Fna kai reNoaMeOA BoyAHeeNXOC aytoy, oyk ontsc npiN 
 reNec0Ai, KAI reNOMeNOi AnoAAyctoMeN toon Ai' hmac reNO- 
 
 MENOiN. AlA TOYTO eCMeN ANSpOOnOI KAI (|)pdNHCIN e'xOMEN 
 KAI AdfON, nAp' AYTOY AABoNTec. 
 
 Mai {Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vil. p. 84) in his extracts from Leontii et Joannis 
 Rer. Sacr. Lib. ii, after giving the second of these extracts iVa koX -yevdiixeda k.t.X., 
 says in a note, ' Et quidem in codice exstat locus ex i ad Cor. cap. 33, quern exscribere 
 supersedeo ' etc. This language led me (ed. i, pp. 10, 109) without hesitation to ascribe 
 the quotation from § 33 also to this work of Leontius and John, as Hilgenfeld had done 
 before me. To this Harnack took exception (p. Ixxiii), stating that the extract in 
 question occurs 'in libro quodam ina-rti aiictoris (sine jure conjecerunt Hilgf et 
 Lightf. m Leontii et Joannis Sacr. Rer. lib.).' He seems to have interpreted Mai's 
 •in codice' not, as it naturally would be interpreted, 'in the manuscript,' but 'in a 
 manuscript.' Accordingly elsewhere (p. 117) he quotes Dressel's words, 'Melius pro- 
 fecto fuisset, si ipsum locum exscripslsset [Maius] aut Msti numerum indicasset; 
 codicem adhuc quaero,' and adds, 'Virum summe reverendum Vercellone (t), qui 
 rogatu Dresselii schedulas Angeli Maii summa cum diligentia perquisivit, nihil de hoc 
 capite invenisse, Dresselius mecum Romae mens. April, ann. 1874 communicavit.' 
 Not satisfied with this, I wrote to my very kind friend Signor Ignazio Guidi in Rome, 
 asking him to look at the MS of Leontius and John and see if the extract were not 
 there. There was some difficulty in discovering the MS, as it was brought to the 
 Vatican from Grotta Ferrata after the alphabetical catalogue was far advanced, and is 
 not included therein ; but through the intervention of Prof. Cozza it was at length 
 found. As I expected, the extract was there, and accordingly I gave it in my 
 Appendix p. 426 from Guidi's transcript (A.D. 1877), as I give it now. Some years 
 later (a.d. 1884) Pitra [Afial. Spicil. Solesin. 11. p. xxi, p. i) printed the extract, 
 evidently believing that he was publishing it for the first time. 
 
 The second extract presents a difficulty. Whence is it taken ? Misled by Mai's 
 heading toO cv^'iov KX^/nefTos "Pu/J.ris e/c rrjs 0' eiria-roXrj^, I had suggested in my first 
 edition (pp. 22, 213) that we should read e for 9 (5th for 9th). In this case the five 
 epistles in the collection referred to might have been (i) The Epistle to James, 
 (2) (3) The Two Epistles to Virgins, (4) (5) The Two Epistles to the Corinthians; 
 and we might have expected to find it in the then lost end of the Second Epistle. It 
 is not however found in this ending, which has since been recovered. It bears some 
 resemblance indeed in sentiment to a passage in the First Epistle (§ 38); but the 
 words are not sufficiently close to justify us in regarding it as a quotation from that 
 passage. It will be seen however that the heading is not, as Mai gives it, rod aylov 
 K\rifXfVTOs'?u)nr]s but rod avrov. It is true that this follows immediately after a quota- 
 tion from the genuine epistle headed ' Of Saint Clement of Rome from the Epistle to
 
 190 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the Corinthians ' ; but the indirectness makes all the difference in the value of the 
 attribution. These extracts for instance may have been taken from an earlier col- 
 lection containing an intermediate passage from some other author, to whom, and not 
 to Clement, tov aOrou would then refer. It is probably therefore in some letter 
 written by a later father that this quotation should be sought. 
 
 54- 
 DoROTHEUS Archimandrita [c. A. d. 6oo]. 
 
 Doctrin. 23 {^Patrol. Graec. lxxxviii. p. 1836, ed. Migne). 
 ojs Xeyec Kai o ayto? K\ijfjLr)<i' kan mh ct6({)anoc)tai tic, 
 
 aAAA CnOyAACH mh MAKPAN efpeOHNAI toon CT6(t)AN0YMeN0iN 
 
 (loosely quoted from 2 Cor. 7). 
 
 55- 
 
 Chronicon Paschale [c. a. d. 630]. 
 
 p. 467 (ed. Bonn.). 
 
 (i) ^IvS. I3\ I . VTT. Aal3pi(ovo<; /cat Tpa'CaT/ov. 
 
 Trjs 'Vojixaicou e/c/cXi^crtas Tjyetrat Tp'no<; KXrjfxiq^ err) 0\ 
 
 OS Kol VTTO UavXoV TOV (XTTOCrTokoV iv rfl TT/DOS ^iknTTTir]- 
 <TLOV<s inLaToXfj [xvrjixoueveTaL (fytjaavTO';, mgta kai KAh- 
 
 MGNTOC K.T.X. 
 
 (ii) 'li^S. a. C' VTT. Xvpuavov to /3' /cat MapKeXkov. 
 
 'Ej/ tovto) tw ^p6v(o KX'ijixr)<; o 'J^cofjLrjs iTriaKoiros TeXevra. 
 
 The two years named are 
 
 A.D. 91, M'. Acilius Glabrio A.D. 104, Sex. Attius Suburanus II 
 
 M. Ulpius Trajanus. M. Asinius Marcellus. 
 
 See also I^n. and Poly c. I. p. 66. 
 
 56. 
 
 IsiDORUS OF Seville [t a. d. 636]. 
 Etymol. vi. 2 {Op. n. p. 234, ed. Migne). 
 
 Ad Hebraeos autem epistola plerisque Latinis ejus [Pauli] esse in- 
 certa est propter dissonantiam sennonis, eandemque alii Barnabam 
 conscripsisse, alii a Clemente scriptam fuisse suspicantur. 
 
 He writes to the same effect again De Offic. i. 12 {Op. lii. p. 749).
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 19 1 
 
 57. 
 
 Maximus the Confessor [ja.d. 662]. 
 (i) Prolog, in Op. S. Diotiys. (Dionys. Op. 11. p. 20, ed. Migne), 
 
 Kat iirjv ovTe UavTaCvov tov<; ttovov? aveypa^ev [Evcre- 
 /8tos o IlajJiipLXov] ovTC Tov 'Pct)/xatou KXrjixePTOS, TrXrjP Svo 
 Koi jxovoiv inLcrToXaJv. 
 
 (ii) Sermo 49. 
 
 KXT^jaevTo?. TOCOYTON TIC maAAon 6(t)eiA€i kata^pongIn, 
 ocoN AOKe? maAAon eiNAi (i Cor. 48). 
 
 58. 
 Liber Pontificalis [c. a.d. 687]. 
 
 I. p. 118 (ed. Duchesne). 
 
 Hie (Petrus) ordinavit duos episcopos, Linum et Cletum, qui prae- 
 sentaliter omne ministerium sacerdotale in urbe Roma populo vel 
 supervenientium exhiberent; beatus autem Petrus ad orationem et 
 praedicationem, populum erudiens, vacabat...Hic beatum Clementem 
 episcopum consecravit, eique cathedram vel ecclesiam oninem dis- 
 ponendam commisit dicens ; Siait mihi gubernaiidi tradita est a 
 Domhio nieo Jesti Chrisio potestas ligandi solvendique, ita et tihi co?n- 
 mitto ut ordinaiis dispositores diversarum causarm/i, per quos actus 
 ecclesiasticiis profligetur, et tu jninivie in curis saecidi deditus repperi- 
 aris ; sed solmnmodo ad orationem et praedicare populo vacare stude. 
 
 This is a loose paraphrase of passages in the Letter of Cletfient prefixed to the 
 Cleine7itine Homilies, § 2 — 6. 
 
 I. p. 123. 
 
 Clemens, natione Romanus, de regione Celiomonte ex patre Faustino, 
 sedit ann. vim, m. 11, d. x. Fuit autem temporibus Galbae et Ves- 
 pasiani, a consulatu Tragali et Italic! usque ad Vespasiano vim et 
 Tito. Hie dum multos libros zelo fidei Christianae religionis ad- 
 scriberet, martyrio coronatur. Hie fecit vii regiones, dividit notariis 
 fidelibus ecclesiae, qui gestas martyrum soUicite et curiose, unusquisque 
 per regionem suam, diligenter perquireret. Hie fecit duas epistolas 
 quae catholicae nominantur. Hie ex praecepto beati Petri suscepit 
 ecclesiae pontificatum gubernandi, sicut ei fuerat a Domino Jesu Christo
 
 192 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 cathedra tradita vel commissa; tamen in epistola quae ad Jacobum 
 scripta est, qualiter ei a beato Petro commissa est ecclesia repperies. 
 Ideo propterea Linus et Cletus ante eum conscribuntur, eo quod ab 
 ipso principe apostolorum ad ministerium episcopale exhibendum sunt 
 episcopi ordinati. Hie fecit ordinationes duas per mens, decemb., 
 presbiteros x, diaconos ii, episcopos per diversa loca xv. Obiit martyr 
 Traiano in : qui etiam sepultus est in Grecias viii Kal. Decemb. Et 
 cessavit episcopatus dies xxi. 
 
 This is from the later recension of the Liber Pontijicalis. For the earlier see 
 above, p. i86. 
 
 59- 
 
 Earlier Western Martyrologies. [a.d.?] 
 
 (i) Kakiidariiim Carthaginiense. 
 
 [ ] Kal. Dec. Sancti dementis. 
 
 For the lacuna see above p. 99. This document probably belongs to the sixth 
 century; see Egli Martyrien u. Alartyrologien p. 50 (Zurich, 1887). 
 
 (ii) Martyt'ologium Hteronyftiiamwi (Hieron. Op. xi. p. 601, etc.). 
 
 ix Kal. Dec. [Nov. 23] Romae Maximi, Natalis S. Clementis epis- 
 copi et martyris. 
 
 Other Clements are mentioned xi Kal. Febr., Prid. Kal. Mai, xvii Kal. Jul., 
 V Kal. Jul., XV Kal. Aug., viii Kal. Aug., v Id. Nov., xi Kal. Dec, and 
 perhaps iv Non. Dec (Clemeni). The one given on v Id. Nov. ' Romae, Natalis 
 sanctorum Clementis, Symphronii ' is the same who appears in the Liberian Depo- 
 sit io ; and two or three others are mentioned as Romans. 
 
 For the papal lists embedded in this Martyrology see De Rossi Rom. Sotterr. i. 
 p. 114, Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. pp. xxxi note, Ixx. On this particular notice, which 
 is duplicated, see above, p. 99. 
 
 (iii) Martyrologiwn Vetus Rotnanum {^Patrol. Lat. cxxiii. p. 175, ed. 
 
 Migne). 
 ix Kal. Dec. [Nov. 23] Sancti Clementis episcopi. 
 
 On the date and value of these two Roman Martyrologies see Ign. and Polyc. i. 
 
 P- 654- 
 
 60. 
 BeDA [t A.D. 735]. 
 
 (i) Histor. Eccles. ii. 4 {Patrol. Lat. xcv. p. 87, Migne). 
 Exemplum sequebatur [Augustinus] primi pastoris ecclesiae, hoc 
 est, beatissimi apostolorum principis Petri, qui fundata Romae ecclesia
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 93 
 
 Christi Clementem sibi adjutorem evangelizandi, simul et successorem 
 consecrasse perhibetur. 
 
 (ii) Vit. Abbat. Wiram. i {Patrol. Lat. xciv. p. 719). 
 
 Nam et beatissimum Petrum apostolum Romae pontifices sub se 
 duos per ordinem ad regendam ecclesiam constituisse, causa instante 
 necessaria, tradunt historiae. 
 
 Bede is here justifying Benedict Biscop in appointing Abbots of his two monasteries 
 under himself by the precedent of vS. Peter, who is stated (see above, p. 192) to have 
 consecrated two suffragans, Linus and Cletus. 
 
 See Duchesne Lib. Pontif. i. pp. xxxiv, xxxv. 
 
 61. 
 
 John of Damascus [before a. d. 754]. 
 (i) Sacra Parallela {Op. 11. p. 274 sq, ed. Lequien). 
 
 (A) Parallela Vaticana. a. viii. p. 310. 
 
 Ayrdc 6 AHMioyproc kai AecnoTHC toon AnANXooN eni 
 
 ToTc e'prOIC AYTOY ATAAAeTAI. TO) r^p nAMMereCTATCO AYTOY 
 KpATei GYpANGYC eCTHpi2eN, KAI TH AKATAAHnTCp Ay'tOY CYN- 
 
 ecei AieKOCMHceN aytoyc* thn Ae IxcopiceN Ano to? nepi- 
 exoNTOc AYTHN yAatoc, KAI HApAceN eni TON ac(})aAh toy 
 JAi'oY OeAHMATOc GeMeAioN" eni toy'toic ton cIoxootaton 
 
 KAI nA\AM6re6H AN9pO0nON TA?C lAlAIC AYTOY KAI AMOOMOIC 
 
 XepciN enAAceN thc eaytoy eiKONOC x^'P^KTfipA. oytooc rAp 
 
 (|)HciN 6 Oedc" TToiHccoMeN ANGpoonoN kat' CIKONA HMeTepAN 
 
 KAI kaG' omoicocin. KAI enoiHCGN 6 Oedc TON ANGpconoN, 
 
 ApceN KAI GhAy enoiHceN ay'toyc. tayta oyn hanta TeAei- 
 
 cocAc, enoiHceN ayta kai HYAorHce kai elneN, AfzANecGe 
 
 KAI nAHGYNecGe (i Cor. 33). 
 
 It will be seen by comparison of this passage with the quotation in Leontius and 
 John (see above, p. 188 sq) that the two cannot be independent, but must have been 
 derived from a common source or taken the one from the other. 
 
 (B) Parallela Rupefucaldina. 
 
 K, Xxiii. p. 7 S3. TOU dyLOV KXt/'/XCVTOS CTTlCrKoVoU 'Pw/A1JS £K T^S jS TT/SOS 
 
 l&.opLvOLOv; cttio'toAt^s. 
 Ml-i TApACCeTO) THN KApAlAN YMWN, OTI BAenOMEN TOYC 
 aAi'kOYC nAOYTOYNTAC, KAI CTeNOXOipOYMeNOyC TOYC TOY 
 
 OeoY AofAoYC. oYAeic r^p toon Aikaicon taxyn KApnoN 
 CLEM. 13
 
 194 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 IAaBcn, aAA' eKAexexAi ayton. ei r^p ton micGon tojn 
 ^iKAiooN o 06(k eyeeooc AneAiAoy, eMnopiAN hckoymgn kai 
 OYK eyceBeiAN- lAoKoyMeN r^p cTnai Ai'kaioi, oy Aia to 
 eyceBec aAAa to KepAAAeoN AicioKONTec (2 Cor. 20). 
 
 TT. 31, p. 787. Tov dyiov }^Xt]fxevTO<; ek Trj<s Trpos Kopiv^tovs £7rt(rToX^s /S'. 
 
 6 TOON nApONTOON AICGHTIKOC CyNIHCIN <X>C ofTG A Aori" 
 
 ZONTAI TINeC gTnAI TepUNA 5eNA KAI MAKpAN ICTI TOON 
 
 AnexSwN, aAAa kai nAoyTOC noAAAKic maAAon hgniac 
 
 eBAiye, KAI YreiA nAeoN hniace nocoy' kai kaGoAoy toon 
 
 AynHpooN kai 4)eYKTooN hantoon YnoGecic kai yAh h tcIon 
 
 ACTTACTWN KAI kat' syx^n nepiBoAti riNeTAi. 
 
 The last sentence Kai Ka66\ov k.t.X. will mean 'and, speaking generally, acquisition 
 of things desirable and eagerly sought after turns out to be the foundation and mate?-ial 
 of everything that is painful and to be avoided.'' The expression /car' eux'^" is common 
 in Aristotle, e.g. Folit. ii. 6, iv. i, 20, vii. 4, 5, where it stands for ideal perfection. 
 Uepi^oXri must mean ^ the surrotmding or investiture with,^ and so here '■the acquisition 
 of; comp. Xen. Hell. vii. i. 40 (ttJs apx^Js), Polyb. xvi. 20. 9, Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. 
 54 ttJ re Twv (j)l\wv irepijBoXrj Kai ry tov ttXoijtov dvvdfj.€i, Aristid. Or. 14 (l. 208) nepi- 
 ^o\y re a.pxv^ Kai oyKip irpaypi.dru}v ; and the translation 'affluentia' (as if vnep^oX^) 
 appears to be wrong. 
 
 The source of this last quotation is not known. So long as the end of the Second 
 Epistle was wanting, it was naturally assigned to this missing part. But this solution 
 is excluded by the discovery of the lost end. There must therefore be an error in 
 the heading. Probably the Pseudo- Damascene got his quotations from some earlier 
 collection of extracts, perhaps the J?es Sacrae of Leontius and John (for the titles of 
 the subjects in their works were much the same as his, and they had the particular 
 title under which these words are quoted, -wepl twc irpoaKalpicv Kai aiwvlwv, in common 
 with him; see Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii. p. 80), and in transferring these ex- 
 tracts to his own volume displaced the reference to Clement, which belonged to 
 some other passage in the same neighbourhood. 
 
 For the age of this John of Damascus and for the attribution of these collections 
 of fragments to him, see Ign. and Polyc. i. p. 210. The second collection, the Rupe- 
 fucaldina, is certainly earlier than John of Damascus. 
 
 (ii) In Epistol. S. Fatili {Op. 11. p. 258). 
 
 Tt^i/ Trpos E^paiovs inLCTToXrjv IcrropeL KXt^jut/?, ov fJiefx- 
 vrjTat ITavX-cs, 6? Kat i7rL(TK07TO<s 'Pwjuatwv iydvero' cJ? liavKov 
 avrrjv E^yoatots rrj 'E/^patSt StaXeKTO) (TVPToi^avTo^ VPH'V' 
 vevdj], cJs Tive9, VTTO Aovkol tov evayyeklcrTov, cJs Se oXKol, 
 VTTO aVTOV TOV KXt] fxevTO^ . 
 
 See above, p. 188, for a similar confusion of the two Clements.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 95 
 
 62. 
 
 Georgius Syncellus [c. a.d. 800]. 
 
 Chronographia p. 651 (ed. Bonn.). 
 
 KocTjaov err] ^e^o^'. T179 ^etas (TapKcocre(o<; ot, . 
 
 Trj<5 'Vo)[JiaLOiv eKKXiqcrta^ rfyrjcraTO 8\K.\7]ixr]<g err) 6\ 
 Kocrixov €77) ^€(f)oyj\ Trj<; 6eia<; crapK(6cre(o<; or[ . 
 
 TovTov /cat o a7ro(TToXo9 iv rfj irpo^ <l>tXt7r73"i7crtov9 /!>te)u,- 
 V7}Tai irputTTi imcrToXfj eiTTOJv' meta kai KAHMeNTOc.BiBAtp 
 Z03HC* rovTov eTTLaTokrj jxia yvrjcria KopLv6LOL<; (^ejoerat, ws 
 diro Trjs *Vo)ixaio}v iKK\y](TLa<; ypaffyelcra, crToicrecoq ev YLopivOoi 
 (Tvix/3da7]'? t6t€, fu9 fxapTvpel HyT^criTTTro?" tJti? /cat e/c/cXi^- 
 crtct^erat. 
 
 The last sentence is translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 'Hujus epistola 
 fertur ad Corinthios missa quam tota recipit, ut Egesippus testatur, ecclesia ' {Hist. 
 Ecd. p. 17, Paris 1649), where the testimony of Hegesippus is transferred to the 
 wrong point. 
 
 Theodorus Studita [Ia.d. 826]. 
 
 Catechesis Chronica 11 {Patrol. Graec.y.ci'K. p. 1701, Migne). 
 
 Ot ydp deloi tote tov croiTrjpo^ diroa-TokoL, &>9 evpofxev iv 
 Tot? 0eioL<^ (TvyypdixixaaL KX-jjxevTO'g tov Poj/xatov, rpet? 
 TrX'/^pet? rjixepa<^ tm rctc^w [T179 OeoTOKov] irpocrixepovTe^ iqcrav, 
 ew? ov VTTO deiov dyyeXov to Trdu ep^vrjOrjcrav. 
 See above, page 102. 
 
 64. 
 NiCEPHORUs OF Constantinople [tA.D. 828]. 
 
 Chronographica Brevis. 
 p. 1039. Oi Iv 'Fcofxr) imcrKOTreva-avTe^ dno XptcrTov /cat 
 
 T(VV dTTOCTToXaJV. 
 
 13—2
 
 196 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a". ITerpo? o aTTOcrroXo? err] ^ . 
 
 jB'. Alpo<; err] ^' 
 
 y. 'AveyKX'QTO'^ 6x17 f3 . 
 
 h\ KXt] iJLr)<; eriq 6'. 
 
 e . Evctpecrro? errj 6'. 
 
 p. 1060. Kat oo"a rrjq via'; airoKpy^a. 
 
 ^ tic 7p 
 
 See Ignat. and Polyc. i. p. 213. 
 
 65. 
 
 Georgius Hamartolus [c. a.d. 850]. 
 
 (i) Chron. i. 9 {Patrol. Graec. ex. p. 140, ed. Migne). 
 
 ITept ou [rou 'Ay8/)a/x] \iivroi k<xi KXt^/xt^? o Pajjuato? 
 /cat cro(f)OJTaTO'; Kal [xa6r]Ty]<; Herpov tov ixeyaXov yuij(TLO<; 
 OVTO)^ ^(f>y)' AiMOY Ae reNOMeNOY KATAAinoaN 'ABpAM thn 
 Xananaian thn eic Ai'tyttton Annei k.t.A. 
 
 Here follows a long passage giving an account of Abraham's conflict with 
 Abimelech which is not found in any of the extant writings bearing the name of 
 Clement of Rome, whether genuine or spurious. 
 
 (ii) Chron. iii. 117 {ib. p. 383 sq). 
 
 'Ai^rerctcTfrero 8e rw do-e/Bel 'StfJiojPL Kat K\rj[x'r)<; o Pw- 
 /xato9 HeTpov fxaOrjT'Q^ Xoyo) 7re7rat8ev/xeVa> (XKpco [TreTratSev- 
 fxevos aKpco<i ?] 'E\\r)VLK(o re /cat 'PwjaatACW. 
 
 This is a reference to the conflict with Simon Magus recounted in the Ho7n{lies 
 and Recognitions, to which narrative there is a direct reference lower down, iii. 121 
 (p. 4'2y) ariva. KXruxtjs 6 'Pw^aios Kal Trdv(TO(pos /xadijrrji IHrpov Kal avf^Kdij/jLos iwe^- 
 epya(TTiKOT4p(>3S dirjyrja-aTo k.t.X. Comp. ib. p. 437.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 197 
 
 66. 
 
 Photius [c. a.d. 850]. 
 
 Bibliotheca c. 113 (p. 90). 
 
 Ovro9 icTTLV o K\.'>j[xr]<; Trepl ov <f)r)crLi' 6 Oecrnecnoq ITauXo? 
 iu Tj5 ^i\LTnrr)(TLOv<; iTTL(rTo\.jj, /wexA ka\ KAHMeNxoc ka) toc)n 
 AoinooN cYNspytJoN Moy, toN ta onomata cn BiBAoi zcohc. 
 ovTO<; Kol eTTKTTokrjv d^LoXoyov Trpos l^opivOiov^ 'ypd<f)eL, 
 y]TL<5 napd ttoXXoi? 0177080^179 t^^lcoOy) w? kol Srjjxocria dvayi- 
 VMCTKecrOai. tj Se Xeyoixevrj SevTepa tt^o? tov<; avTovs oj? 
 v60o^ dTToSoKLjJLoi^eTaL, iocrirep 6 liiiypa<\>6[j.^vo<^ eir ovoixan 
 awTou TleTpov kol ^ AttttCcovo^ ttoXixttl'^os StaXoyo9. tovtov 
 (ftaciv ol jxep Sevrepov jxeTa Tlerpov 'Fcofxr}'? iTTLCTKOTrrjcraL, ol 
 Se rerapToV Alvov yap Koi ^ KvaKk-qTov [v. 1. ^ AveyKkr]TOv\ 
 fXETa^v avTov kol Herpov 'Poj[xr}<; eTTLaKOTTOV^ hiayeyoveva.1' 
 TeXevTrjcraL 8e avTOv rpLTO) eret Tpaiavov. 
 
 In the preceding chapter Photius has given an account of the Recognitions and 
 other works belonging to the Petro-Clementine cycle. 
 
 Bibliotheca 126 (p. 95). 
 
 ^ kveyvuiddt] /Si/BXiSapLOP ev (o KXijjj.ePTO'? eTTicTToXaL 77/309 
 KopLvdiovs /3' ive(f)epovTo, cov 17 TrpwTT] Si alTia<; avTovs dyei, 
 (TTdaeai kol Tapa^ai^ koX o"}(tcr/xart Tr]v TrpeiTovcTav avTol^ 
 Eiprjvrjv Kol oixovoiav eixiroXnevea 6 ai Xvaapra^, kol irapaivel 
 iravcracrOaL tov KaKOV. dnXov<? Se Kara rrju (fypdcnv kol 
 <Ta(f)ij<; lari /cat iyyv^ tov iKKX-qcriaaT lkov Kai aneptepyov 
 )(apaKTrjpo<?. aiTidcraiTo S' dv Tt9 avTov iu Tavrat9 ort re 
 TOV 'ilKeavov e^co Koaixovq TLpd^i vTroTiOeTai eivai, kol 8ev- 
 Tepov Lcrcjs otl 0^9 TTavaXrjOecrTaTa) rw /cara top (fiOiuiKa to 
 opveov viToheiyp.aTi Ke)(^pr]TaL, kol TpiTov otl dp^iepia /cat 
 TTpoa-TaTrjv tov KvpLOu y]ix(ou l7]crovi> XpLcrTOP i^ovop^dt^iv, 
 ovhe Td<; 6eoTrpeTTe7,<^ /cat v\\rqXoTepa<; d(f)r]Ke nepl avTov (f)(i)ua<;' 
 ov jxrjv ovS' dTrapaKoXviTTO)^ avTov ovSafxrj iu TOvrot9 /8Xa<j-
 
 198 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (ftrjfjieL. tj Se SevTepa koI avTTj vovOecriav koL Trapaivecriv 
 KpeLTTOuos ela-dyei /BCov, koI iu dp)(rj 0eov top 'KptcTTov 
 KrjpvcTcreL, TrXrjv otl prjrd TLva (o<; diro Trj<i 6eLa<; ypa(prj<; 
 ^evilpvTa irapeiardyeL' (hv ovS' 7) TrpcoTrj diriqWaKTO 7ravTeXoj<;. 
 KOL kppnqveia^ Se p-qrcov Tivoiv dWoKOTovs e}(€t. aXXco? oe re 
 KOL Ta iv avrats voTjixara eppifxixeva ttw? /cat ov avv€)(rj 
 TTju aKoXovOiap vrrrip^e (^vKarTovra. iv rw avTco 8e ^t^Xt- 
 haplo) dveyvcoaOr) koX UoXvKdpnov 'ETrtcrroXy} vpos ^ikiTr- 
 Trrjaiovq k.t.X. 
 
 Amphiloch. 122 (i. p. 716 C, ed. Migne). 
 
 Tov Se crvyypacjiea tcov Tlpd^eoiv ol jxev KXijfjLei'Ta Xeyovcn 
 TOP 'T'cofxy]';, dXXoi Se Bapvd/Bau, kol oXXol AovKoip tou evay- 
 yeXiaT-qu. 
 
 See above, p. 102. 
 
 67. 
 Anonymous Chronographer [a.d. 853]. 
 Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. ii. p. i sq, Mai. 
 
 IIaTpLap)(aL V(o[Jirj<s. 
 
 ^€(f)va KOL 8' eTOvs KXavStov 'Pw/xatwi^ fSacnXecos, if 
 'Pw/XT^ iTrecTKOTrrjcreu Trpwro? 
 a. Herpo^s err) /c/3'. 
 
 13'. \iuos err) i^' , eVl Ovecnraaiavov' ov jxejxurjTat 
 
 IlauXo? iv Ty /3' npos KopLvOCov^ 
 
 iTTKTroXrj. 
 y. 'AveyKXrjTos err) t/3', cttI Tltov. 
 S'. KXrjfxrjs €77) 6', inl Tpa'Cavov. 
 
 € . Evapecrro? 6x17 t. 
 
 This is professedly taken from the works of Eusebius ; comp. Duchesne Liier 
 Pontificalis, i. pp. xxi, 34, and see below, pp. 240, 243.
 
 QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 199 
 
 68. 
 Arsenius [a.d. ?]. 
 De SS. Clemen fe et Petro Alex. {Anal. Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 314 sq). 
 
 'E/c/cXT^crta? acretcrrot koI OeioL irvpyoi, evcre^eia^; evdeoL 
 crrvXot, 6vto)<; Kparaioi, K\y]ixrj<5 avv HeTpco, 7Tai>€v(f)r]ixoL, 
 vficou TT peer 13 eCat'^ (jipovpelTe Tov<i anavTa?. 
 
 ^AvepLTpeTTTco KOL (TTcppa ip rfj ofxoXoyia ol Xa/xTroi^re? 
 ivOeco^ KOL (^a^'eWes dff)pdcrTa)<;, arnxepov ^aipovcnv ojxov. 
 KkrjiJir)'?, TO (opalov kXtJi^u oi^to)? tov Xptcrroil to Tpecfyov 
 Kocrjxov ^oTpvai' liirpo'i oe /c.r.X. 
 
 'PcoixT]'^ /SXacrros o eu/cXcT^?, o KXiijixr)? o OeocfipcJi', tV 
 yvMixTj (j)LXo(r6(f)0) kol rp6Troi<^ (fjiXoOeois TavTTjv iKocTixTjcre 
 (^atSpoj?* eSeL^ev ev Xoyot? to dOdvaTov xjjvxrj^ kol So ^yj 
 TavTTjv eaTLkxjje' yiyovev ovv tm Uerpo) crvi^o/xtXos, Uavkov 
 K0LV0)v6'i re, koI tcou a/x^w ip Troz^ot? cru/x/xeTo;)(05 ypacpevs 
 re Kol fJi,v<TTr}<i' Sto /cat avv avTols virdp^ei Pcofxaioyv kXcos 
 djxa KOL (fxxXTTijp, KOL KaTavyct^et ivOeou^ ev-)(cus tovs \pdX- 
 Xoi^Ta? Kat /3o(ovTas k.t.X. 
 
 S. Peter of Alexandria is commemorated on the same day (Nov. 24) in the Greek 
 Church. Hence the connexion of the two in this hymn. 
 
 69. 
 
 Antonius Melissa [c. a.d. 900?]. 
 Lod Communes ii. 73 (Patrol. Graec. cxxxvi. p. 11 80). 
 
 TOCOYTON TIC MAAAON 6(})eiAei TAneiNO(t)pON6IN, ocon 
 
 AoKe? maAAon gTnai (i Cor. 48). 
 
 70. 
 
 Menaea [a.d. ?]. 
 Novemb. xxiv (p. 159 sq, Venet. 1877). 
 ©etas <Te KXrjjxa, fJidpTV?, dfXTTeXov creySw.
 
 200 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 B\'r)9ei<; 6 KXrjfxyjq eU ^vOov crvv dyKvpa 
 
 TT/DO? XpLCTTOU TJKEL ayKVpaU T'QV ia)(dTrjv. * 
 
 The parentage of Clement and his connexion with S. Peter are recounted as in 
 the Clementines. His banishment to Chersonese, the mode of his martyrdom, and the 
 miracle of the sleeping child, are told as in his Acts of Martyrdom. The play upon 
 K\7ifji.a is frequent, and he is celebrated as a branch of the true vine, as fertile in 
 clusters, as distilling the wine of godliness, etc. 
 
 A large part of the hymn of Arsenius appears (p. 162), as quoted above. 
 
 The passage of Anastasius of Sinai to which Harnack refers (Proleg. 
 xliv, ed. 2), o Be. lepos koI aTTOCTToXtKos 8tSacr/<aXos KATy/xr/s iv t<3 irepl irpo- 
 j/otas Kttt 8tKaL0Kpi(Tta<; k.t.X., is not in the Hodegus, as he gives it, but in 
 the Quaestiones (c. 96, p. 741, ed. Migne); and the person intended is 
 the Alexandrian Clement. Fragments from this work Trept ■npovolo.% of the 
 Alexandrian father appear elsewhere; see Dindorf's edition iii. pp. 497, 
 509, 510. Again, it is a wrong inference (of Hilgenfeld p. xxxi, ed. 2, 
 and others) that a passage in Antiochus of Palestine {Horn, xliii, 
 Bibl. Vet. Patr. i. p. 1097, Paris 1624) is founded on the language of 
 Clement (§ 13), for the words of Antiochus are much nearer to the 
 original lxx (i Sam. ii. 10) than to Clement's quotation. 
 
 In the above collection of passages I have not aimed at giving any 
 references beyond the tenth century. Such quotations however will be 
 found from time to time in the notes, e.g. Nicon of Rhaethus in §§ 14, 46, 
 ii. § 3. Nor again have I within this period attempted to give extracts 
 from every papal list in which Clement's name appears, but have 
 selected typical examples. More on this subject will appear in the 
 next chapter. Nor are liturgical references, as a rule, included. Several 
 of these will be found in the notes on the closing chapters (§59 sq) 
 of the genuine epistle. I have also deliberately omitted the references 
 in second-hand chronicles, such as Orosius, unless there was a special 
 reason for their insertion. The rule, which I laid down for myself at 
 the commencement (p. 148), of excluding passages which refer to the 
 Petro-Clementine writings, the Recognitions and Homilies etc, has been 
 adhered to, unless they contained some information or suggestion out- 
 side this range.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 IT will not be necessary here to give any account of the earlier 
 writers who have contributed to the subject, such as Ciampini, 
 Schelestrate, Bianchini, Pearson, and others. Their contributions are 
 often highly valuable, but the information collected and the points 
 established by them have been incorporated in the investigations of 
 later writers, so that it will rarely be necessary to refer to their works. 
 The tract of Pearson De Serie et Successione Primorum Romae Episco- 
 poru?n, a posthumous and unfinished treatise, is reprinted in his 
 Minor Theological Works ii. p. 296 sq. The contributions of the other 
 writers mentioned are mostly gathered together in Migne's Patrol. Latin. 
 cxxvii, cxxviii, containing Anastasius Bibliothecarius. The starting 
 point of recent criticism was an admirable monograph by Mommsen 
 (a. D. 1850) on the Liberian Catalogue, which will be described 
 below (p. 246 sq). It was followed after some years by a tract by R. A. 
 Lipsius Die Papstverzeichnisse des Eusebios und der von ihm abhdngigen 
 Chronisten (Kiel, 1868). This was the beginning of a series of highly 
 valuable contributions to the subject from this writer, who has made it 
 especially his own. A year later appeared a more comprehensive work 
 from his pen, Chronologie der Romischen Bischofe bis zur Mitte des vierten 
 Jahrhunderts (Kiel, 1869). It called forth an important critique from 
 Hort, Academy Sept. 15, 187 1, p. 434 sq, which, though brief, was 
 full of valuable suggestions. An able article by Salmon also on the 
 Chronology of Hippolytus in Herniathe7ia i. p. 82 sq deals largely with 
 the conclusions of Mommsen and Lipsius on the Liberian Catalogue. 
 A fresh impulse and a somewhat new direction was given to the subject 
 by Harnack Die Zeit des Ignatius u. die Chronologie der Antiochenischcti 
 Bischofe etc (1878); for, though his main point was the episcopal 
 succession at Antioch, yet he treated the Antiochene list as organically 
 connected with the Roman (see Ignat. and Polyc. 11. p. 450 sq).
 
 202 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 This was followed by three articles by Erbes in the JaJirb. f. Protest. 
 TheoL, entitled Flavius Clemeiis von Rom u. das dlteste Papstverzekhniss 
 IV. p. 690 sq (1878), Die Chronologie der Antiochenische7i u. der Alex- 
 andrinisc/ien Bischofe nach den Quellen Euscbs i, ii, v. p. 464 sq, 618 sq 
 (1879). His own conclusions will hardly command assent, but he has 
 struck out sparks and contributed some suggestions which others 
 have taken up. Meanwhile Duchesne was busy with his labours on 
 the Liber Pontificalis. His first work. Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis 
 (Paris), appeared in a. d. 1877. After this Lipsius again took up the 
 subject in three articles in the JaJirb. f. Protest. TheoL, entitled Neue 
 Studien zur Papstchronologie. These were, (i) Das Felicianische Papst- 
 buc/i V. p. 385 sq (1879); (ii. i) Die iiltesten Papstverzeiehnisse vi. p. 78 sq 
 (1880) ; (ii. 2) Die Bischofslisten des Eusebins ib. p. 233 sq. In these 
 articles he not only reviews the positions of Harnack, Hort, Erbes, and 
 Duchesne, but goes over the old ground and considerably modifies his 
 former views. Altogether they form a highly important supplement to 
 his previous work. Still later (1884, 1885, 1886) three parts of 
 Duchesne's Liber Pontificalis., containing pp. i — cclxii, i — 536, and 
 completing the first volume, have appeared. They embody and extend 
 the results of his previous work. This edition, when completed, will 
 be supreme in its own province, while for the early history of the 
 popes it stands second only to the works of Lipsius among recent con- 
 tributions to this branch of the subject. Other contributions, more 
 especially those relating to the Liber Pontificalis, will be mentioned 
 from time to time in their proper places. 
 
 THE EARLIEST LISTS. 
 
 • 
 Within a few years of the middle of the second century, the Hebrew 
 •Christian Hegesippus visited Rome. Anicetus was bishop, when he 
 arrived. If Eusebius has rightly understood him, he remained there 
 throughout the episcopate of Soter, and did not leave till the time of 
 Eleutherus. If so, he must have resided in the metropolis some ten 
 years at the least. Heresy, more especially Gnostic heresy, was rife 
 at this epoch. The three great heresiarchs, Basilides, Valentinus, 
 Marcion, all had founded powerful schools, destined to spread widely, 
 where they had not spread already. Besides these more famous 
 systems, there were numberless minor forms of spurious Christianity 
 bidding for acceptance. During his sojourn in Rome, Hegesippus 
 drew up a list of the Roman succession. His motive in doing so is
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 203 
 
 apparent. At Corinth, which he had visited on his way, he was 
 careful to note how the orthodox doctrine had been transmitted un- 
 impaired from the first century to the age of Primus, who was bishop 
 at the time of his visit. So in Hke manner in Rome he made it his 
 object to ascertain the continuity of the doctrine from the beginning, 
 as a refutation of all religious pretenders. The Roman succession was 
 a guarantee of the unbroken transmission of the original faith. His 
 'Memoirs,' in which he refers to this fact and. in which probably this 
 papal list was incorporated, were written when Eleutherus was bishop, 
 apparently after his return to Palestine, but the original list was 
 compiled under Anicetus. 'When I went to Rome (yevo/xevos iv 
 'Fwixrj)', he says, 'I drew up a list of succession (StaSoxw l-!TOLy]<Tdjxr]v) 
 as far as Anicetus, whose deacon Eleutherus (then) was. After Ani- 
 cetus Soter succeeded, and after Soter Eleutherus ' '. It may be freely 
 conceded that at this epoch no strict record of its past history would 
 be kept by the Roman Church ; but the memory of living men would 
 supply this defect to a very great extent. Less than a century had 
 elapsed since the martyrdom of the two Apostles, and sixty years — 
 a little more or less — since the death of Clement. 
 
 Of this earliest papal list we know nothing directly, except what 
 may be inferred from the language of Hegesippus which I have quoted. 
 But about the same time with him, or a few years later, a more famous 
 person paid a visit to Rome. Iren^eus, then a young man, appears 
 to have spent some time in the metropolis. His great work on Heresies 
 however appeared somewhat later. The particular passage with which 
 we are directly concerned was written, as he himself tells us, under 
 Eleutherus (c. a.d. 175 — 190). Like Hegesippus, he is desirous of 
 showing that the heretical doctrine was a recent growth ; Hke him, he 
 appeals to the succession of the bishops from the Apostolic times, more 
 especially of the Roman bishops, as a guarantee of the preservation 
 of the primitive creed in the Church. Happily he has given us a 
 complete list of the Roman bishops'. After stating that the Roman 
 Church was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, he adds that 
 they 'entrusted the office of the episcopate' {r-qv t^s iTna-KOTrrjs Act- 
 Tovpyiav Iv^xf-ipiarav) to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul 'in the 
 Epistles to Timothy', and that Linus was succeeded by Anencletus. 
 'After him', he continues, 'third in order (Tptro) tottw) from the 
 Apostles, Clement is appointed to the episcopate ' {t-qv i-n-LcrKoirrjv kA>/- 
 
 ^ Euseb. //. E. iv. 22. The passage see the note there, 
 is given in full above, p. 154. On the - Hacr. iii. 3. 3. The passage will be 
 
 conjectural reading Starpt/S?;;' for 5ta5ox'/>'. found at length above, p. 156.
 
 204 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 povrat). Of this Clement he speaks as having associated on intimate 
 terms with the Apostles, and he proceeds to give an account of the 
 Letter to the Corinthians. He then continues the catalogue as fol- 
 lows : Clement is succeeded by Euarestus, Euarestus by Alexander ; 
 then comes Xystus who is thus 'sixth from the Apostles'; after him 
 Telesphorus, whose career was crowned by a glorious martyrdom {ev- 
 So^ws Ifxaprvprjaev) ; then Hyginus, then Pius, then Anicetus, then 
 Soter ; lastly, ' the twelfth in order from the Apostles ' (SwSeKarw to- 
 TTw-.-aVo Twv aTroorToAwv), Eleutherus who holds the office of the episco- 
 pate at the time of his writing these words (vvv). In another passage, 
 writing a few years later to remonstrate with Victor on the Paschal 
 question, he enumerates this pope's predecessors in the reverse order— 
 Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Xystus (Euseb. H. E. v. 
 24). Probably he had mentioned Victor's immediate predecessor 
 Eleutherus in the previous context which Eusebius does not quote. 
 It will thus be seen that Irenseus in the passage quoted separates the 
 apostolic founders of the Roman Church from the bishops, and begins 
 the numbering of the latter with Linus. Accordingly elsewhere (iii. 
 4. 3) he describes Anicetus as the tenth bishop. But in two other 
 places {Haer. i. 27. i, iii. 4. 3), speaking of Cerdon, he says that this 
 heretic appeared in Rome in the time of Hyginus, whom he describes 
 as ' the ninth in the episcopal succession from the Apostles ' (eyarov 
 Kkrjpov Trj<i eiTKTKOTnKrjs SiaSoxfj'i aTTO tcSv cxTroaToXtav e\ovTos); ' the ninth 
 bishop ' (os -^v ei'ttTos eVto-KOTTos). Here therefore, if the readings be 
 correct', either the apostolic founder or founders must have been in- 
 cluded in the enumeration, so that Linus would be the second bishop, 
 or there must be some accidental tripping in the number. In either 
 case IrenKus is probably copying from some earlier wTiter, such as 
 Justin Martyr or Hegesippus. At all events we can hardly suppose 
 him to have deliberately adopted a different enumeration in the second 
 of these passages, which occurs only a chapter later than his own com- 
 plete catalogue of the Roman bishops. An alternative remains, that 
 the catalogue which he followed in these passages made two persons, 
 Cletus and Anacletus, out of one ; but this solution seems quite un- 
 
 1 In the first passage (i. 27. i) the text (iii. 4. 3) the Greek is preserved only in 
 
 of the old Latin translator has 'nonum', Eusebius who has ej'aroj, but the Latin 
 
 and this reading is confirmed by Cyprian translation of Irenseus has ' octavus '. I 
 
 {Epist. 74, ed. Hartel), and Eusebius am disposed to think that in both pas- 
 
 {H. E. iv. 11), as well as by Epiphanius sages — in the latter certainly — the 'ninth' 
 
 {Haer. xli. i). Here then all the authori- was a later emendation, so as to include 
 
 ties are agreed. In the second passage the episcopate of Peter.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 205 
 
 tenable, since no traces of this duplication are found till considerably 
 more than a century and a half after his time, and it never appears in 
 Greek writers. 
 
 Whether Irenaeus directly copied the catalogue of Hegesippus, or 
 whether he instituted independent enquiries, we cannot say; but it 
 would be a tolerably safe inference from the facts to assume that the 
 series was the same in both writers, as they must have derived their 
 information about the same time and from the same sources. But an 
 important question here arises : Did the catalogue of Hegesippus, like 
 that of Irenseus,. contain only the names of the bishops, or did it, like 
 later lists, specify also the respective terms of office? Reasons will 
 be given hereafter for the surmise that it included the years of the 
 several episcopates as well as the names ; but for the present I must 
 leave the question unanswered. 
 
 From the age of Hegesippus and Irenaeus it is only one step to the 
 age of the chronographers. As the motive of the earliest episcopal 
 catalogues had been apologetic, so also was the motive of the first 
 Christian chronographies, though in a different way. Their aim was 
 to show that the true religion, as taught to the Jews first and as per- 
 fected in Christianity, was older than the rival heathen systems. Even 
 in the Apologists themselves we find chronographical sketches intro- 
 duced with this purpose. Such are the discussions in Tatian {ad 
 Graec. 39 sq), in Theophilus {ad Autol. iii. 21 sq), and in Clement of 
 Alexandria {Strom, i. 21, p. 378 sq). This succession of Apologists 
 conducts us to the threshold of the Chronographers properly so called, 
 who flourished in the age of the spurious Antonines, Elagabalus and 
 Alexander. 
 
 Among the earlier race of Chronographers proper, two names stand 
 out in special prominence, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus, strictly 
 contemporary with each other but representing the East and the West 
 respectively. The Chronography of Africanus was brought down to the 
 4th year of Elagabalus, a.d. 221; the similar work of Hippolytus ended 
 with the 13th year of Alexander, a.d. 234. Africanus was a native of 
 Emmaus or Nicopolis in Palestine ; Hippolytus lived and wrote in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of Rome. The portion of Africanus' work 
 relating to the Christian period is stated to have been concise'; but 
 there is some reason for surmising that he found a place for the 
 episcopates of the great sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. To 
 this point however I shall return hereafter. Of Hippolytus I shall 
 have much to say presently, when it will appear that the succession 
 
 ^ Photius Bibl. 34 iiriTpoxoLdriv d^ 5ia\afji.^di>€L Kal rd dirb XpiffTov k.t.X.
 
 206 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 of the Roman episcopate most probably formed part of his plan. 
 How far this earlier race of chronographers was instrumental in trans- 
 mitting the primitive lists to a later age and thus furnishing the 
 elements of the Eusebian and other catalogues of the fourth and 
 succeeding centuries, we shall be better able to judge, when we have 
 considered these catalogues themselves. 
 
 2. 
 THE EUSEBIAN CATALOGUES, 
 
 The Eusebian lists of the popes are two in number, (a) The 
 series which may be put together from the notices in the Ecclesiastical 
 History ; (b) The series which may be gathered from the Chronicle, 
 where the names occur under the respective years of their accession, 
 this latter list being represented by two versions, the Armenia?i and the 
 Hierofiytnian, which differ widely from each other. These three cata- 
 logues will be found in parallel columns in the tables which stand below 
 on pp. 208, 209. In all these Eusebian lists the order of the early 
 Roman bishops is the same, and accords with the catalogue of Irensus. 
 The differences are in the dates of accession and in the terms of years. 
 
 (a) the history. 
 
 The notices of the Roman succession, from which the table is 
 compiled, will be found in H.E. iii. 2, 4, 13, 15, 21, 34, iv. i, 4, 
 5, 10, II, 19, 30, v. prooem., 22, 28, vi. 21, 23, 29, 39, vii. 2, 5, 27, 
 30, 32. The last of these notices refers to MarceUinus, who became 
 pope A.D. 296 and died a.d. 304. Of the accession of the four suc- 
 ceeding popes, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Silvester (in whose 
 time the work was published), he says nothing, though Miltiades is 
 mentioned in a document which he inserts {H.E. x. 5). He probably 
 ended with MarceUinus, because he had reached his own times (see 
 H.E. vii. 32 Faio) Tw Ka& riii.5.<i). In iii. 2 Eusebius states that 'after 
 the martyrdom of Paul and Peter Linus was the first appointed to the 
 bishopric (Trpwros KXyjpovraL rrjv lirLaKOTrrjv) of the Church of the 
 Romans.' In thus placing both the Apostles at the head of the 
 Roman succession he is following the lead of Ireneeus (iii. 3. 2) ; and 
 so again elsewhere (iii. 21) he speaks still more definitely of Clement as 
 holding the third place in succession of those who 'were bishops after 
 Paul and Peter' {rpirov koI avros l-n-e^wv r(jiv Trj^e /xeroi IlauXov t€ kol 
 IXerpov imcTKOTrivardvTwv fiaO^ov). In both passages however he gives 
 the precedence to S. Paul, thus reversing the order of Irenaeus {Hoer.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 207 
 
 iii. 3. 2). In a third passage (iii. 4) Linus is described as the first 
 bishop of Rome 'after Peter' (Trpwros //.era Herpov rrjs 'Vuijxaiuiv eKKX-q- 
 o-ta? rrjv iTTLo-KOTrrjv ... KX-qpoiOeLs). In the numbering of the several 
 bishops Eusebius always omits the Apostolic founder or founders from 
 the reckoning. 
 
 The following {H.E. iv. 5) will serve as a sample of these notices 
 of the Roman succession, though they appear in variously modified 
 forms : 
 
 •tpi] 8c ScooeKarov k^ov(jr]<i Itos T17S T]ye/JLovia<; 'ASptavov, "EvcrTOV SeKaerr) 
 )(poi'Ov a-rr OTvX-q or avT a £7rt t^s Pw/Aaiwv eTricTKOTr^s e/SSo/xo^ diro twv aTrocTTO- 
 Xtov 8iaSe;^£Tat TeXeo-c^opos. 
 
 In these notices Eusebius always gives the duration of the episco- 
 pate in years, except in the case of Fabianus, where apparently it is 
 omitted by accident, and of Marcellinus, who is the last mentioned and 
 died during the persecution of Diocletian. He has also given for the 
 most part the regnal year of the emperor at the time of each bishop's 
 accession. There are however exceptions to this rule even in the 
 earlier part of the list (Linus, Pius, Anicetus), and in the latter part, 
 from Pontianus onward, these imperial synchronisms almost entirely 
 cease, I have supplied the years a.d., corresponding to these regnal 
 years, using for this purpose the reckoning of the Chronicle. Of the 
 stricter mode of calculating — by the anniversaries of the emperor's 
 accession-day' — we need not take any account here. 
 
 (b) the chronicle. 
 
 The Chronicle consists of two parts ^ The first, which sets forth the 
 principles on which the work is constructed and gives an account of 
 the dynasties of the most famous nations of the world, together with 
 large extracts from previous writers, appears to have been called by 
 Eusebius himself the ' Chronography ' or ' Chronographies ' (xpovo- 
 ypa</)ia, xpovoypa</)iat), though this is not certain ^ The second part, 
 which is the Chronicle proper, he designates the 'Canon' or 'Canons' 
 (/cavojv, KavoVes). Elsewhere he speaks of the ' Chronological Canons ' 
 
 ^ The years however were not always Africanus i. p. 30 sq. 
 
 calculated in the same way : sqq Ign. and "* See Chron. i. pp. 6, 7, 78, 95, 119, 
 
 Polyc. II. p. 397 sq. 294 (Schoene). The inference however 
 
 ^ This bipartite division seems to have from these passages is uncertain. An 
 
 had precedents in earlier chronological equivalent suggested by i. p. 119, 11. p. 4, 
 
 works. The arguments however for at- isx/3<^''W!'dj'a7pa0?7(-^a/). Epiphan.^lA-wi'. 
 
 tributing this arrangement to Africanus et Pond. 24 writes iv xpo>'oypa(piats 
 
 break down ; see Gelzer Scx/us Julius EiVe/Sioi; koI tQ,v dWcov xpovoypdcpuv.
 
 208 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5s 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 
 'x 
 
 
 *x 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 X 
 
 ■> 
 
 W3 
 
 -a 
 c 
 n 
 
 
 >< 
 
 •"^ 
 .« 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 :- 
 
 c 
 
 •- 
 
 'x 
 
 t/} 
 
 
 
 '> 
 
 
 3 
 13 
 
 in 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 (L) 
 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 If: 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 .2 
 
 c 
 .2 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 
 tA 
 
 3 
 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 Q 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 ffi 
 
 W 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 S 
 
 u 
 
 6 
 
 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 eg 
 
 ri 
 
 
 
 Ov 
 
 0\ 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 I— 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 o\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c» 
 
 rO 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 p-^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 l-l 
 
 HM 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 
 r-. 
 
 HH 
 
 H^ 
 
 c< 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 c/: 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 5^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >-) 
 
 -o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .■a 
 
 1 
 
 
 "x 
 
 "x 
 
 '> 
 
 '> 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 1 1 
 
 •2 
 
 1—1 
 
 'x 
 
 
 'x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 ■> 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'S 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 *> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c:i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • ^ 
 
 • 1-4 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 
 
 ..-* 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 .•-^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 >l-4 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 US 
 
 W 
 
 u 
 
 
 U5 
 
 'x 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 "x 
 c 
 
 "cT 
 
 c 
 .2 
 
 'j-t 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 'S 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 'S 
 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 'S 
 
 
 c 
 
 <5 
 
 *> 
 
 if) 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 rfl 
 3 
 u 
 
 rt 
 
 C/3 
 
 Ifl 
 
 3 
 »^ 
 0) 
 
 3 
 "rt 
 
 (U 
 X 
 
 1) 
 
 < 
 
 C 
 rt 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2: 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 •V4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^i 
 
 r> 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 ON 
 
 C\ 
 
 0\ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 t-» 
 
 ON 
 
 t>. 
 
 r> 
 
 
 
 On 
 
 •+ 
 
 ro 
 
 S 
 
 *ts. 
 
 ■+ 
 
 VO 
 
 00 
 
 C\ 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 CO 
 
 •+ 
 
 >o 
 
 VO 
 
 I--. 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 i-i 
 
 fj 
 
 fO 
 
 p" 
 
 ^ 
 U) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 t-i 
 
 »-( 
 
 M 
 
 t-4 
 
 i-i 
 
 »H 
 
 1^ 
 
 HH 
 
 c< 
 
 r< 
 
 c< 
 
 c« 
 
 z 
 
 5; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ttl 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ffi 
 
 ,<5 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 'x 
 
 'x 
 
 "? 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 'x 
 
 :S 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 "x 
 
 '> 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 > 
 
 '? 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 'x 
 
 c 
 
 
 '? 
 
 '? 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 * 
 
 *x 
 
 tn 
 
 3 
 
 Q 
 
 ■? 
 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 f;v. 
 
 ;^ 
 
 ;^ 
 
 
 _rt 
 
 .2 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 .S 
 
 
 
 t/1 
 
 •"^ 
 
 rt 
 
 'V 
 
 z 
 o 
 y 
 
 
 •5 
 
 "x 
 
 
 
 C/J 
 
 c 
 
 S 
 
 
 'c? 
 
 d 
 
 rt 
 'c? 
 
 .2 
 
 rt 
 
 .2 
 
 rt 
 
 
 "S 
 
 
 c 
 
 If) 
 3 
 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 
 rt 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 
 rt 
 rt 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 z 
 o 
 0i 
 
 "> 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 K 
 
 ffi 
 
 < 
 
 -< 
 
 S 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 t/) 
 
 U 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ^__^_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 *i 
 
 c^ 
 
 VO 
 
 as 
 
 t^ 
 
 ■+ 
 
 CO 
 
 -t- 
 
 -t- 
 
 •Y 
 
 00 
 
 M 
 
 -i- 
 
 ro 
 
 VO 
 
 00 
 
 *-i 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 ."^ 
 
 CO 
 
 >o 
 
 i^ 
 
 00 
 
 Cv 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 n 
 
 fO 
 
 <o 
 
 »o 
 
 vo 
 
 r- 
 
 00 
 
 ON 
 
 ►-I 
 
 l-( 
 
 
 
 ?* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H- 
 
 t-i 
 
 k-i 
 
 
 t~* 
 
 H^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 NH 
 
 ►-< 
 
 IS 
 
 CI 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ;2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 Pi 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 Si 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 'x 
 
 '> 
 
 >• 
 
 "> 
 
 X 
 
 'x 
 
 'x 
 
 :s 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 '> 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 'x 
 
 '> 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U) 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 U5 
 
 
 c/} 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 C/5 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 r/l 
 
 3 
 
 5j 
 
 
 
 
 J5 
 
 in 
 3 
 
 
 U3 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 0) 
 
 
 3 
 
 •s 
 
 t/5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 tfi 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 U5 
 
 C 
 C 
 
 £ 
 <u 
 
 4) 
 j-i 
 rt 
 
 3 
 
 rt 
 X 
 
 U5 
 
 3 
 
 >> 
 
 CL, 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1) 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 -a 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 rt 
 
 .2 
 § 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "►J 
 
 < 
 
 U 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 H 
 
 K 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 U} 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 N 
 
 u 
 
 p 
 
 Ph 
 
 japjO 
 
 
 HI 
 
 ti 
 
 CO 
 
 ■<i- 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 I--. 
 
 00 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 t-4 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 •0 
 
 NO 
 
 1-4
 
 o 
 
 H 
 [« 
 
 ►J 
 < 
 
 (/J 
 <i 
 
 t/3 
 
 >-) 
 U 
 U 
 W 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 8 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 1) 
 
 Q 
 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 K 
 
 <: 
 
 >< 
 z. 
 o 
 
 
 •V. 
 
 is 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 .„ 
 
 I^ 
 
 :S 
 
 .2 
 -3 
 
 .2 
 '5 
 
 ifi 
 
 in 
 3 
 
 (/I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ;^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 k 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 (U 
 
 <u 
 
 
 tn 
 
 c 
 
 C3 
 
 .rt 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 rt 
 
 rj 
 
 rt 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 -*-J 
 
 ■4-» 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 uo 
 
 en 
 
 in 
 
 ■*-j 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 fi 
 
 cS 
 
 •♦-» 
 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 ■♦-• 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 '^ 
 
 XI 
 
 ,n 
 
 02 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 C<1 
 
 Ui 
 
 Sh 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <> 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 PM 
 
 Ph 
 
 C^ 
 
 w 
 
 u 
 
 p 
 
 U 
 
 U 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 > 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 
 lO 
 
 t>. 
 
 M 
 
 i-t 
 
 vo 
 
 -1- 
 
 + 
 
 cr\ 
 
 O 
 
 VO 
 
 I^ 
 
 oo 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 0-5 
 
 fl 
 
 cs 
 
 M 
 
 r> 
 
 f< 
 
 PQ 
 
 ro 
 
 rO 
 
 r<% 
 
 00 " 
 
 ^i ••-• .,-1 
 
 5: X 
 
 X 
 
 > :S 
 
 ■x t 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 u 
 s 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 3 
 
 a, 
 
 3 3 
 
 a, a, 
 
 ,J= ,^3 
 
 O O Pk &. PL, o o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 3 
 O p 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 vo 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 t^ 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 c-O 
 
 ro 
 
 ^ 
 
 lO 
 
 •« 
 
 ■Xj 
 
 vo 
 
 1^ 
 
 !->. 
 
 1--. 
 
 t< 
 
 c» 
 
 c< 
 
 o 
 
 c» 
 
 c» 
 
 c» 
 
 f< 
 
 c< 
 
 f« 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 en 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 K 
 in 
 
 m 
 
 aapjQ 
 CLEM. 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 (U 
 
 -1 
 
 «; 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 Vi 
 
 u 
 
 K 
 
 rt 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 <; 
 
 (i^ 
 
 U 
 
 »-l 
 
 c« 
 
 
 'en 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 tn 
 3 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 en 
 3 
 
 en 
 
 3 
 en 
 
 
 >-. 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 ,i:i 
 
 rt 
 
 en 
 
 3 
 
 en 
 
 
 d 
 
 X 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 Q 
 
 _X 
 
 1) 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 1) 
 en 
 
 3 
 
 
 c7) 
 
 
 _3 
 
 1— > 
 
 
 g 
 rt 
 Q 
 
 ro 
 
 ■+ 
 
 1/"^ 
 
 VO 
 
 I^ 
 
 on 
 
 ON 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 r< 
 
 ev> 
 
 'J- 
 
 >ri 
 
 C< 
 
 c< 
 
 c^ 
 
 c< 
 
 C< 
 
 c> 
 
 <S 
 
 rO 
 
 ro 
 
 ro 
 
 CO 
 
 PO 
 
 •vs 
 
 14
 
 2IO 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (xpovLKoi Kai'oVes)'. It IS distinguished by this epithet from a wholly 
 different work by him, which was likewise styled ' Canons ', and 
 in which his aim was to indicate the parallel passages in the several 
 Gospels and thus to furnish materials for a harmony ^ The second 
 part alone of the Chronicle was translated by Jerome, and hence the 
 first was a matter of conjecture until the discovery of the Armenian 
 version. Scaliger {Thesaurus Temporum, Leyden 1606, Amsterdam 
 1658) endeavoured to reconstruct it from extracts and references in 
 later writers ; but the whole question was so shrouded in uncertainty, 
 that Vallarsi could even treat this first part as a figment of Scaliger's 
 brain (Hieron. Op. viii. p. xviii sq). On the other hand Tillemont 
 {Memotres vii. p. 49), Fabricius {Bibl. Grace, vii. p. 338, ed. Harles), 
 and others adopted Scaliger's twofold division. The discovery of the 
 Armenian proved Scaliger to be right in the main point; though his 
 
 ^ Eel. Proph. i. i iar^op 8' ws 7rp6 ttjs ira- 
 potjffrjs VTTodiaeus xpo;'£/coiys awra^avTei 
 Kavova's, eirLTo/xrjv re tovtois TravTodaTrrjs 
 laTopias "EWrji'OJi' re Kal ^ap^dpuv clvti- 
 trapadivTes, ttjv Mwcr^cus Kai tQv ef avTou 
 'irpo<prjTGiv dpx^i-0T7)Ta 5:' ai^rwc TrapecTrj- 
 <xap.ev. In this passage the second part 
 of the work alone is described, in which 
 the short historical notices {€wi.T0fX7]v) are 
 ranged side by side {dvTiirapad&Tes) with 
 the chronological tables {xpoviKovs Ka- 
 vovas). I mention this because in Smith 
 and Wace Diet, of Biogr. s. v. 'Eusebius, 
 Chronicle of,' i. p. 348, the latter clause 
 (eTnTOfXT^v T€ K.T.\.) IS paraphrased ' to 
 which is prefixed an epitome' etc, and 
 taken to refer to the first part, though 
 lower down (p. 352) it is correctly inter- 
 preted. See also I/. E.\. r, where speak- 
 ing of the pains which he has bestowed 
 in the History itself on the episcopal 
 succession, Eusebius adds in reference to 
 the Chronicle, TJdrj fiev ow tovtwv koI irpo- 
 Tepov iv oh dierviruiad/J.rii' xpoviKols Ka- 
 vociv eTTiTOfirjv KaTecTrjcrdixriv, irXripecTTd- 
 ry}v 5' ow ofjLU]? avTWV eTTt rod irapovros 
 wpfxridrjv TTiv a<prjyrt<TLV iroi-fjuaadai, and 
 comp. Praep. Evang. x. 9 {p. 484) raOra 
 p.h> oZv kv TOts ■novr]Bi1cnv Tjfuv x/>oi'iKO£S 
 Kavoffiv oCtws 'ixpvTa (Tw^arr). In the 
 preface to the first part [Chron. i. p. 6, 
 
 Schoene), after giving the contents of this 
 part he adds, ' Atque materias ex his om- 
 nibus mihi recolligens ad chronicos tem- 
 porales canones me convertam, ac resu- 
 mens jam inde ab initio etc ', after which 
 he describes the contents of the second 
 part, and then (ib. p. 7) resumes, ' sed 
 illius secundi posterior elaboratio est ; 
 nunc vero in proximo sermone, agedum 
 chronographiam ab Chaldaeis deipsorum 
 majoribus relatam inspiciamus '. Again 
 in his preface to the second part (li. p. 4, 
 Schoene), he describes the first part thus, 
 kv jxkv Trj irpb TaijTrjs crvvrd^ei vXas eKwopi- 
 fwc ifxavTif xpovojv dv ay pa<pds crwe- 
 Xe^dix-qu wavrolas, ^a<n\e[as re XaXdaiuv, 
 'Acrcrvpiu}!' k.t.X. ; and then he proceeds to 
 describe the second, iv di ry irapovri iirl 
 rb avTO tovs xP°^ovs crvvayayibi' Kal dvri- 
 Trapadels e/c 7rapa\\T,\oii t6v irap^ eKaarq) 
 'idvei T(2v (Tuv dpLdfxbv xP'^^'-'^°^ Kavo- 
 vos avvTa^LV iTroiyadfir]!/ k.t.\. (quoted 
 by Syncellus i. p. 122 sq, ed. Bonn.). 
 Syncellus himself speaking of the first 
 part writes (p. 125) iv tQ irpdiTu} Xoyy. 
 The second part is called 6 Kaviiv by 
 him, even when he distinguished it from 
 the first (pp. 118, 122, 125, 311). 
 
 - See Smith and Wace Diet, of Christ. 
 Biogr. s. V. 'Eusebius', i. p. 334, for a 
 description of this work.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 211 
 
 restoration of the missing first part, as might have been expected, 
 was not altogether successful. What title Eusebius gave to the whole 
 work, we are unable to say with certainty. In the Armenian the title is 
 wanting. Jerome describes it {Vir. III. 8i) as 'Chronicorum canonum 
 omnimoda historia at eorum epitome', but here we may suspect some 
 error in the text*. His own recension of the work he designates {Vir. 
 III. 135) 'Chronicon omnimodae historiae'. Elsewhere he writes (Epist. 
 Ivii. 6, I. p. 309) ' Quum Eusebii Caesariensis XpoviKov in Latinum 
 verterem ', and in another place {Conim. m Dafiiel. ix. 24, Op. v. 
 p. 688) ' in Chronico ejusdem Eusebii.' In another passage again 
 {Nom. Loc. Hebr. praef, iii. p. 121) he speaks of Eusebius as publishing 
 ' Temporum canones quos nos Latina lingua edidimus', and just below 
 he designates the work which he translated 'Temporum liber', while 
 elsewhere again {c. Rufiti. i. 11, Op. 11. p. 466) he describes it as 
 ' Digestio temporum'. Augustine {Quaest. in Exod. ii. 47, Op. in. 
 p. 435) writes, 'Eusebius in historia sua Chronica', and elsewhere {de 
 Civ. Dei xviii. 8, Op. vii. p. 493) ' Nostri [i.e. Christiani] qui Chronica 
 scripserunt, prius Eusebius, post Hieronymus'. Again Paulinus, writing 
 to Augustine (Aug. Op. 11. p. 35) calls it ' de cunctis temporibus 
 historia', and lower down 'historia temporum'. Judging from these and 
 other references we may conclude that yjioviKov or yjioviKo. — more pro- 
 bably the latter — formed part of the primary title ; while in a secondary 
 or expanded heading travTo^a-Kri lo-Topia would probably have a place. 
 It is called Chronica by Cassiodorius {Inst. Div. lit. xvii) and by 
 Syncellus (p. 73). In his Co?nm. in Isaiam xiii. 17 {Op. vi. p. 189) 
 Eusebius himself refers to the work generally as ■)^poviKa. avy-ypd/jL/xara. 
 Chronicon or Chronica seems to be given generally in the mss, as the 
 title of Jerome's translation, and so Gennadius speaks of it in the 
 continuation of the Catalogus (§ i), ' Beatus Hieronymus in libro 
 yj^ovLK-Qtv ^ '. 
 
 ^ Sophronius translates Jerome's words, garded the first part as merely introduc- 
 
 XPOviKUv Kavovojv TravTodairTJs iaropias Kal tory. Probably however Jerome was 
 
 TovTwv iirLTo/jLTJ, thus changing the case ; contemplating only the second part, 
 
 and this title is repeated after him by which he himself translated. Even then 
 
 Suidas s. v. Hvai^ios (i. p. 649, ed. the reference of /caiToi/rwc is unexplained. 
 
 Bernhard). Possibly Jerome has abridged the lan- 
 
 The passages in the last note show that guage of Eusebius and thus destroyed 
 
 the expressions xpo^/i/coJ KavSves, iravro- the proper connexion of the words. 
 
 SttTT); icTTcpia, and eTrtro/x^, as used by - In Latin we find Chronicon and 
 
 Eusebius himself, refer especially to the Chronictim, besides the plural Chronica. 
 
 second part ; and if they entered into The first may occasionally be a transcrip- 
 
 the general title of the whole work, they tionof xpoi't/cwy, but sometimes it certainly 
 
 can only have done so because he re- represents -i^poviKov, e.g. Vir. III. 135, 
 
 14 — 2
 
 212 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 The original text of the Chronicle is not extant, though considerable 
 extracts are found in later writers, especially Syncellus. It is preserved 
 however in three versions, of which the first in most respects, though 
 not altogether, preserves the work in its original form; the second has, 
 undergone a certain amount of revision ; and the third is a mere 
 abridgement. These are (i) the Armenian; (2) the Latin; (3) the 
 Syriac. 
 
 (i) Armenia7i Version. 
 
 To the well known Armenian scholar, the Mechitarist monk Aucher, 
 belongs the credit of rendering this version accessible to European 
 scholars. Before the close of the eighteenth century he had made 
 preparations for an edition, but owing to various causes its publication 
 was delayed. Meanwhile another Mechitarist scholar Zohrab had sur- 
 reptitiously obtained possession of some of Aucher's materials, and in 
 conjunction with Mai ('conjunctis curis') published a translation with 
 introduction, etc, at Milan in 1818. Immediately on its appearance 
 Aucher pushed forward the completion of his own work, and two 
 editions of it appeared at Venice in this same year 18 18. The fame 
 of Aucher suffered for a time from the disparagements of Niebuhr and 
 others (see 11. p. xlv sq, ed. Schoene), who upheld the rival edition of 
 Zohrab notwithstanding the questionable circumstances of its publica- 
 tion, but has been fully vindicated by Petermann. 
 
 These two earlier editions have been superseded by the labours of 
 Petermann, who has furnished a revised Latin translation, together with 
 a careful introduction and critical notes for Schoene's edition of the 
 Chronicon (vol. 11, 1866 ; vol. i, 1875). This last is now the standard 
 edition both for the Armenian and Hieronymian versions, and indeed 
 generally for the materials connected with this work of Eusebius. The 
 text of Petermann's translation is founded on two Armenian mss. (i) The 
 one, belonging to the Armenian patriarch, and having its home in his 
 library at Jerusalem, though transferred for a time to Constantinople. It 
 was written for the then catholicus, one Grigorius, whom Aucher identifies 
 with Grigorius iii (a.d. 1113 — 1166), but Petermann with Grigorius vii 
 (a.d. 1294 — 1307). (ii) The other, brought to Venice from Tokat in 
 Asia Minor, and Avritten a.d. 1696, belonged to Minas, Archbishop of 
 Amida (a.d. 1689 — 1701). The two mss are closely allied, exhibiting 
 
 where it is an accusative. From the plural derived the Latin Biblia, -ae. Chronica, 
 XpoviKo. comes the Latin feminine Chro- -ae, appears frequently in later writers 
 nica^ -ae, just as from fii^Xla, -wv, is (e.g. Greg. Tur. //isi. Franc, i. i).
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 213 
 
 the same errors and lacunse. Petermann's description of them will be 
 found in 11. p. xhx sq, ed. Schoene. 
 
 This version is unanimously assigned by Armenian scholars to the 
 fifth century (Aucher p. visq; Zohrab p. xij Petermann 11. p. liii). This 
 was the great era of Armenian literature. More especially was it rich 
 in translations. In the earlier part of the century the famous Mesrob, 
 the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, sent scholars to collect MSS far 
 and wide, more especially in Greece and Syria. The result was not 
 only the Armenian version of the Bible but also a great number of 
 Armenian translations of the Christian fathers and of profane writers 
 (see Moses of Khoren Hist. ArtJi. iii. 60, Langlois' translation p. 167, 
 and comp. Langlois Historie?is de rArmenie 11. p. vii sq, Paris 1869, 
 and Felix Neve L'Armenie Chretienne etc, p. 19 sq, Louvain 1886, 
 with the references there given). From this great outburst of literary 
 activity this age was entitled 'the age of the interpreters'. The 
 translation of the Chronicle is said to reflect in its language the cha- 
 racteristics of this golden era of Armenian literature. 
 
 But the emissaries of Mesrob, as we have seen, brought back manu- 
 scripts from Syria as well as from Greece. From which language then 
 was the Armenian version of the Chronicle made ? There is good 
 evidence to show that the ChroJiicle was translated into Syriac at some 
 time or other, and Armenian translations were not uncommonly made 
 from this language. This was certainly the case, for instance, with the 
 Ignatian Epistles, which were not translated directly from the Greek 
 original but have passed through a Syriac medium {Igii. and Polyc. i. 
 p. 86 sq). 
 
 Petermann shows beyond question that, while many errors in this 
 version are due to a misunderstanding or misreading of the Greek, 
 many others certainly arise from corruptions or ambiguities in the Syriac 
 (11. p. liii sq). His own conclusions from these facts are, that there 
 were two Armenian versions of the Chro?iicle, both made in the fifth 
 century — the one from the original Greek, the other from the Syriac 
 version ; that in the turbulent ages which followed, manuscripts were 
 mutilated and defaced; and that in the seventh or eighth century, 
 when the troubles abated and literature revived, the extant Armenian 
 version was patched together and compiled (consarcinatio, compilatio) 
 from the two. I venture to offer a different solution. It seems to me more 
 probable that the first portion was translated altogether from the Greek, 
 but that for the second the translator had before him, besides the Greek 
 text, either a Syriac version, whether complete or in epitome, or a pre- 
 vious Armenian version made from the Syriac. With many Armenians
 
 2 14 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the Syriac language was almost like a second native tongue, and they 
 would naturally work upon the Syriac by preference. This suggestion 
 appears to me to be consistent with the facts as I understand them. For 
 (i) The errors which can be distinctly traced to the Syriac are all in the 
 second portion (ii.p. livsq). The few instances which Petermann alleges 
 from the first (i. p. x) do not carry conviction ; and indeed he himself 
 only says 'ad textum originalem Syriacum r ef erri J>osse vide7itur\ (2) 
 The second portion is said to be so much inferior to the first, not only 
 as a faithful translation, but as a literary composition, that Zohrab ex- 
 presses grave doubts whether it was by the same hand as the other 
 (p. xix), and Petermann allows ' stilum hujus partis libri varium ac 
 diversum nominandum esse ' (11. p. liii). (3) There is no evidence, so 
 far as I am aware, that the first portion, as a whole, was ever translated 
 into Syriac. (4) The references to the Chronicle in the earlier Armenian 
 writers seem to be all taken from the first part. If this be so, the fact 
 suggests an interval between the translations of the two parts ; but it is 
 immaterial to my main position. At the same time, I offer this sugges- 
 tion with all the misgiving which must be felt by one who has only the 
 very slightest knowledge of Armenian, and who moreover has not had 
 the requisite time to submit this particular question to a minute investi- 
 gation. 
 
 The suggested date of the Armenian version, the fifth century, is 
 borne out by the fact that the work is quoted by a succession of 
 Armenian writers from Moses of Khoren and Lazarus of Pharbi, who 
 both wrote in the latter half of the fifth century (see Aucher p. viii, 
 Zohrab p. xi). In the 12th century Samuel of Ania wrote a Chronicle 
 which he carried down to a.d. 1179, according to his own reckoning, 
 which differs somewhat from the vulgar era. The introductory portion 
 and the chronicle itself from the Christian era to the vicennalia of 
 Constantine are abridged mainly from the Armenian Chronicle of 
 Eusebius. A Latin translation of this work is attached to Zohrab 
 and Mai's edition of the Chronicle (Milan, 181 8), and has been re- 
 printed by Migne, Euseb. Op. i. p. 599 sq. It is valuable for our 
 purpose, as showing the condition of the Armenian text of Eusebius 
 when Samuel wrote. 
 
 The gain to our knowledge by the discovery of the Armenian 
 version was made the subject of a treatise by Niebuhr Historischer 
 Gewimi aus der Armetiischen Uebersetzimg der Chro7iik des Eusebius 
 (Berlin, 1822), first pubUshed in the Proceedings of the Berlin Academy. 
 The value of the discovery was very great indeed. The first part of 
 the work, throwing much light on ancient history, was wholly unknown
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 215 
 
 before, except by extracts in later writers, as it had not been translated 
 by Jerome. In the second part the Armenian version enables us to 
 separate the original work of Eusebius from Jerome's additions. Only 
 in the portion with which we are more especially concerned, the series 
 of popes, does it introduce fresh perplexities. Here it has been the 
 source not of elucidation, but of confusion. 
 
 Though the mss of the Armenian Chronicle are mutilated at the 
 close, so that it ends with the i6th year of Diocletian, the work itself 
 was carried down to the vicennalia of Constantine. This is mentioned 
 in the first part as the terminus (i. p. 71, 131), and Simeon distinctly 
 states that the Chronicle of Eusebius ended here (p. 42, Zohrab). So 
 too Syncellus (pp. 64, 318). This is also the terminus of the Syriac 
 epitome. On all grounds therefore it is clear that the copy from which 
 the Armenian translator made his version corresponded in this respect 
 with the copy which was used by Jerome. 
 
 The names of the bishops are given in this work under the several 
 years of their accession. The number of each pope in the order of 
 succession is generally, though not always, stated. The omissions occur 
 in the cases of Linus, Victor, CalUstus, and Stephanus. Thus Clemens 
 is the 3rd, Euarestus the 4th, Alexander the 5th, and so forth, S. Peter 
 being excluded in the numbering -in this work, as in the History. At 
 the same time the presidency of S. Peter in the Roman Church is 
 recognized in some sense in the notice under Ann. Abr. 2055 (= a.d. 39), 
 ' Petrus apostolus, cum primum Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, 
 Romanorum urbem proficiscitur ibique evangelium praedicat et com- 
 moratur illic antistes ecclesiae annis viginti' (11. p. 150, Schoene). The 
 original expression of Eusebius, here represented by ' antistes ecclesiae,' 
 is probably preserved by Syncellus, d Se a.vxo% [IIcTpos] /actci t^s Iv 
 'AvTtoi^€t'a iKKX-qcria'S Kal Trj<; iv 'Pw/xt^ Trpwro? Trpoearrj eco? TeXeitoCTetos 
 avTov. Thus he refrains from directly calling him bishop, though a 
 founder of the Roman episcopate. At the accession of each bishop 
 the term of office is likewise given, e.g. 
 
 ' Romanorum ecclesiae episcopatum xiii excepit Eleutherius annis xv.' 
 
 As the terms frequently do not agree with the corresponding 
 interval between one accession and the next, they both are recorded 
 in the tables below. Eusebius himself in this part of the Chronicle 
 gives the years of Abraham, the Olympiads, and the years of the Roman 
 emperors, the first being the back-bone of his chronology. His Olym- 
 piads however are not true Olympiads, but Julian Leap-years. I have 
 omitted them in my table ; and for the years of Abraham I have sub-
 
 2i6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 stituted years a. d. for convenience of reference. In converting the 
 years from the one era to the other, I have observed Gutschmid's rule 
 {^De Temporum Notis quibus Eusebius tititur etc. p. 27 sq, KiUae 1868) 
 of subtracting 2016 for the years from 2017 — 2209 inclusive, and 
 2018 afterwards to the end of the work. At the point indicated, the 
 reign of Pertinax, Eusebius gets wrong in his imperial chronology ; 
 and hence arises the necessity of making a change here in the mode of 
 reckoning. 
 
 Two or three very patent errors I have tacitly corrected in this list, 
 (i) The name of Linus is entered twice; first under Nero xii, and then 
 under Titus i. At the second occurrence it is obviously a transcriber's 
 error, and I have accordingly substituted Anencletus, this being more 
 probable than the alternative name Cletus for this same bishop'. 
 (2) The proper names are much disfigured in the transmission from 
 one language to another. I have restored the correct forms. (3) An 
 Alexandrian bishop, Agrippinus, is by a blunder assigned to Rome, 
 between Soter and Eleutherus. His name is omitted in my table. (4) 
 The number of Urbanus is wanting. So too the name, and the name 
 only, of Eutychianus has dropped out owing to a mutilation*. I have 
 replaced the later omission, but not the former. 
 
 The Armenian version has lost a page at the end, and closes with 
 the i6th year of Diocletian. The last bishop of Rome mentioned is 
 Gaius, whom it assigns to the 2nd year of Probus (Ann. Abr. 2296), and 
 to whom it gives 15 years of office. The accession of his successor 
 Marcellinus ought therefore to have been recorded under the 8th year 
 of Diocletian (Ann. Abr. 231 1); but there is no mention of him^ 
 Whether Eusebius in this work continued his notices of the papal suc- 
 cession beyond this point or not, we are unable to say with certainty. 
 In the Ecclesiastical History, as we shall see, the last notice refers to 
 the death of Gaius and accession of Marcellinus. This coincidence 
 would rather suggest that his list ended at this point. 
 
 ^ Simeon, copying the Armenian Chro- 'Anacletus',' Cletus', and 'Clemens', and 
 
 nick, gives the name ' Clemetus'. In the one has ' Cletus qui et Anacletus '. In the 
 
 MS which he used therefore it was in the Vir. III. 15 there is the same variation be- 
 
 process of corruption, this being a con- tween 'Anacletus' and 'Cletus'. 
 
 fusion of Cletus (or Anencletus) and Cle- - Agrippinus is rightly assigned to 
 
 mens. We may suppose that Eusebius Alexandria in Samuel. The number of 
 
 himself in his Chronicle used the same Urbanus is wanting, but the name Euty- 
 
 form Anencletus, which appears in his chianus appears in his text. 
 
 History, but the evidence is defective. In -^ Samuel has ' Marcellinus annis X,' 
 
 the Syriac authorities the name is want- under the 13th year of Diocletian, 
 ing. In Jerome the Mss give variously
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 217 
 
 (ii) Hieronymiaii Version. 
 
 The Chronicle of Eusebius ended, as we have seen, with the vicen- 
 nalia of Constantine (a.d. 325). Jerome translated and continued it, so 
 as to bring it down to date, the 14th year of Valentinian and Valens (a.d. 
 378). Accordingly the papal record is carried down to Damasus (a.d. 
 366-384), who was bishop when he wrote. Marcellus (a.d. 307) the 
 immediate successor of Marcellinus is omitted. This omission may be 
 due partly to the similarity of the names, partly to the fact that Mar- 
 cellus only held office less than a year. One or other of the two names, 
 Marcellinus and Marcellus, is frequently wanting in papal lists. The 
 degree of change which Jerome introduced into the work of Eusebius 
 will be a subject of discussion hereafter. As far as a.d. 180, the 
 imperial chronology of Jerome's recension agrees with the Armenian, 
 and the reduction of the years of Abraham to the reckoning a.d. is 
 effected in the same way by subtracting 2016; but Jerome omits 
 Pertinax and places the first year of Severus Ann. Abr. 2209 (not 2210), 
 so that from this point onward we deduct not 2018 as with the Arme- 
 nian, but only 2017, to find the corresponding a.d. It should be 
 observed also that Jerome's Olympiads are one year later than the 
 Armenian (Julian Leap-years), but one year earlier than the true Olym- 
 piads. 
 
 The Roman primacy of S. Peter, as we should have expected, 
 appears more definitely in Jerome than in Eusebius himself. Of this 
 Apostle Jerome says, ' Romam mittltur, ubi evangelium praedicans xxv 
 annis ejusdem urbis episcopus perseverat.' Thus S. Peter is distinctly 
 stated to be the first bishop of Rome. Yet in the subsequent notices 
 Jerome preserves the mode of enumeration which he found in Eusebius. 
 and by which S. Peter himself is separated from the rest ; ' Post Petrum 
 primus Romanam ecclesiam tenuit Linus,' 'Romanae ecclesiae secun- 
 dus constituitur episcopus Anacletus,' etc. 
 
 The variations in the mss of Jerome's version, so far as they affect 
 the papal dates, are not very considerable. Collations of six mss 
 (ABPFRM) are given by Schoene. The number of accessions from 
 Peter to Marcellianus (Marcellinus) inclusive is 29; and in only 12 of 
 these is there any discrepancy. The variations are exhibited in the 
 table which follows. The first column of numbers gives the years of 
 Abraham as they appear in Schoene's edition ; and the second records 
 the divergences, as noted in his collations.
 
 2l8 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Eiiarestus 
 
 2115 
 
 A 2114 
 
 Alexander 
 
 2125 
 
 A 2126 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 2154 
 
 AF2155 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 2173 
 
 A 2171 F 2169 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 2193 
 
 A 2192 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 2217 
 
 A 2216 
 
 Callistus 
 
 2236 
 
 A 2235 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 2241 
 
 A 2240 
 
 Pontianus 
 
 2250 
 
 A 2248 
 
 Cornelius 
 
 2269 
 
 BPF 2268 
 
 Dionysius 
 
 2282 
 
 A 2281 
 
 Marcellianus 
 
 2313 
 
 B 2314 
 
 It will thus be seen that ten out of these twelve variations amount 
 only to a single year, and that seven of the ten appear in one Ms alone 
 (A). The only wide variation is the date of Anicetus in F, and the 
 character of the ms deprives it of any weight \ 
 
 (iii) Syriac Version. 
 
 Several of the principal works of Eusebius were translated into 
 Syriac either during the life-time of the author or soon after (see Smith 
 and Wace Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s. v. 'Eusebius' 11. pp. 310, 320, 
 326, 332, 344). Whether the Chroniele was among those translated 
 at this early date or not, we cannot say ; but as it is included among 
 the works of Eusebius in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (Assemani Bibl. 
 Orient, iii. p. 18), we may assume the existence of some Syriac trans- 
 lation. Elsewhere (in. p. 168) Ebedjesu mentions Simeon of Garmai 
 as having interpreted (pJi'S) it ; and this cannot well refer to anything 
 else but a translation. This Simeon appears to have lived about 
 A.D. 600 (Assem. ib. iii. p. (^li)- Again the Jacobite patriarch of 
 Antioch, Michael the Great, who flourished towards the close of the 
 twelfth century, compiled a Chronography partly based upon the work 
 of Eusebius (Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 313; comp. Greg. Barhebr. 
 Chron. i. pp. 590 — 606, ed. Abbeloos and Lamy). The existence of a 
 Syriac version may also be inferred independently from the Armenian, 
 
 1 This MS is very wild in this neigh- 
 bourhood, and ante-dates several events 
 (even the death of Antoninus Pius) by 
 three or four years. Its near coincidence 
 
 therefore with the Armenian date (2168) 
 for the accession of Anicetus must be re- 
 garded as a mere accident.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 219 
 
 which bears evidence in the corruption of the proper names and other 
 ways, as we have seen (p. 213), that it was translated, at least in part, 
 from a pre-existing Syriac version. No such version however is now 
 extant, and it is only found in epitome. Two of these abridgements 
 have been published : 
 
 (i) The one is by Dionysius of Telmachar, who was Jacobite 
 patriarch of Antioch from a.d. 818 — 845. The work which contains 
 this epitome is a Chronicle in four parts, from the beginning of the 
 world to A.D. 775. An account of the author will be found in Assem. 
 Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 344 sq, and of the work ib. 11. p. 98 sq. The first 
 part, which ends with Constantine, is taken from the Chronicle of 
 Eusebius', but contains Hkewise passages here and there inserted 
 from the History^ as also from other writers, more especially from an 
 Edessene chronicle. This first part has been published in the Syriac 
 by TuUberg {Dionysii Telmahharensis Chronici Liber Primus, Upsal. 
 1850) from the only known ms, Vat. clxii, which is described in 
 Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 98 sq, and Catal. MSS Bibl. Apost. Vat. 
 III. p. 328^. It has been translated recently by Siegfried and Gelzer 
 Eusebii Canomwi Epitome ex Dionys. Telmah. Chrofi. petita (Lips. 
 1884), where the chronologies of the Latin and Armenian versions 
 are compared with it and the corresponding fragments from Greek 
 writers are given. This work is criticized, with especial reference to 
 these comparative chronologies, by A. von Gutschmid U7itersuchungen 
 iiber die Syrische Epitome der Eusebischen Canones (Stuttgart 1886). 
 
 (2) The second of these epitomes is contained in the ms Brit. 
 Mus. Add. 14643, described in Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS p. 1040 and 
 in Land's Anecd. Syr. i. p. 39 sq, 165 sq. This ms contains, with 
 other matter, a Chronicle followed by a list of the Caliphs, which latter 
 Liber Caliphanim is adopted by Land as the title of the whole. The 
 Chronicle falls into two parts. The first, including the period from 
 Abraham to Constantine, is taken from the Chronicle of Eusebius, with 
 a few interpolations from other sources. This first part is translated 
 by Roediger for Schoene's edition (11. p. 203 sq), and some extracts are 
 
 ^ Dionysius himself {Bibl. Or. ii. p. larger and a smaller ('cujus chronici du- 
 
 100) tells us that this first part is taken plex circumfertur editio'). I gather how- 
 
 from Eusebius. ever from the account of Assemani {Bibl. 
 
 ^ The extracts from the History are Orient, ii. p. 98), that the larger work 
 
 taken from the extant Syriac version: corresponded rather to the History \\\2.t\ 
 
 see Literar. Centralbl. 1886, April 17, to the C/^r^^zV/t' of Eusebius. The pub- 
 
 p. 589. lished work is the shorter. It does not 
 
 ' Siegfried and Gelzer (p. v) state that appear whether the larger is extant, 
 of this work tliere are two editions, a
 
 2 20 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 given in the original by him in his Chrestom. Syr. p. 105 sq, ed. 2. 
 The second part, which is a continuation, is printed in full by Land 
 Anecd. Syr. Appx. i. p. i sq, and translated by him ib. i. p. 105 sq. The 
 latest incident mentioned in this second part falls in the year a.d. 636, 
 which seems to have been the date of the compiler. The list of Caliphs 
 is continued to a.d. 724. See Roediger in Schoene's Chroii. 11. p. Ivii. 
 
 So far as I have observed, the Eusebian portion of both these works 
 appears to have been taken from the same Syriac version. But it is 
 difficult to compare the two, as the Syriac of the latter remains un- 
 published ; and I desire therefore to speak with all reserve. Each 
 contains events taken from the Eusebian Chronicle which are wanting 
 in the other. On the whole the latter contains a larger number of 
 events (at least for the portion with which we are directly concerned), 
 but the former gives the events frequently in greater detail. The 
 latter as a rule has no dates, whereas the former commonly, though 
 not always, prefixes the year of Abraham. Both alike omit the fila 
 regnorum-—\\\t parallel columns of dynasties — which are a characteristic 
 feature of the Chronicle, as it left the hands of its author. The table 
 on the opposite page exhibits the information supplied by both these 
 abridgements. Owing to the absence of dates in Roediger's Epitome, 
 it is only possible to define the limits of time by the dates of the 
 notices immediately before and after an event. This is done in the 
 table, the dates being supplied from the Hieronymian Chro?iicle. 
 
 A Syriac excerpt from the Chronicle of Eusebius, contained in the 
 Bodleian ms Arch. c. 5, which was written a.d. 1195, is translated by 
 P. J. Bruns in the Repertorium f. Bibl. u. Morgenldnd. Litteratiir xi. 
 p. 273 (Leipzig 1782). The only notices however which it contains 
 bearing on our subject are those relating to S. Peter and S. Paul in 
 Rome ; ' [After the accession of Claudius] Peter, after he had esta- 
 bhshed the Church at Antioch, presided over the Church at Rome 
 twenty years... [Nero] stirred up a persecution against the Christians 
 in which also the Apostles Peter and Paul lost their lives.' In Wright's 
 Catal. of Syr. MSS in the Brit. Miis. p. 1041 sq, three other mss are 
 named, dccccxiv — dccccxvi, which contain epitomes or portions of 
 epitomes of the Chronicle of Eusebius. It is possible that a careful 
 examination of these would throw some light on the history of the 
 Syriac version or versions ; but I gather from the investigation of 
 friends that, with the exception of the last, they do not contain any 
 notices bearing directly on the papal succession. The papal list in 
 this exceptional case is not Eusebian, and I shall therefore defer the 
 consideration of it for the present.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 221 
 
 SVR/AC CHRONICLE 
 
 
 Dionysius 
 
 Roedi 
 
 ger 
 
 
 ROMAN 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 Remarks 
 
 BISHOPS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ann. Abr. 
 
 Term 
 
 Ann. Abr. 
 
 Term 
 
 
 Petrus 
 
 
 
 
 XXV 
 
 Peter's accession twice en- 
 tered in R 205J and 2064. 
 Martyrdom of Peter and 
 Paul 2084. In D like- 
 wise the death of Peter 
 and Paul entered twice, 
 2084 and 2083. The 
 notices hereabouts are fre- 
 quently transposed 
 
 Linus 
 
 2090 
 
 xii 
 
 2084 
 
 xii 
 
 
 Anencletus 
 
 
 
 
 
 Absent from both lists 
 
 Clemens 
 
 2106 
 
 om. 
 
 2io| 
 
 ix 
 
 
 Evarestus 
 
 
 
 2Il| 
 
 viii 
 
 Absent from D 
 
 Alexander 
 
 2124 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 Absent from R 
 
 Xystus 
 
 [2134] 
 
 iii 
 
 2I.',t 
 
 iii 
 
 Date in D, Hadr. iv 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 2144 
 
 XX 
 
 2i4f 
 
 XX 
 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 [2154] 
 
 iiii 
 
 2t5l 
 
 iiii 
 
 Date in D, Anton, i 
 
 Pius 
 
 om. 
 
 XV 
 
 2I5f 
 
 XV 
 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 2172 
 
 xi 
 
 2lft 
 
 xi 
 
 
 Soter 
 
 2183 
 
 viii 
 
 2l8f 
 
 viii 
 
 A double notice of Soter in R 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 2192 
 
 XV 
 
 
 
 Absent from R 
 
 Victor 
 
 
 
 2209 
 
 X 
 
 Absent from D 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 2215 
 
 om. 
 
 22lf 
 
 xviii 
 
 
 Callistus 
 
 2234 
 
 om. 
 
 223f 
 
 v 
 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 2240 
 
 ix 
 
 "H 
 
 ix 
 
 
 Pontianus 
 
 2246 
 
 V 
 
 22H 
 
 XV 
 
 
 Anteros 
 
 2255 
 
 m. I 
 
 22ff 
 
 m. I 
 
 
 Fabianus 
 
 22S5 
 
 xii 
 
 22M 
 
 xii 
 
 
 Cornelius 
 
 2269 
 
 ii 
 
 2269 
 
 ii 
 
 
 Lucius 
 
 om. 
 
 m. viii 
 
 22yT(j- 
 
 om. 
 
 
 Stephanus 
 
 om. 
 
 iii 
 
 22717 
 
 iii 
 
 
 Xystus II 
 
 
 
 
 
 Absent from both lists 
 
 Dionysius 
 
 2280 
 
 om. 
 
 
 
 Absent from R 
 
 Felix 
 
 2292 
 
 V 
 
 229! 
 
 V 
 
 Events at this point con- 
 fused in both D and R 
 
 Eutychianus 
 
 2298 
 
 711. viii 
 
 229J 
 
 m. viii 
 
 Double entry in D of Euty- 
 
 Gains 
 
 om. 
 
 XV 
 
 om. 
 
 XV 
 
 chianus and Gaius (called 
 Gaianus in the first pas- 
 sage) under 2273 and 
 2298. The term-numbers 
 the same in both entries. 
 
 Marcellinus 
 
 2313 
 
 om. 
 
 2 3^ 
 
 om. 

 
 22 2 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 It will have appeared from the tables (p. 208 sq) that the Armenian and 
 Hieronymian versions of the Chronicle differ widely from one another. 
 It will be seen also that, while Jerome exhibits so many and great 
 divergences from the Armenian, he is yet in substantial agreement with 
 the notices of Eusebius in the History. What account shall we give of 
 these phenomena ? 
 
 The solution commonly, indeed almost universally, adopted is, that 
 the Armenian version preserves the actual form of the work as it left the 
 hands of Eusebius', and that Jerome deliberately altered the dates in the 
 Chronicle, making use, for this purpose, either of the History itself or of 
 some catalogue closely allied to that which Eusebius had used for the 
 History. This opinion however is beset with difficulties of which the 
 following are the chief 
 
 (i) It assumes that in the interval between his writing the Chf-onicle 
 and the History Eusebius possessed himself of a second list of the 
 popes with term-numbers, more accurate than his previous list, and 
 that he accordingly adopted it in his later work. But the two works 
 must have been published within a few months of each other, as the 
 Chronicle is carried down to the vicennalia of Constantine (a.d. 325) 
 and the History was completed apparently before the death of Crispus 
 (a.d. 326), so that he must have been at work upon them at the same 
 time. Nor is this all. In the opening of the History Eusebius himself 
 refers to the Chronicle. He is speaking more especially of these very 
 episcopal successions ; and he there tells us that he intends in the 
 present work to handle at greater length these and other events which 
 in the Chronicle he had set down briefly ^ The spirit of these words, 
 if not the direct letter, precludes anything like a systematic revision of 
 the chronology of the principal sfee in Christendom. 
 
 (2) The part thus ascribed to Jerome is hardly consistent with 
 what we know of him and his work. It is extremely improbable that 
 he would have taken the trouble to readjust the papal chronology in the 
 Chro7iicle. Indeed this assumption seems to be precluded by his own 
 language. In his preface he seeks to magnify his own services. 
 He tells us that he supplied several omissions, 'in Romana maxime 
 
 ^ It is assumed for instance by Gut- Recension gut zu schreiben; denn die 
 schmid {Untersuchungen etc p. 32), where lateinisch-syrische hat die Liste der Kir- 
 he is discussing the relative accuracy of chengeschichte an die Stelle der urspriing- 
 the Latin, Syriac, and Armenian dates; lichen gesetzt.' The assumption amounts 
 'Von diesen sind 16, welche die An- to 2. pctitio principii. 
 trittsjahre der rbmischen Bischofe be- ^ See the passage as quoted above, p. 
 treffen, ohne Weiteres der armenischen 210, note i.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 223 
 
 historia'. He states moreover that the first part, as far as the Taking of 
 Troy, 'is a mere translation from the Greek'; that from the Taking of 
 Troy to the xxth year of Constantine he had made several additions 
 ' quae de Tranquillo et ceteris illustribus historicis curiosissime excerp- 
 simus'; and that all after the xxth year of Constantine was 'entirely his 
 own.' The sources of the incidents in Roman history, which he thus 
 boasts of adding, have been investigated by Mommsen Die Quelle?t des 
 Hierony77ius p. 667 sq (appended to his monograph on the Chrono- 
 grapher of 354). If Jerome had revised the papal chronology at much 
 trouble, he would hardly have refrained from boasting of the fact. 
 
 (3) We have not only to reckon with Jerome's Latin version, but 
 likewise with the Syriac. Now confessedly the Syriac chronology, so 
 far as regards the early Roman succession, is substantially the same as 
 Jerome's, whereas it exhibits none of the main features which dis- 
 tinguish the Armenian. But the Syriac cannot have been indebted 
 to the Latin. This is agreed on all sides. It is necessary therefore to 
 suppose — an extremely improbable supposition — that a Syriac reviser 
 quite independently made the same substitution of the papal dates from 
 the History^ which was made by Jerome. On the other hand, if the 
 Armenian had retained the original text of Eusebius free from corruption 
 or revision, we should expect to find in it a strong resemblance to the 
 Syriac. The connexion of Armenian and Syrian Christianity was close. 
 Even if there had been no evidence that the Armenian in this case 
 was indebted to a previous Syriac version, they would at all events be 
 made from a similar text. If the one was not the daughter of the other, 
 they would be related as sisters. 
 
 (4) Lastly; Harnack (see above, p. 201), comparing the chronology 
 of the Roman succession with that of the Antiochene, believed that he 
 had discovered a certain schematism or artificial arrangement, by which 
 the Antiochene accessions were placed systematically each at the same 
 fixed interval — an exact Olympiad — after the corresponding Roman. 
 In other words the Antiochene chronology was a purely fictitious 
 chronology. This attributed to Eusebius a somewhat stupid and not 
 very honest procedure. Moreover the theory required such a mani- 
 pulation of the facts to support it, that it stood self-condemned, and 
 has not found any favour with subsequent critics. But it has done 
 good service in directing attention to the relation between the chrono- 
 logy of the Roman and Antiochene succession. Obviously they are 
 too symmetrical to be independent. What then is the true account of 
 their relation ? Two independent answers have been given to this 
 question.
 
 2 24 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Lipsius {Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. vi. p. 233, 1880) observed that 
 by substituting the dates of the Roman episcopate given in the History 
 for those given in the Armenian Chronicle, we obtain synchronisms 
 of these two sees, after making allowance for accidental errors. In 
 other words the Antiochene bishops, who were known or believed 
 to be contemporary with any given Roman bishops, were co-ordinated 
 with them in some previous document used by Eusebius — this co-ordi- 
 nation not being intended in the first instance to imply that their 
 actual accessions fell on the same year, but merely that they held the 
 sees at the same time. Lipsius' substitution of synchronisms for 
 Harnack's artificial intervals of Olympiads was obviously correct ; for 
 it suggested an intelligible mode of procedure. His explanation how- 
 ever had this weak point, that to produce the synchronisms he was 
 obliged to take his data from two different documents — the Antiochene 
 chronology from the Chronicle and the Roman chronology from the 
 History. To this necessity he was driven by his fundamental position — 
 that the Armenian preserves the original dates of the Roman episcopate 
 as given by Eusebius in the Chronicle. 
 
 About the same time or somewhat earlier \ but at all events quite 
 independently, Hort (see Ig7iat. and Polyc. 11. p. 461 sq) offered another 
 solution much simpler, though traced on the same lines. He pointed 
 out that the synchronisms between the Roman and Antiochene bishops 
 would be found in the ChroJiicle itself, if only we adopted not the 
 Armenian, but the Hieronymian dates for the accession of the Roman 
 bishops, due allowance being made for accidental errors. The simplicity 
 of this solution is its highest recommendation. But we only attain 
 this result, on the hypothesis that Jerome gives the original Eusebian 
 dates, and that the Armenian chronology of the Roman episcopate is 
 the result of later corruption or revision or both. 
 
 The difficulty might be partially met by supposing that Eusebius 
 issued two editions of his Chronicle. There is indeed some independent 
 evidence for a twofold issue. The extant work, as we have seen, is 
 carried down to the vicennalia of Constantine (a.d. 325). But Eusebius 
 directly refers to the Chronicle in two earlier works, the Eclogae Prophe- 
 ticae i. i (p. i Gaisford) and the Praeparatio Evangelica x. 9. 11, both 
 written during or immediately after the persecution". There must 
 
 1 My work containing Dr Hort's sola- 1878 or the beginning of 1879. 
 
 tion was not published till 1885, some - On the two editions of the Chronicle 
 
 years after the appearance of Lipsius' see Ignat. and Polyc. II. p. 465, Smith 
 
 paper ; but this portion had been passed and Wace Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s. v. 
 
 through the press as early as the close of 'Eusebius of Caesarea,' 11. p. 321 sq.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 225 
 
 therefore have been a prior edition of the Chronide published some 
 years before. This hypothesis however will not help us out of our 
 difficulty ; for the Armenian, like the Hieronymian, is brought down to 
 the vicennalia and therefore does not represent this earher edition. We 
 might indeed fall back upon the supposition that the Armenian version 
 was founded on a text which was a mixture of the two (see above, 
 p. 213). But even then we have not overcome the difficulties with which 
 we are confronted under the three previous heads. Altogether this hypo- 
 thesis seems inadequate to explain the phenomena. The later edition 
 of the Chronicle appears to have been nothing more than the earlier 
 continued down to date. We must look in a wholly different direction 
 for an explanation of the divergences. 
 
 It must be evident that in a work like the Chronide the liabilities 
 to error are manifold, and no stress therefore can be laid on any 
 ordinary divergences. These liabilities fall under three heads. 
 
 (i) There is first the mode of tabulating the events. The events 
 themselves were recorded in the right and left hand margins, or in the 
 central columns between the lines of dynasties, and perhaps occasionally 
 at the foot margin. In the modern editions they are referred to their 
 several years in the chronological tables, which form the central column 
 of the page, by the same letters or numbers attached to the event and 
 to the year; but in the ancient copies, whether of the Armenian or of 
 the Latin, there appears to be no such safeguard. The possibilities of 
 displacement in the course of transcription are thus manifold. 
 
 (2) But besides the possibilities of displacement, the confusion of 
 similar numbers or letters representing numbers is a still more fertile 
 source of error. If the work is in Latin, the numerals x, v, ii, are 
 frequently confused, so that for instance 1 2 and 7 (xii, vii), 7 and 4 (vii, 
 iiii), will be substituted the one for the other, or the stroke denoting 
 a unit will be dropped or superadded and thus for example 9 and 8 
 will be interchanged (viiii, viii). If it is in Greek, the errors will be 
 different, but not less considerable. The confusion of 5 and 9 (e, ■») 
 
 In these passages I have spoken of the 
 two editions as offering a possible solu- 
 tion of the papal dates in the Armenian 
 and Hieronymian versions respectively. 
 I am now convinced that the divergences 
 cannot be so explained. As a caution, I 
 may add that the words of Beda De 
 Temp. Rat. Ixvi {Op. i. p. 546) 'Juxta 
 vero Chronica eadem quae ipse Euseliius 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 de utraque editione, ut sibi videbatur, 
 composuit ' have nothing to do with 
 two editions of the Chronicle itself, as 
 would appear to be the view of Scaliger 
 Thes. Temp. Animadv. p. 4, where how- 
 ever 'vera' is substituted for 'utraque'. 
 Beda is speaking of the two chronological 
 systems of the Hebrew and LXX respect- 
 ively in the Old Testament. 
 
 15
 
 2 26 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 of 8 and 13 (h, ««), may be expected. In this very Armenian Chronicle 
 we find Felix credited with 19 years, whereas we know from other 
 sources that he only held office 5 years. The error has probably arisen 
 from the confusion of cthc and eTHie^, the i being explicable either by 
 a confusion of the eye or by the fact that iotas adscript were frequently 
 added by scribes where they were out of place, as anyone may satisfy 
 himself by a glance at the Hyperides papyri. But in the case before 
 us, we are dealing not only with the Latin and Greek, but likewise with 
 one and probably two Oriental languages besides ; for the existing text 
 of the Armenian Chronicle, as we have seen (see p. 213 sq), must 
 have been rendered partly from the Syriac. An abundant crop of errors 
 would be the consequence of this double transmission'. The havoc 
 made in the proper names, which in the Armenian are sometimes 
 scarcely distinguishable, shows how great was the probability of error, 
 where (as in the numerals) the transcribers were not guided and 
 controlled by the sense. 
 
 (3) But arising out of these errors, a third source of change is 
 created — emendation for the sake of consistency. A substitution of 
 a wrong figure in the term-numbers, or of a wrong date in the year 
 of reference, would introduce a discrepancy between the stated dura- 
 tion of office and the interval allowed in the chronological table. The 
 next transcriber, observing this, would be tempted to bring the two 
 into exact or proximate conformity by an alteration in one or the 
 other or both. This source of error, arising out of emendation, has 
 been almost entirely overlooked by Lipsius. Thus when Hort urges 
 that the 9 years ascribed in the Chronicle to Callistus, whose actual 
 term was 5 years, arose out of a confusion of -e- and e, Lipsius (vi. p. 272) 
 considers it sufficient to answer that the sum total of the years ascribed 
 to the three pontificates of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, is the same 
 in the different Usts (10-1-18 + 5 = 33 in the ZT/ir/wj and Hieronymian 
 Chronicle, 9+19 + 5 = 33 in the Liberian Catalogue, 12 + 12 + 9 = 33 
 in the Armenian), and that therefore the 9 years are required for 
 Callistus in this last list to make up the requisite number, because only 
 24 years (instead of 28) have been assigned to Victor + Zephyrinus. 
 But this offers no explanation, why 1 2 years should be assigned to both 
 Victor and Zephyrinus respectively, instead of 9 or 10 to the former 
 and 19 or 18 to the latter. The natural explanation begins at the other 
 end. The confusion of ■& and e involved a loss of 4 years within the 
 
 ^ See for instance the examples given The height of the Colossus (Ann. Ahr. 
 by Petermann (ii. p. Hi, ed. Schoene); 22 2091) is 107 feet in Jerome, 127 in Syn- 
 for 3, i\ for 43, 51 for 19, ir for 55, etc. cellus, 128 in the Armenian.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 227 
 
 interval of the three pontificates. A readjustment, more or less arbi- 
 trary, of the lengths assigned to the other two pontificates became 
 necessary ; and hence the result. 
 
 Thus the chances of alteration are almost unlimited ; and before 
 we argue on the divergences in the papal notices, as if they had 
 any real value, it becomes us to enquire whether the phenomena in 
 other parts of the Chronicle will not furnish som.e lessons for our 
 guidance. 
 
 (i) The earliest part of the work supplies us with the most valuable 
 test, because we have Jerome's own statement to guide us here. He 
 tells us explicitly, as we have seen, that in the period before the Taking 
 of Troy his edition is ' a strict translation from the Greek ' (pura Graeca 
 translatio). Here therefore the Armenian and Hieronymian versions 
 ought to coincide but for the corruptions and vagaries of scribes. 
 Accordingly I have taken from this period three pages at random for 
 investigation, pp. 26, 36, 38, of Schoene's edition. The numbers 
 describe the divergence in years between the two versions. Where no 
 sign is prefixed, the Hieronymian dates are later; where a ni'uius sign 
 precedes, they are earlier. 
 
 On p. 26 there are twelve events, though only ten notices in the 
 Armenian ; for the 6th and 8th notices contain two events each, which 
 are given in separate notices in Jerome. Only three out of the twelve 
 coincide, the divergences being as follows; 
 
 o, 4, O) 4, 5> 18, 21, 9, 9, 21, o, 8, 
 
 and in two of these three the character of the notices themselves is 
 such as almost to preclude the possibiHty of error. 
 
 On p. 36 there are nine notices, and in only one is there a coin- 
 cidence of date. The divergences are 
 
 2, I, 3> 7> 4. o, 6, I, 3. 
 
 On p. 38, there are five notices, and only one coincidence. The 
 numbers describing the divergences are as follows ; 
 
 '■•> 
 
 5. ij -1- 
 
 It is quite true that the events during this period are mainly 
 legendary, and there is therefore no adequate reason in the first instance 
 why they should have been attached to one year more than to another. 
 But this does not affect the question of the relation between the chrono- 
 logies of the two versions of Eusebius ; since Eusebius (following those 
 who preceded him) did so attach them. 
 
 15—2
 
 228 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (2) I will now take samples from a succeeding period, pp. 120, 
 128, 152. 
 
 The first sample (p. 120) refers to the period of the First Punic 
 War. The statistics stand thus 
 
 5' -7. -3, 6, 6, 5, -5, 2, o, 3, o, I, 2, 3, o, I, 3, I, 
 
 where there are eighteen notices, and only three coincidences. More- 
 over the violence of the transition deserves to be noticed. In the two 
 first notices the transition is not less than twelve years — from 5 years 
 before to 7 years after the corresponding Hieronymian notice. 
 
 On p. 128, on which the first notice refers to the destruction of 
 Carthage, the relations of the two chronologies are represented by the 
 numbers 
 
 4> -I5 o, -5) 2,-4, o, T,-i, 0,-2, I, o, 
 where there are four coincidences in thirteen events. In the last notice 
 but two ( - 2), the error is not with the Armenian, but with Jerome, as 
 the central column shows. 
 
 For p. 152, which begins a.d. 40, the numbers are as follows; 
 
 o, -I, 4, 2, 2, I, o, 3, 3, 2, 2, I, -T, 2, -I, 2, 2, 
 
 where there are only two coincidences in seventeen events. These two 
 exceptions are the deaths of Gaius (Caligula) and of Agrippa, in which 
 owing to the arrangement of the dynasties it was next to impossible 
 for scribes to go wrong. This is the page which immediately follows 
 the notice of S. Peter's founding the Antiochene and Roman Churches, 
 here assigned to a.d. 39 — a date to which much significance has been 
 attached, as differing three years from the corresponding notice in 
 Jerome's edition, a.d. 42. 
 
 In these comparisons I have given Schoene's text of the Hiero- 
 nymian version. But exception has been taken to his readings by 
 Gutschmid, who maintains that the MS P is the best single authority. 
 For the first five of these six pages the substitution of P for Schoene 
 would not make any material difference ; but in the last P approxi- 
 mates much more closely to the Armenian. The record of the 
 variations would then be 
 
 o, -I, 3> 2, 2, o, o, o, o, 2, o, I, o, 2, o, 2, 2. 
 
 A later investigation however will show that the dates in P, though 
 nearer to the Armenian in this part, are generally farther from the 
 true chronology. 
 
 (3) Another test of the accuracy of the Armenian dates is the 
 agreement or disagreement of Eusebius with himself In the first book
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 229 
 
 of his Chronicle, Eusebius gives an account of the principles of his work, 
 with the successions of the several dynasties of the different kingdoms 
 which make up the main column of the tables contained in the chrono- 
 logy proper, or ' Canon ', which forms the second book. For the most 
 part this account only affects this main column, and it is just here that 
 we can not expect divergences. But occasionally he gives some event 
 which has no place there, but is recorded only in the lateral notices. 
 Such for instance is the rise of the false Philip, Andriscus, and the 
 consequent subjugation of Macedonia by the Romans. The former 
 of these two events is dated 01. 157. 3, and the later 01. 157. 4 in the 
 first book (a passage of Porphyry there quoted), where the Armenian 
 agrees with the Greek (i. p. 239, Schoenej ; but in the tables in the 
 second book (11. p. 128, Schoene) the one is 01. 158. 3 (.Ann. Abr. 
 1870) and the other 01. 158. 4 (Ann. Abr. 1871). In the Hierony- 
 mian version on the other hand the dates are 01. 157. i (Ann. Abr. 
 1865) and 01. 157. 3 (Ann. Abr. 1867). In this particular case how- 
 ever the different modes of reckoning the Olympiads (see p. 217) must 
 be taken into account. 
 
 (4) Again, as a test of the relative and absolute trustworthiness of 
 the dates furnished by the Armenian and Hieronymian versions, it is 
 instructive to take some period, and compare the chronology of those 
 events in secular history of which the date is ascertained independently. 
 For this purpose I shall select the reigns of Gains (Caligula), Claudius, 
 and Nero, as synchronizing with the earliest history of the Church, 
 where the variations of the versions of the Chronicle are most im- 
 portant. The table is given on the next page (p. 230). In the Hierony- 
 mian column the main date is Schoene's, while the second date in 
 brackets [ ] is from the MS P, which has been singled out by Gutschmid 
 as the best. 
 
 It will be seen from this table that the general tendency of the 
 Armenian is to antedate for this period, whether we compare it with 
 Jerome's version or with the true chronology. It appears also that, 
 though P approaches more nearly than Schoene's text of Jerome to the 
 Armenian, it generally diverges more from the correct dates. 
 
 The transpositions of events are numerous, as must have been 
 evident from what has been said already about the divergences of 
 dates'. Indeed this form of error would be a dangerous snare to 
 transcribers owing to the uncertainty of reference. Of these transpo- 
 sitions we have an example in the martyrdom of S. Peter and the 
 
 ^ In some cases however these transpo- Armenian is not at fault. When dealing 
 sitions appear in Schoene's text, where the with events referred to the same year,
 
 230 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Events 
 
 Ann. 
 35 
 
 1 
 Hieron. 
 
 Correct 
 
 Gaius marries the wife of Memmius 
 
 38 
 
 38, not before June 
 
 Pontius Pilate commits suicide 
 
 36 
 
 38 
 
 40? 
 
 Gaius sends his sisters into exile 
 
 37 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 Gaius liberates Agrippa 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 37. April 
 
 Command to Petronius to outrage the Jews 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 Attacks on the Jews at Alexandria 
 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 
 Death of Gaius 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 41, Jan. 24 
 
 Great famine 
 
 40 
 
 44 [43] 
 
 42, 43 
 
 Claudius triumphs over Britain 
 
 43 
 
 44 [43] 
 
 44 
 
 Death of Agrippa 
 
 43 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 Census held by Claudius 
 
 44 
 
 47 [44] 
 
 48 
 
 Riot of the Jews under Cumanus 
 
 45 
 
 47 [46] 
 
 not before 49 
 
 Famine in Rome 
 
 49 
 
 48 [49] 
 
 51 
 
 Felix sent to Judcea 
 
 50 
 
 49 [50] 
 
 52 
 
 Festus succeeds Felix 
 
 53 
 
 55 
 
 60? 
 
 Death of Agrippina 
 
 54 
 
 57 
 
 59, April 13 
 
 Albinus succeeds Festus 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 62 
 
 Florus succeeds Albinus 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 Great fire at Rome 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 Earthquake at Laodicea, etc. 
 
 62 
 
 63 
 
 60 
 
 Olympian games postponed 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 65 
 
 Death of Octavia 
 
 63 
 
 66 
 
 62, June 9 
 
 Nero crowned at the Olympia 
 
 64 
 
 65 [64] 
 
 67 
 
 Nero at the Isthmia, etc. 
 
 65 
 
 65 
 
 67 
 
 accession of Linus, which two events in the Armenian version (11. 
 p. 156) are thus recorded; 
 
 d. Romanae ecclesiae post Petrum episcopatum excepit Linus annis xiv, 
 f, Nero super omnia delicta primus persecutiones in Christianos excitavit, 
 sub quo Petrus et Paulus apostoli Romae martyrium passi sunt; 
 
 where they are placed in two successive years. In the Hieronymian 
 version on the other hand they are in the reverse order and in the 
 same year. The Syriac agrees with the Hieronymian, as does also 
 
 Schoene records first those on the left 
 margin and then those on the right, re- 
 gardless of their actual sequence. Thus 
 on p. 152 there are two examples; 
 
 a. Gaius a suis ministris occisus est, 
 
 b. Et per totius orbis synagogas Ju- 
 
 daeorum statuae et imagines nec- 
 non arae erigebantur. 
 So again 
 
 o. Sub Felice procuratore Judaeae 
 
 multi seductores etc. , 
 p. Claudius Filicem procuratorem Ju- 
 daeae mittit etc. 
 These examples are not the less in- 
 structive, because the transpositions are 
 due here not to the casual inadvertence 
 of a scribe, but to the deliberate arrange- 
 ment of an editor.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 231 
 
 Syncellus. As Linus is made by the tradition to succeed S. Peter in 
 the episcopate, the Hieronymian must be the original order. Indeed 
 this error would seem to have been introduced at a late date into the 
 Armenian text, for the Armenian chronicler Samuel gives the order 
 correctly. 
 
 This investigation, which may be carried much farther by any 
 one who is curious on the subject, suggests two, remarks. 
 
 (i) Where the comparison of the two versions in other parts of the 
 work shows divergences of date to be the general rule, rather than the 
 rare exception, it is lost labour to deal with these divergences as having 
 a special value in the case of the papal succession. To postulate docu- 
 ments and to surmise traditions in order to account for each such 
 divergence is to weave ropes of sand. 
 
 (2) As the divergences have no special value, so neither have the 
 coincidences. If the view which this examination has suggested be 
 correct, we should expect that here and there the two versions would 
 coincide in a date. Such a coincidence is a strong assurance that we 
 have at the particular point the correct text of Eusebius; but of the 
 absolute value of the date so given it is no guarantee whatever. It 
 expresses simply the opinion of Eusebius, and nothing more. To 
 take a case in point ; Lipsius assumes that because the Chronicle 
 and the History (with which latter Jerome here, as generally, coin- 
 cides) agree in giving the year 238 (Gordian i) for the accession of 
 Fabianus, therefore it was a date fixed by tradition {Chronologic p. 10, 
 Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. vi. p. 273); though at the same time he allows 
 that it is some two years later than the correct date. The necessity of 
 this concession might well have led him to reconsider not only his 
 opinion here, but his general principle of dealing with these divergences 
 and coincidences. 
 
 The following negative results follow from this discussion, (i) 
 There is no sufficient ground for assuming that Eusebius had different 
 documents before him, or that he adopted a different treatment, as 
 regards the papal chronology, in the two works, the Chronicle and the 
 Ecclesiastical History. (2) There is no adequate reason for postulating 
 two different recensions of the Chronicle by Eusebius himself. Even if 
 (as we have seen to be probable) there were two separate issues at 
 different dates, yet we are not entitled, so far as the evidence goes, to 
 assume that the later issue was anything more than the earHer with a 
 continuation down to the date of the later, the vicennalia. At all
 
 232 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 events this hypothesis will not assist us in the solution of our problem : 
 for the other edition was much earHer than the Armenian, and cannot 
 therefore have given a revised papal chronology. (3) We are not 
 justified in going beyond Jerome's own statement, as regards the 
 alterations which he himself introduced into the work of Eusebius. 
 Least of all, does the evidence support the theory of a systematic 
 readjustment of the early papal chronology, such as many writers have 
 ascribed to him. 
 
 These authorities then represent the single judgment — not two sepa- 
 rate and divergent judgments — of Eusebius alone; and our object must 
 be to compare the expression of this judgment as given in the two works, 
 the Chronicle and the History respectively. The real difficulty lies in as- 
 certaining the original statement of the Chronicle, where the divergences 
 are so great. In comparing the two main authorities — the Armenian 
 and Hieronymian texts — we must remember that the errors, being 
 clerical and literary, will not be all on the one side. As we should ex- 
 pect to find, considering the vicissitudes through which it has passed, the 
 Armenian is by far the most frequent offender ' ; but occasionally Jerome's 
 recension (or at least the existing text) is demonstrably wrong. As a 
 general rule it is safe to adopt the statement of that authority which 
 coincides with the History, but there may be exceptional cases. Very 
 rarely shall we be justified in calHng in some independent tradition or 
 some known fact of contemporary history to arbitrate. 
 
 Lipsius starts from the opposite point of view to this. The dis- 
 crepancies with him represent divergences in previous documents or 
 divergent judgments of the same or different authorities. It is only the 
 rare exception when he attributes them to the carelessness or the 
 manipulation of scribes. As he has contributed more than any recent 
 writer towards the understanding of the early papal chronology, it 
 cannot be otherwise than profitable to state the conclusions to which 
 he is led. Much light will be thrown on the questions which con- 
 front us, even where we are unable to accept his results. 
 
 His earlier view is contained in his Chronologic p. 8 sq. He there 
 divides the whole list into two parts; (i) From Peter to Urbanus, (2) 
 From Pontianus to Gaius. In the second part the Armenian and the 
 History generally coincide, so far as regards the term-numbers ; but in 
 the first part there is much difference. The discrepancy however is 
 chiefly at the beginning (Peter, Linus, Anencletus) and at the end 
 
 ^ Gutschmid's estimate [Ujttersiichiin- begin with (see above, p. 222, note i), he 
 gcji p. 39 sq) is somewhat more favour- assumes that its papal dates are correct. 
 able to the Armenian version. But to
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 233 
 
 (Victor, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Urbanus) of the series. In the inter- 
 mediate part of the Ust — from Clement to Eleutherus — there is sub- 
 stantial agreement. Again, the two nearly coincide in the date of the 
 death of Urbanus. It is true that in the History no imperial synchro- 
 nism is given for this event; but his accession is there placed some- 
 where about the first year of Alexander, and 8 years are assigned to 
 him, so that his death must on this reckoning fall within two years of 
 Alexander vii, which is the date assigned to it in the Armenian. Again, 
 while the numbers giving the duration of the several episcopates are 
 different in the two lists (the Armenian and the History), the sum total 
 of these from Peter to Urbanus inclusive coincides. It is indeed 191 
 years in the Armenian and only 189 in the History ; but if in the case 
 of Eleutherus we correct the error of Eusebius in assigning to him 13 
 years instead of 15, which appears in the other lists, the coincidence 
 is exact. Thus then the tradition underlying the two catalogues of 
 Eusebius (in the Chronicle and in the History respectively) agree in the 
 names, the order, and the sum total of the years from Peter to Urbanus. 
 As regards the discrepancies in the term-numbers, the early differences 
 (Peter, Linus, Anencletus) are due not to different traditions, but to 
 critical manipulation and adjustment ; the differences in the interme- 
 diate portion — between Clement and Eleutherus — are insignificant and 
 for critical purposes may be neglected ; but the differences at the end 
 of the Hst (Victor, Zephyrinus, Callistus) are so considerable as to point 
 to a separate source of tradition. 
 
 The latter part of the catalogues yields different results. In this 
 latter part both lists of Eusebius involve statements strangely at 
 variance with trustworthy information derived from other sources. In 
 order to explain these, it is necessary here by anticipation to speak of 
 the Liberian Catalogue which emanated from the Roman Church and 
 is incorporated by the Chronographer of 354. This catalogue gives 
 not only years, but months and days also. In the comparative table 
 however, which follows, I shall record only the years and months, 
 omitting the days, as we are not concerned with them here. The com- 
 plete document will be found below (p. 253 sq). It is clear from t!ie 
 comparison that Eusebius had before him for this period a similar list, 
 but blurred and mutilated, so that he has confused months and years 
 and produced a strangely incongruous result. In the table I have for 
 the sake of convenience added the Hieronymian and Syriac lists also 
 to those of the Armenian Chronicle and of the History, as I shall have 
 to refer to them presently; and for the same reason the table is con- 
 tinued down to Liberius, with whom the Liberian Catalogue ends.
 
 234 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 1 
 
 NAMES 
 
 LIBERIAN 
 
 H. E. 
 
 ARMEN. 
 
 SYR I AC 
 
 HIERON. 
 
 Pontianus 
 
 Ann. V, 
 
 m. ii 
 
 Ann. vi 
 
 Ann. viii 
 
 Ann. V. 
 
 Ann. V 
 
 Anteros 
 
 
 m. i 
 
 Mens, i 
 
 Mens, i 
 
 Mens, i 
 
 Mens, i 
 
 Fabianus 
 
 Ann. xiii, 
 
 m. i 
 
 Ann. xiii 
 
 Ann. xiii 
 
 Ann. xii 
 
 Ann. xiii 
 
 Cornelius 
 
 Ann. ii, 
 
 m. iii 
 
 Ann. iii 
 
 Ann. iii 
 
 Ann. ii 
 
 Ann. ii 
 
 Lucius 
 
 Ann. iii, 
 
 m. viii 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Mens, ii 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Stephanus 
 
 Ann. iiii, 
 
 m. ii 
 
 Ann. ii 
 
 Ann. ii 
 
 Ann. iii 
 
 Ann. iii 
 
 Xystus 
 
 Ann. ii, 
 
 m. xi 
 
 Ann. xi 
 
 Ann. xi 
 
 
 
 Dionysius 
 
 Ann. viii, 
 
 m. ii 
 
 Ann. viiii 
 
 Ann. xii 
 
 
 Ann. viiii 
 
 Felix 
 
 Ann. V, 
 
 m. xi 
 
 Ann. v 
 
 Ann. xix 
 
 Ann. V. 
 
 Ann. v 
 
 Eutycliianus 
 
 Ann. viii, 
 
 ni. xi 
 
 1 Mens. X 
 
 Mens, ii 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Gaius 1 
 
 Ann. xii, 
 
 m. iiii 
 
 Ann. XV 
 
 Ann. XV 
 
 Ann, XV 
 
 Ann. XV 
 
 Marcellinus I 
 
 Ann. viii, 
 
 m. iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 Marcellus 
 
 Ann. i. 
 
 m. vii 
 
 
 
 
 (omitted) 
 
 Eusebius 
 
 
 m. iiii 
 
 
 
 
 Mens, vii 
 
 Miltiades 
 
 Ann. iii, 
 
 m. vi 
 
 
 
 
 Ann. iiii 
 
 Silvester 
 
 Ann. xxi. 
 
 m. xi 
 
 
 
 
 Ann. xxii 
 
 Marcus 
 
 i 
 
 m. viii 
 
 
 
 
 Mens, viii 
 
 Julius 
 
 \ Ann. XV, 
 
 m. i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 A. xvi m. iiii 
 
 Liberius 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A glance at this table reveals the source of the errors in the Eusebian 
 chronology during this period. For Cornelius, Stephanus, and Xystus, 
 Eusebius sets down as years the numbers which in the original docu- 
 ment represented months. For the intermediate name of Lucius he gives 
 the months correctly as months but omits the iii years. The insertion 
 of the iii years indeed is an error in the existing text of the Liberian 
 document, for Lucius' episcopate lasted only viii months. In the case 
 of Eutychianus also the years are omitted, but (looking at the diverse 
 authorities) it may be a question here whether Eusebius treated the 
 years as months (viii of the Hieronymian and Syriac lists) or kept the 
 months as such (the x of the History, corrupted from xi). Lipsius 
 adopts the latter alternative, as consonant with his general theory of 
 the relation of the Hieronymian Chronicle to the Eusebian. For the 
 rest, the xv of Gaius is a corruption of xii, which we find in the Liberian 
 list and which is his correct term of ofiice. Conversely the viiii for 
 Dionysius gives the true number of years, so that in the viii of the 
 present Liberian text a unit must have been dropped. 
 
 His inference from this investigation is as follows. The original list 
 which was the foundation of the Eusebian catalogues ended with Eleu- 
 therus, at which point also the lists of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22) 
 and Irenseus {Haer. iii. 3. 3) stopped. This original list was continued 
 by various persons. When he compiled the Chronicle, Eusebius had one 
 such list before him, carried down to the death of Gaius and accession 
 of Marcellinus. When he wrote the History, he had obtained possession
 
 EARLY ROiMAN SUCCESSION. 235 
 
 of another such list, carried down to the same point. These two lists 
 were independent of each other for the first part — from Peter to 
 Urbanus; but for the latter part — from Pontianus to Gaius — they were 
 derived from the same source, and therefore are not to be regarded as 
 separate authorities. This source was, as we have seen, a corrupt and 
 mutilated copy of a list which was substantially the same as the Liberian 
 Catalogue. Of the two lists which Eusebius had before him, that 
 which he discovered after the compilation of the Chronicle was the 
 more correct; and seeing this, he substituted its numbers in his History^ 
 in place of those previously adopted by him in the Chronicle. 
 
 Jerome, according to Lipsius, treated the Chronicle of Eusebius with 
 a very free hand. For the imperial synchronisms and the term-numbers 
 which he found there, he substituted those which appear in the Histoj-y. 
 He did not however derive them directly from the History but from a 
 catalogue closely allied to that which Eusebius used for this work, yet 
 presenting affinities with later Latin catalogues (e.g. the Felician), of 
 which therefore it was presumably the parent. This catalogue had 
 originally ended with Urbanus, but was continued to Marcellinus, and 
 then again by another hand to Silvester. The document used for the 
 continuation was closely allied to the Liberian Catalogue. It was not 
 however the same document which had been used for the two Eusebian 
 lists. It was blurred and mutilated, like the Eusebian document ; for 
 Jerome, like Eusebius, confuses years with months. But Jerome pre- 
 serves the correct years both for Cornelius ii, where Eusebius sub- 
 stitutes the months iii, and for Stephanus iii, where Eusebius substitutes 
 the months ii. Again for Eutychianus, Jerome transforms the years viii 
 into months, whereas Eusebius omits the years altogether and gives 
 only the months x. On the other hand it was more correct in some 
 respects than our present Liberian text, for it preserved the correct 
 number of years for Stephanus (iii, not iiii) and for Dionysius (viiii, not 
 viii). In all this Lipsius sees evidence that Jerome had in his hands 
 besides the works of Eusebius a catalogue of Roman origin likewise. 
 
 The real gain here, for which Lipsius deserves our thanks, is the 
 explanation of the figures in Eusebius and Jerome for the period 
 between Pontianus and Gaius. He has rightly discerned that the 
 strange anomalies here arise from a mutilated and inaccurate transcript 
 {in which years and months were confused) of the document embodied 
 in the Liberian Catalogue. Erbes indeed has called this explanation 
 in question {Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol v. p. 640 sq); but he has been 
 refuted by Lipsius {ib. vi. p. 283 sq), nor is his view at all likely to 
 command assent. The relation between the Eusebian and Liberian
 
 236 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 lists is patent, when once pointed out. But our thanks are not the less 
 due to the critic who placed in our hands the key which unlocks the 
 secret. 
 
 The rest of this theorizing seems to me to be lost labour. So far 
 as regards the Eusebian lists, the break which Lipsius finds between 
 Urbanus and Pontianus is purely fictitious. When we come to con- 
 sider the Liberian Catalogue, we shall find a line of demarcation at this 
 point; but in Eusebius himself there is no indication of any difference 
 of treatment or variation of authority. Again, I need say nothing of 
 the different authorities which Eusebius is supposed to have employed 
 in composing the Chj'onide and the History respectively. At a later 
 date, as we shall see presently, Lipsius himself abandoned this earlier 
 view. For the rest, I have already stated at sufficient length what 
 I consider to be the true principle of explanation as regards the dis- 
 crepancies in the two works of Eusebius. But a few words may not 
 be out of place to dispose of the third document, which Lipsius adds to 
 the two Eusebian lists — the catalogue supposed to be used by Jerome. 
 For the period, which is covered by Eusebius, I cannot see any evidence 
 that Jerome travelled beyond Eusebius himself The differences in 
 the case of Cornelius ii (iii) and Stephanus iii (ii) are samples of the 
 commonest type of clerical error. The number of months viii assigned 
 to Eutychianus where the present text of Eusebius has x is quite as 
 easily explained by a confusion of h or 11 and 1, as by the hypo- 
 thesis of Lipsius. On the other hand a very serious demand is made 
 on our estimate of probabilities by Lipsius when he postulates two 
 corrupt copies of the Hst between Pontianus and Gains — one in 
 the hands of Eusebius and the other in the hands of Jerome — both 
 corrupt and mutilated in the same sort of way, so as to create a con- 
 fusion of years and months, and yet not with the same mutilations, 
 so that the results are different. For the concluding period from 
 Marcellinus to Damasus, where he had no longer the guidance of 
 Eusebius, I see no reason for supposing that Jerome had any list before 
 him. The Liberian list at all events cannot have been his authority, for 
 he diverges too widely from it. This period comprises eight names. One 
 of these, Marcellus, Jerome omits altogether. For another, Marcellinus, 
 he apparently gives a different form, Marcellianus. Of the names which 
 he has, he gives no figures at all for two out of the seven, Marcellianus 
 and Liberius. Of the remaining five, the figures for four — Eusebius, 
 Miltiades, Silvester, Julius — are different. Thus in the whole list there 
 is only one strict coincidence, in the case of Marcus, to whom viii 
 months are assigned in both lists. But Marcus held the episcopate
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 237 
 
 almost within his own lifetime; and the number here seems to be 
 strictly correct. In a single instance only, that of Julius, does he give 
 the months as well as the years; and though Julius likewise was his 
 contemporary, his numbers seem in this case to be wrong. Altogether 
 the phenomena suggest not transcription from a complete and definite 
 list, but recourse to such fragmentary knowledge as he had ready at 
 hand either in books or through personal enquiry or by direct knowledge 
 of the facts. 
 
 I need not follow the earlier speculations of Lipsius any further. 
 This line of treatment leads him to very complicated results, as may be 
 seen from the genealogy of early papal lists which he gives, Chronologie 
 p. 39 sq. His later theory involves the abandonment of these results 
 to a considerable extent, while it tends to greater simplification. But 
 he still fails to shake himself free from the preconceived opinion respect- 
 ing the Armenian Chronicle, which fetters his critical movements and 
 more or less affects his results. 
 
 His later investigations will be found in an article entitled Die 
 Bischofslisten des Eiisebiiis in Neue Stitdien zur Papstchronologie {Jahrb. 
 f. Protest. Theol. vi. p. 233 sq, 1880). He now supposes that Eusebius 
 had in his hands exactly the same documents, neither more nor fewer, 
 when he wrote his two works, the Chronicle and the History (see 
 pp. 241 sq, 245 sq, 266 sq, 274). These documents, so far as regards 
 the earlier popes — from Peter to Urbanus — were two in number. (A) An 
 Antiochene Chronicle which gave the accessions of the Roman bishops 
 under the regnal years of the emperors, as we find them recorded in 
 the History, and which likewise placed side by side the contemporaneous 
 Roman, Antiochene, and Alexandrian bishops. (B) A Catalogue of 
 the Roman bishops which gave simply the names and the duration of 
 office in years. In his History Eusebius for the most part gave the 
 statements of the two documents together, without any attempt to 
 reconcile them where there was a discrepancy. In his Chronicle on 
 the other hand he manipulated them, as the form of the work required 
 him to do, in order to adapt them one to another and to preconceived 
 chronological theories of his own. Of the documentary theory of 
 Lipsius I shall have something to say hereafter. For the present we 
 are only concerned with his attempt to explain the phenomena of the 
 Chronicle, which may be summed up as follows. 
 
 The martyrdom of S. Peter was placed by A in a.d. 67, and the 
 accession of Linus in a.d. 68. Thus reckoning 25 years backwards we 
 arrive at a.d. 42 as the beginning of S. Peter's episcopate. On the 
 other hand in B the martyrdom was placed in a.d. 64, the year of the
 
 238 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 fire at Rome and of the outbreak of the persecution, so that the acces- 
 sion of Linus would fall in a.d. 65. In the Chronicle Eusebius com- 
 bines the two. While retaining a.d. 67 as the year of Peter's death 
 with A, he adopts a.d. 65 as the year of Linus' accession from B. In 
 A the episcopate of Linus extends over twelve years, a.d. 68 — 79. In 
 B also his term of office is xii years, but Eusebius makes it xiv, so as to 
 fill up two out of the three additional years which he has gained by 
 ante-dating the accession of Linus. Thus the episcopate of Linus 
 extends over a.d. 65 — 78. The term-number of the next bishop 
 Anencletus is xii, and by adding on a single year Eusebius might have 
 made all straight. Why he did not adopt this very obvious expedient, 
 Lipsius does not explain. On the contrary, he supposes him to have 
 perversely reduced Anencletus' term of office from xii to viii, thus in- 
 creasing the number of superfluous years from one to five. But there 
 is more than compensation for this excess at the other end of the list. 
 Lipsius finds that the same year (Elagabalus i), which in the History is 
 assigned to the accession of Callistus, appears in the Chronicle as the 
 year of his death. This he supposes to be a blunder of Eusebius, 
 though Eusebius is quite explicit on the subject in his History, on 
 which he must have been engaged at the same time with his Chronicle. 
 By this error a loss of 6 or 7 years is incurred at the end of the list. 
 It is impossible therefore to allow Anencletus his full dozen of years, 
 and he is curtailed accordingly. But again there are unexplained 
 difficulties. Why should Anencletus especially be selected for this act 
 of robbery, though so many episcopates have interposed ? Why again 
 should he be robbed of four years, and four only, when five were 
 wanted? In the intermediate period the divergences vary on no in- 
 telligible principle ; nor is it easy to see what explanation can be given 
 of them, so long as Eusebius is held responsible for the Armenian 
 numbers. Certainly Lipsius has failed altogether to explain them. The 
 divergences expressed in years during this period (as will appear from 
 the table printed above, p. 208) are represented by this series, 
 
 I, 5> 6, 6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 7 ; 
 
 where the first and last are those of the accessions of Anencletus and 
 Callistus respectively. To explain the curtailment of Anencletus by the 
 blunder about Callistus, where there were twelve intervening episcopates 
 to draw upon, where the divergences vary in this capricious way, and 
 where the compensation might have been so much more easily obtained 
 in the immediate neighbourhood of Callistus, is to make a demand 
 upon the critical judgment which it will hesitate to meet.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 239 
 
 It will have appeared that the two main pillars of this theory are 
 first the speculation relating to 'the respective dates of the death of 
 S. Peter and the accession of Linus, and secondly the supposed error of 
 Eusebius in confusing the dates of the accession and death of Callistus. 
 On the first point I have said something already (pp. 228, 231) and 
 shall have to return to the subject at a later stage. The second may 
 be briefly dismissed. This is not the only episcopate in which the 
 accession of a pope in the Armenian synchronizes with his death 
 in the Hieronymian or the History, or conversely. The tables given 
 above (p. 208 sq) will show that the same phenomenon recurs in the 
 case of Hyginus, when it falls in the first year of Antoninus, and of 
 Stephanus, when it falls in the second year of Callus. Are we to 
 suppose that Eusebius was guilty of the same confusion in these two 
 cases likewise? If this is so, why should the coincidence deserve 
 special prominence in the case of Callistus, to the entire neglect 
 of these two strictly analogous cases ? 
 
 This account, however imperfect, of the earlier and later views of 
 so able and accomplished a critic as Lipsius will not have been in vain, 
 if it has shown the hopelessness of arriving at a solution, so long as the 
 papal chronology of the Chronicle, as it left the hands of Eusebius, is 
 sought in the Armenian version. 
 
 Indeed all the direct evidence tends in the opposite direction. We 
 have seen already that we are not warranted by anything in Jerome's 
 own language in supposing that he made such sweeping changes in the 
 papal chronology as on this assumption would have been the case. 
 Again, the Syriac epitonie in its papal chronology, coincides with the 
 Hieronymian version both in the term-numbers and in the dates of ac- 
 cession, proper allowance being made for occasional errors of transcrip- 
 tion'. Yet it is very improbable, as Lipsius himself says {Chronologie 
 p. 27), and as is allowed by Gutschmid (p. 26), that the Syrian epitomator 
 should have made use of Jerome ; and they can only offer the sugges- 
 tion that this epitomator must have had possession of a list closely allied 
 to that which was in Jerome's hands and altered his text accordingly, 
 or that such a list must have been already incorporated into the text 
 of the Chro?iicle which he had before him^ This theory in fact re- 
 
 1 The only divergence of any import- illustration of the procedure mentioned 
 
 ance is in the successive episcopates of above (p. 226), whereby an error in one 
 
 Xystus and Telesphorus, which are episcopate leads to a corresponding re- 
 
 3 -f- ■20 = 23 in the Syriac, whereas they adjustment in the next, so that the total 
 
 are 11 4- 11 = 22 in the Armenian and is the same or nearly the same. 
 
 10+11=21 in the Hieronymian (which ^ Gutschmid (1. c.) suggests that this 
 
 accords with the Flisfary']. This is an revised edition of the Chronicle was the
 
 240 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 quires us to postulate three separate persons manipulating the original 
 chronology of the Chronicle independently, but in the same way; (i) 
 Eusebius himself in his History^ (2) Jerome in his Latin version, and 
 (3) A Syriac translator or epitomator, or some previous person whose 
 text he used. 
 
 A little more light is thrown upon this question by the later Greek and 
 Oriental lists. The table on the next page exhibits the papal chronology 
 of these lists compared with the Eusebian. On the left hand of the 
 names are placed the Eusebian lists, as represented by the four different 
 authorities, a, b, c, d. On the right are the later lists. A is taken from the 
 'Short Chronography' {yjiQvoypa<^€iov dwroiLov) which was compiled in the 
 year 853 and professes to be derived ' from the works of Eusebius' {Ik 
 Twv Ev(T€/3iou Tov Ha/xt^tA-ou Trovr)jxdT(av). It was first published by Mai 
 {Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. i. p. 2 sq), and has been re-edited by Schoene 
 (Euseb. Chronicon i. App. iv. p. 66 sq). The papal list (TraTpiapxat 
 "PiDfXT]^) which it contains will be found in Duchesne Z/Z*. Pont. i. 
 p. 34 sq. The extract relating to Clement has been given above, 
 p. 198. The list of bishops in this catalogue is continued to Paschal i 
 (a.d. 817 — 824), but the term-numbers end with Pelagius i (Ia.d. 561), 
 so that the document on which this part of the chronography was 
 founded must belong to this epoch. B is from the Chronographica 
 Brans of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (fA.D. 828), and 
 will be found in de Boor's edition of his works, p. 121 (Leipzig, 1880). 
 It is given also by Duchesne Lib. Fontif. i. p. 37 sq. The extract 
 relating to Clement will be found above, p. 195. The term-numbers 
 reach as far as Benedict i (Ia.d. 579), the names alone being continued 
 down to Boniface iv (a.d. 608 — 615). C is gathered from, the notices 
 in Georgius Syncellus (see for example the notice given above, p. 195), 
 who wrote about a.d. 800. The collective list, thus gathered together, 
 may be seen in Lipsius Chronol. p. 30, or Duchesne Lib. Pont. i. p. 39. 
 The last pope whose accession is recorded is Benedict i (f a.d. 579). 
 D is from the Annales of Eutychius (Said-Ebn-Batrik), which work is 
 brought down to a.d. 937. He had a continuous catalogue of popes 
 which ended with John iv (a.d. 640 — 642), the successor of Severus 
 (t a.d. 640). This work was first published under the title Contextio 
 Geimnarum sive Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales by Selden 
 
 work of Eusebius himself and that its and (2) That this view fails to explain 
 
 home was Syria. To this I would reply the divergences in the two synchronous 
 
 (1) That, as I have already stated (p. 225), works, the History and the Armenian 
 
 there is no notice of any such revision ; Chronicle.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 241 
 
 H 
 
 ^; 
 u 
 
 5 
 
 
 Q 
 
 ;z; 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 
 
 <; 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 <-> 
 
 i 
 
 •s:g:s:S--5 X xx;S >-s:S > x|->;= >-S|== ": ■>•=•? 
 
 >%% 
 
 U 
 
 1 
 
 xviii 
 
 ii 
 viiii 
 viiii 
 
 xii 
 viiii 
 
 X 
 
 iiii 
 
 XV 
 
 xi 
 viiii 
 
 V 
 
 xii 
 xviiii 
 viii 
 vii 
 iii 
 
 xiii 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 viiii 
 viii 
 
 g 
 
 M 
 
 
 ii 
 
 xii 
 
 ii 
 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 
 xii 
 viiii 
 
 X 
 
 iiii 
 
 XV 
 
 xi 
 
 viiii 
 
 XV 
 
 xii 
 
 xviiii 
 
 viii 
 
 vii 
 
 iii 
 
 m. i 
 
 xiii 
 
 iii 
 
 ii 
 
 viiii 
 
 ii 
 
 viii 
 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 xxii 
 
 xii 
 xii 
 viiii 
 
 X 
 
 xiii 
 
 X 
 
 xi 
 xiiii 
 
 XV 
 
 xi 
 
 viii 
 xiii 
 
 X 
 
 xviiii 
 viii 
 vii 
 vii 
 
 m. i 
 
 X 
 
 iii 
 
 viii 
 
 ii 
 
 xi 
 
 viiii 
 
 X 
 
 ROMAN 
 BISHOPS 
 
 flj.— E„^ 3^- ?^D lJL^-^ Co— '■-•tUrt^O— , c3C>S-*L "V"-^ 
 
 U3 
 
 C 
 IS 
 
 ^ U t/l 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 w 
 m 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 :=:=;5iS ^ x-S;3 ^'S^^^ x| >==•> g iS ^•='><:| 
 
 X 
 
 vl 
 
 1 
 
 ^ .J ._,"^ ?s._- ■w'*-^ ^ xr^ i** " !> ^.^H f^ _j i**'-^ •ti^ 
 
 ^ . X 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 Si 
 
 !55 
 
 ^x^=||xx-x:h>-;;;|>x >^,>^^^^ | 
 
 . X 
 
 S 
 
 « 
 
 J* 
 
 XX 
 
 xiiii 
 viii 
 viiii 
 viii 
 
 x 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 iiii 
 
 XV 
 
 xi 
 viii 
 
 XV 
 
 xii 
 xii 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 m. i 
 xiii 
 
 iii 
 m. ii 
 
 ii 
 
 xi 
 
 xii 
 
 > A X 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 16
 
 242 . EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 and Pococke (Oxford 1658), and is reprinted in Migne's Patrol. Graec. 
 cxxi. p. 892 sq. E is the Chronography of Elias of Nisibis, who wrote 
 in the eleventh century. The autograph (in Syriac and Arabic) is in 
 the British Museum {Rich. 7197, fol. 5 b). It is edited by Abbeloos 
 and Lamy in Gregor. Barhebr. Chronicon i. p. 38 (Louvain 1872), but 
 had been previously given in a German translation by Lipsius C/irono- 
 logie p. 36 sq. from a transcript made by Sachau'. Elias gives a list of 
 the ' patriarchs ' of Rome from the time of the Apostles to the Council 
 of Chalcedon (Leo i). 
 
 Of these five lists ABCD concur in Avriting ' Soterichus' (SwTTypixos) 
 for Soter; BD have P'lavianus ($A.avtwos) for Fabianus ; and B has 
 Antros ("Avrpos) for Anteros. The names are occasionally so obscured 
 in D, that they would scarcely be recognized except for their position, 
 e.g. Aurianus, Bitianus, for Urbanus, Pontianus. Pontianus and 
 Anteros are transposed in C, so that Anteros takes the precedence, as 
 in the Felician list and in some copies of the Liber Pontificalis ; but 
 the note is added, ' Some say that Pontianus was bishop before Anteros' 
 (rtves IIovTiavov vrpo rov Avripioro'; (f)aaLV iTTLfTKOiTrjaai). The successor 
 of Linus is Anencletus in ABC and Cletus in E. In D he appears 
 as * Dacletius,' and this probably represents ' Cletus,' the first syllable 
 being the Arabic and Syriac prefix, just as Pius is written 'Dapius' in 
 Ancie?it Syriac Documents p. 71 (ed. Cureton). While C assigns 19 
 years to Zephyrinus, he adds, 'but according to Eusebius 12 years' 
 (xaTci Se Evcrc/Jtov err; SwScKa). 
 
 Comparing these lists together, we meet with frequent repetitions of 
 the usual types of error ; such as the omission or addition of letters, e.g. 
 yS' for k(^ or i^' in Petrus (B) and Anencletus (BCD), 18' for 8' in Hygi- 
 nus (A), etc. Again, other variations may be explained by a confusion of 
 letters, such as h and 1 (Euarestus x for viii in A). Again, others are 
 accounted for by accidental transpositions. The numbers of Stephanus 
 and Xystus in B, as compared with C, exhibit this last source of error. 
 If besides the confusions in the Greek notation we take into account 
 the Syriac and Arabic, and if, moreover, we are allowed to suppose 
 
 ^ There are several discrepancies be- rect numbers, where there are any discre- 
 tween these two transcriptions of the pancies. For Euarestus the number is 
 papal list ; and Duchesne (Lib. Font. i. viii, not x ; for Anteros, i vionth, not 
 p. 41) professing to derive his information \ycar\ for Fabianus xiii, not iii ; for Lu- 
 from one or other of these sources adds cius y'in years, not viii months; for Mar- 
 fresh variations of his own. By the cellinus x months, not x years ; for Mil- 
 kindness of Mr E. Budge who consulted tiades viii, not xviii ; for Damasus viii 
 the MS for me I am able to give the cor- years.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSIOx\. 243 
 
 that the lists in some cases passed through the medium of the Latin 
 language, we have an explanation which might cover all the variations. 
 
 A comparison of the Hsts shows at once that ABC are not inde- 
 pendent of one another. Not only have they the name Soterichus in 
 common (a feature appearing likewise in D, as we have seen), but in 
 the middle of the list (Zephyrinus ig, Callistus 8, Urbanus 7, and 
 partly Pontianus 7) they have characteristic numbers in common, which 
 do not appear in any of the Eusebian lists. For the rest the alliance of 
 all the lists with the Eusebian will be obvious. As regards A, if we set 
 aside the years of Peter which were a matter of speculation rather than 
 of tradition, if we except likewise the four pontificates just mentioned, 
 and if we correct the errors arising from the causes suggested in the 
 last paragraph, we get a complete Eusebian list. Lipsius maintains that 
 this Eusebian affinity is derived from the History not from the Chro- 
 nicle. This may have been the case, but the evidence is not con- 
 clusive. His main argument is the number xiii (instead of xv) for 
 Eleutherus, a peculiarity found in no other papal list. But the value 
 of this coincidence is largely discounted by the following considera- 
 tions, (i) In this chronographer's list Eleutherus is numbered the 
 13th bishop of Rome (S. Peter being counted in), so that there may be 
 a confusion here between the term-number and the order of succession ; 
 (2) The sequence xiii, x, given for Eleutherus, Victor, here is the same 
 sequence which is given a few lines above for Alexander, Xystus, so 
 that the eye of the transcriber may have wandered; (3) Though the 
 term-number in the Armenian Chronicle is 15, yet the iiiterral is only 
 13 years. Lipsius' theory is that these three lists ABC were based on an 
 independent catalogue; that this independent catalogue was followed 
 more strictly by BC ; but that in A it was corrected for the most part 
 from the History of Eusebius, and to this limited extent A's list might be 
 said to be derived 'from the works of Eusebius'. I would only remark 
 in passing that these words implying indebtedness to Eusebius have no 
 direct reference to the papal list, that they seem to refer more parti- 
 cularly to the general chronographical sketch which immediately 
 follows them, and that many other parts of this chronographer's work 
 were certainly not taken from Eusebius. For the rest, I agree so far 
 with Lipsius, as to think it probable that the features, which are shared 
 in common by these three authorities ABC and partly also by D, should 
 be attributed to another separate list ; but, whether this list was or was 
 not ultimately derived from the Eusebian list in the Chronicle, where 
 they travel over the same ground, is another question. The sources 
 and affinities of these lists, when they leave Eusebius behind, will be 
 
 16 — 2
 
 244 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a matter for investigation hereafter. It is clear that Syncellus had 
 two authorities before him, at least for some points. His statements, 
 respecting the years of Zephyrinus and the reversal of the order of 
 Anteros and Pontianus, show this. In the former case he evidently 
 adopts the number which he finds in the document common to ABC, 
 while he gives as the alternative the number 12, which he ascribes to 
 Eusebius and which is found only in the Armenian recension of the 
 Chronicle. In the latter case, he himself adopts the order which 
 places Anteros before Pontianus — an order which is wrong in itself 
 and appears only in some Latin lists ; but he mentions the other order 
 as adopted by ' some persons,' so that he must have had both before 
 him. In the fourth list, D, the affinities with the peculiarities of ABC 
 are very slight. Indeed beyond the name Soterichus there is very Httle 
 on which we can fasten, as suggesting an identity of source. The 
 numbers are for the most part Eusebian. Where they diverge from 
 Eusebius (e.g. in Urbanus, Anteros, Stephanus), they are generally 
 unique. The only exception is the two consecutive numbers, 9, 8, for 
 Xystus and Dionysius. In the last list E, there is no indication of the 
 use of any other but Eusebian data for any of the popes before the 
 persecution of Diocletian, except Gaius, the last of them, where for xv, 
 which is given in all the Eusebian lists, E has xii, which was the correct 
 number. All the other numbers are either Eusebian or ob\aous corrup- 
 tions of such. 
 
 Two important considerations are suggested by an inspection of 
 these lists. 
 
 (i) Of all ancient documents we should expect the Chronicle of 
 Eusebius to be taken as the authority for later lists. It was the most 
 famous and the most available source of information on this and similar 
 points. To this source, rather than to the History, we should expect 
 later compilers of chronographies and catalogues to turn for informa- 
 tion. In the Chronicle the required facts are tabulated in proper 
 sequence ; in the History they must be sought out here and there with 
 much pains, and pieced together. Yet in all these later Greek and 
 Oriental catalogues there is no trace whatever of the adoption of the 
 chronology of the Eusebian Chronicle, as a whole, if this chronology is 
 correctly represented by the Armenian version. On the other hand if the 
 Chronicle, as it left the hands of Eusebius, agreed substantially with the 
 History in its papal chronology, and if therefore it is properly repre- 
 sented not by the Armenian, but by the Latin translation and the Syriac 
 epitome, it has exerted its proper influence on subsequent lists. More- 
 over the phenomena are just what we might expect on this supposition.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 245 
 
 The form which the Chronicle has assumed in the Armenian version 
 was not the result of a single deliberate and systematic revision. It 
 was rather the gradual accumulation of transcribers' errors in the course 
 of transmission. On the former hypothesis we should expect the phe- 
 nomena of the Armenian version to be reproduced whole, where they 
 are reproduced at all, in later lists. Thus the assignment of xiv years 
 to Linus and viii years to Anencletus (instead of xii to each) was, 
 according to the view of Lipsius and others, a product of a single delibe- 
 rate act; the two numbers hanging together. We should expect therefore, 
 in the later catalogues, where we find the one, to find the other also. 
 On the other hand, if the individual variations are the result of isolated 
 errors, the one may easily be present where the other is absent. And 
 this is exactly what we do find. Thus in E the Armenian figure viii is 
 adopted for Anencletus, while the original xii for Linus remains un- 
 touched. The process of corruption was not completed, when Elias, or 
 rather the previous authority whom Elias copied, took his list from 
 Eusebius. 
 
 In the first instance then the divergences of the Armenian should 
 probably be attributed to the errors and caprice of transcribers, with 
 the compensations and corrections to which, as I have indicated above 
 (p. 226), these errors may have given occasion. But the question still 
 remains whether, over and above such isolated displacements, this form 
 of the Chronicle may not have undergone a systematic critical revision, 
 at least so far as regards the papal list, from some later hand. The one 
 single reason for this surmise lies in the fact that the dates of the papal 
 accessions are almost universally antedated, being on the average three 
 or four years earlier in the Armenian than in the Hieronymian form 
 or in the History. This fact suggests that some later critical reviser 
 had a theory with respect to the commencement of the list, and pushed 
 back the Eusebian dates accordingly throughout the whole line. On 
 this point it is impossible to speak with confidence, until some further 
 light is thrown on the subject. 
 
 (2) There is a singular agreement (after due allowance made for 
 corruptions) in all the lists, more especially in the early part from 
 Linus to Eleutherus. We must however set aside the years of Peter, 
 which (as I have already stated) were a matter of critical inference and 
 of arithmetical calculation based thereupon, and therefore vary in the 
 different catalogues. For the rest, even where the discrepancies seem 
 greatest, we often find that the total sum for two or three successive 
 popes coincides. Thus for Alexander and Xystus we have 12-1-9 = 21 
 in BC, but lo -f- 11 = 21 in the Armenian. So again for Victor, Zephyr-
 
 246 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 inus, and Callistus, we have 10 + 18 + 5 = 33 in the History and in 
 the Syriac Chronicle (presumably also in the Hieronymian), but 
 12 + 12 + 9 = 33 in the Armenian. Again for Urbanus and Pontianus 
 we have 9 + 5 = 14 in the Hieronymian and Syriac Chronicle, but 
 8 + 6 = 14 in the Zr/j-/(7;j. These agreements in the total sum, where 
 the items are different, may be explained by a tabular arrangement in 
 a parent document, similar to that which we have in the Eusebian 
 Chronicle. The limits kept their proper places, but the intermediate 
 positions were displaced and readjusted in different ways. 
 
 We may then with tolerable confidence restore the Eusebian cata- 
 logue as follows : 
 
 I. 
 
 Linus xii 
 
 15- 
 
 Callistus V 
 
 '-» 
 
 Anencletus xii 
 
 16. 
 
 Urbanus viiii (viii) 
 
 3- 
 
 Clemens viiii 
 
 17- 
 
 Pontianus v (vi) 
 
 4- 
 
 Euarestus viii 
 
 18. 
 
 Anteros mens, i 
 
 5- 
 
 Alexander x 
 
 19. 
 
 Fabianus xiii 
 
 6. 
 
 Xystus X 
 
 20. 
 
 Cornelius ii (iii) 
 
 7- 
 
 Telesphorus xi 
 
 21. 
 
 Lucius mens, viii 
 
 8. 
 
 Hyginus iiii 
 
 22. 
 
 Stephanus iii (ii) 
 
 9- 
 
 Pius XV 
 
 23- 
 
 Xystus xi 
 
 10. 
 
 Anicetus xi 
 
 24. 
 
 Dionysius viiii 
 
 II. 
 
 Soter viii 
 
 25- 
 
 Felix v 
 
 12. 
 
 Eleutherus xv 
 
 26. 
 
 Eutychianus mens, viii 
 
 13- 
 
 Victor X 
 
 27. 
 
 Gaius XV, 
 
 14. 
 
 Zephyrinus xviii 
 
 
 
 where the figures in brackets show the less probable but still possible 
 alternatives. 
 
 ■3. 
 
 THE LIBERrAM CATALOGUE. 
 
 This catalogue of the Roman bishops forms one of several tracts, 
 chronological and topographical, which were gathered together and 
 edited in the year 354'. It is sometimes called the Liberian from the 
 pope whose name ends the list and in whose time therefore presumably 
 it was drawn up, sometimes the Philocalian from Philocalus or Filocalus 
 
 ^ Mommsen (p. 607) remarks on the ed. Bonn.) ; but indeed the existence of 
 
 ♦mere accident' that the older recension this older recension has been questioned 
 
 of the Chronicon Paschale ended with by Clinton {Fast. Rom. 11. p. ■209) for 
 
 this same year (see Ducange 11. p. 16, valid reasons.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 247 
 
 whose name appears on the title page as the illuminator and who is 
 supposed consequently to have been the editor of the collection, some- 
 times the Bucheriaji from the modern critic Bucher who first printed 
 this Papal list in full and thus rendered it accessible to scholars {de 
 Dodrina Tempomm Co/nmentorius in Victorium Aquitatiiim, Antwerp, 
 1633, 1644). 
 
 This collection of tracts is the subject of an admirable monograph 
 by Th. Mommsen Ueber den Chronographen vomjahre 354, published in 
 the Abhandlungen der philolog. histor. Classe der Konigl. Sachs. Gesell- 
 schaft der Wissenschafien i. p. 549 sq. (1850), in which a flood of light 
 is thrown upon it by the sagacity and learning of this eminent scholar. 
 Mommsen's labours have been supplemented (so far as regards the 
 papal catalogue) by other scholars whose names have been mentioned 
 already (p. 201), and among whom the chief place must be assigned to 
 Lipsius. 
 
 The work is extant in two transcripts, each made from an earlier 
 MS now lost, but known to critics since the revival of letters. 
 
 (i) Bruxell. 7542 — 7548, a transcript made by H. Rossweyde from 
 an old MS, of which we hear as being at Luxembourg in 1560 and which 
 was afterwards in the hands of Peiresc. This MS is stated by Peiresc to 
 have been written in the viiith or ixth century. It contained elaborate 
 illuminations, of which he made copies, now preserved in the Vatican 
 Library (Fa/zV. 9135), 
 
 (2) Vindobon. 3416, a transcript in the Vienna Library made at 
 the end of the xvth century from an older MS. Some fragments of a 
 MS of the ixth century are still preserved at Berne {Bernens. 108), and in 
 all probability these belong to the original from which Vindobon. 3416 
 was transcribed. 
 
 Full accounts of these manuscripts will be found io .Mommsen 
 p. 550 sq. ; see also Duchesne Z. P. i. p. vi. 
 
 The contents of the two manuscripts differ in some respects. The 
 difference is exhibited in the following table : 
 
 Brussels MS. Vienna MS. 
 
 1. Title Leaf 
 
 2. [wanting] 
 
 3. Calendars 
 
 Imperial Amials to A.D. 539 
 
 4. Consular Fasti from a.d. 205 4. Consular Fasti from the be- 
 
 ginning 
 
 5. Paschal Tables 5. Paschal Tables
 
 248 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Brussels MS. 
 
 6. List of City Prefects 6. 
 
 7. Commemoration Days (De- 7. 
 
 positio) of Bishops and 
 Martyrs 
 
 8. Catalogue of Roman Bishops 8. 
 
 9. 
 
 wanting' 
 
 9- 
 
 10. 
 
 wanting 
 
 10. 
 
 II. 
 
 wanting 
 
 II. 
 
 I. 
 
 Title Leaf 
 
 
 2. 
 
 Natales Caesarum 
 
 
 3- 
 
 Calendars (mutilated) 
 
 
 Vienna MS. 
 
 List of City Prefects 
 Commemoration Days (De- 
 
 positio) of Bishops and 
 
 Martyrs 
 Catalogue of Roman Bishops 
 Imperial An7ials to a.d. 496 
 Chronicle of the World 
 Chronicle of the City 
 Regions of the City 
 
 The tracts are here arranged in the order in which they occur in the 
 two MSS respectively. The numbers I have prefixed for convenience, 
 so as to show the probable sequence in the original collection. 
 
 In the Brussels MS it is evident at once that the last leaves have 
 been displaced, either in this MS itself or in the parent ms from which 
 it was transcribed. Thus the tracts which I have numbered i, 2, 3, 
 should be transferred to the beginning. At the same time it is mu- 
 tilated in what ought to be the middle part (3, 4), the Calendars (3) 
 having gaps here and there, and the Consular Fasti (4) having lost the 
 beginning, so that instead of commencing with Brutus and CoUatinus 
 (a. u. c. 245) they commence with Antoninus 11 and Geta (a.d. 205). 
 Moreover this ms has lost the last three treatises (9) (10) (11) by mu- 
 tilation; if indeed these formed part of the collection of a.d. 354 and 
 were not added to it at a later date. 
 
 On the other hand the Vienna ms contains two tracts (those which 
 I have printed in Italics and have not numbered), which are wanting in 
 the Brussels ms, and which can have been no part of the original col- 
 lection, as is shown clearly by the date to which they are brought down. 
 These two sets of Imperial Annals are copied from two separate MSS of 
 one and the same work, both more or less mutilated. In some parts 
 (B.C. 47 — A.D. 45, A.D. 77^A.D. 387) they overlap each other, so that 
 we have the same matter twice over; while elsewhere (a.d. 404 — a.d. 
 437) there is a gap which neither supplies (see Mommsen p. 656 sq). 
 
 As a set-off against these additions, this manuscript omits the 'Na- 
 tales Caesarum' (2), probably because they have a place elsewhere in 
 the Calendar, and the repetition would seem unmeaning. 
 
 The Berne ms (see above, p. 247) contains only the end of the
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 249 
 
 Calendar (3) and the beginning of the Consular Fasti (4) as far as 
 A.D. 254. 
 
 The collection then consisted originally of the following parts. 
 
 1. Title Leaf, which bears the inscription, fvrivs . dionysivs 
 FiLOCALvs . TiTVLAviT. This Filocalus^ was a famous calligrapher, 
 whose name is found in connexion with the inscriptions set up by Pope 
 Damasus (a.d. 366-384) in the catacombs : see De Rossi Ro7n. Sotierr. 
 I. p. 118 sq, II. p. 196 sq, Bull, di Arched. Crist. 1877, p. 18 sq, 1884, 
 1885, p. 20 sq. He was therefore the author of the titles and illus- 
 trations and may have been also the editor of the work. The 
 work is dedicated to one Valentinus, as appears from the words 
 VALENTINE . LEGE . FELiciTER, and Other Sentences on this title leaf. 
 The identity of this person is doubtful, as several bearing the name 
 are known to have lived about this time. 
 
 2. Natales Caesarutn, i.e. the Commemoration Days of those 
 emperors who had been deified and of those who were still living. This 
 is closely connected with the Calendars which follow. 
 
 3. Calendars. Internal evidence shows that these Calendars were 
 constructed between a.d. 340 and a.d. 350. 
 
 4. Consular Fasti, being a list of consuls from the beginning down 
 to A.D. 354. 
 
 5. Paschal Tables, for a hundred years from a.d. 312. As far as 
 A.D. 342, the Easter Days actually celebrated at Rome are given. 
 From A.D. 343 onward the Easters are calculated according to the cycle 
 then in use in Rome. 
 
 6. City Prefects, a list giving the names for every year from a.d. 
 254 to A.D. 354. 
 
 7. Depositio Episcoporuin, giving the commemoration days of the 
 Roman Bishops, as follows : 
 
 Dionisi, in Calisti 
 Felicis, in Calisti 
 Silvestri, in Priscillae 
 Miltiades, in Calisti 
 Marcellini, in Priscillae 
 Luci, in Calisto 
 Gai, in Calisto 
 Steffani, in Calisti 
 Eusebii, in Calisti 
 Eutichiani, in Calisti 
 
 ^ So he appears alwaj's to write his own name, not Philocalus. 
 
 vi 
 
 Kal. Januarias 
 
 iii 
 
 Kal. Januar. 
 
 Prid. 
 
 Kal. Januar. 
 
 iiii 
 
 Idus Januarias 
 
 xviii 
 
 Kal. Feb. 
 
 • • • 
 
 111 
 
 Non. Mar. 
 
 X 
 
 Kal. Mai. 
 
 iiii 
 
 Non. Augustas 
 
 VI 
 
 Kal. Octob. 
 
 vi 
 
 Idus Decemb. 
 
 A.D. 
 
 268 ; 
 
 A.D. 
 
 274 ] 
 
 A.D. 
 
 335 ; 
 
 A.D. 
 
 314 ; 
 
 A.D. 
 
 304 ; 
 
 A.D. 
 
 254 ; 
 
 A.D, 
 
 296 
 
 'a.d. 
 
 257 ; 
 
 A.D. 
 
 309?' 
 
 "a.d. 
 
 283 ]
 
 250 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Non. Octob. Marci, in Balbinae [a.d. 336] 
 
 Prid. Idus Apr. Juli, in via Aurelia mi-) 
 
 liario iii, in Calisti J L- • • 35 J 
 
 The dates of the years are added here for convenience of reference. 
 It will thus be seen that chronologically the list begins with Lucius 
 [a.d. 254], and ends with Julius [a.d. 352] the immediate predecessor 
 of Liberius. The last two names however are a later addition. This 
 appears from the fact that the days of their depositions are no longer 
 given, as in the other cases, in the order of the calendar. The last 
 name on the original list therefore was that of Silvester, who died on 
 the last day of a.d. 335. Moreover this list must have been taken from 
 an earlier list, where the names were arranged not according to the 
 days in the calendar, but according to the year of their death. In this 
 way the omission of Marcellus, the successor of Marcellinus, is ac- 
 counted for. In the Roman calendar Marcellus was celebrated on 
 xvii Kal. Feb., and Marcellinus on vi Kal. Mai, so that the record 
 would run 
 
 Marcellini, vi Kal. Mai in Priscillae 
 
 Marcelii, xvii Kal. Feb. in Priscillae 
 
 In our Liberian Depositio the two lines are blended, the eye of the 
 transcriber having strayed from the one to the other'. Lastly; this 
 Depositio is complete within its own limits, Lucius to Julius, with the 
 single exception of Xystus 11 (t a.d. 258). He is omitted probably 
 because his name occurs in the document which follows, and which is 
 headed 
 
 Item Depositio Martirum. With two exceptions ('viii Kl. Janu. 
 Natus Christus in Betleem Judae,' and 'viii Kl. Martias, Natale Petri 
 de catedra ') this list gives only the days of martyrs. All these martyrs 
 are Roman with the exception of 
 
 Non. Martias, Perpetuae et Felicitalis, Africae 
 
 xviii Kl. Octob. Cypriani, Africae. Romae celebratur in Calisti 
 
 The places where the commemorations are held, and where pre- 
 sumably the martyrs were buried, are given in every case. In two or 
 
 ' This is substantially the solution of We have only to suppose a previous docu- 
 
 Mommsen (p. 631); but he has stated it ment, as I have done, and the difficulty is 
 
 in such a way as to expose himself to the met. Lipsius himself (pp. 72, 242) makes 
 
 objection urged by Lipsius {Chronol. p. a twofold postulate: (i) that Marcellinus 
 
 72), who pronounces this solution impos- was at first omitted altogether, and (2) 
 
 sible on the ground that in our Defosi/io that a transcriber has substituted his 
 
 the names are not in alphabetical se- name for Marcellus. For the view of De 
 
 quence, but in the order of the calendar. Rossi see Rom. Soft. 11. p. ix sq.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 25 1 
 
 three instances the dates of the deaths are marked by the consulships. 
 The only popes mentioned (besides S. Peter) are 
 
 viii Idus Aug. Xysti in Calisti 
 
 Idus Aug. Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Calisti 
 
 Pri. Idus Octob. Calisti in via Amelia, niiliario iii. 
 
 In the entry 
 
 V Idus Nov. dementis Semproniani Claudi Nicostrati in comitatum 
 
 some other Clement must be intended '. 
 
 8. Catalogue of Roma7i Bishops (as given below, p. 253 sq), ending 
 with Liberius, who was still living. His accession is a.d. 352. 
 
 9. Chronicle of the Worlds brought down to the consulship of 
 Optatus and Paulinus a.d. 334; of which I shall have something to say 
 presently. 
 
 10. Chronicle of the City, with the heading ' Item origo gentis Ro- 
 manorum ex quo primum in Italia regnare coeperunt.' It ends with 
 the death of the emperor Licinius (a.d. 324), and may therefore have 
 been drawn up in the same year as the last (a.d. 334), with which ap- 
 parently it is connected. 
 
 11. Description of the Regions of the City. It is without any heading 
 here, but is found elsewhere with the title Notitia Regionuin. It was 
 compiled after the dedication of the Horse of Constantine (a.d. 334) 
 and before the erection of the great obelisk in the Circus Maximus by 
 Constantius (a.d. 357). Mommsen supposes it to have been compiled 
 in the same year as (9) and (10), a.d. 334. If so however, it has 
 
 ^ The other names here associated dinger, in Biidinger Untcrsuch. z. Rom. 
 
 with Clement belong to the five Dalma- Kaisergesch. in. p. 3 sq, 321 sq, 339 sq, 
 
 tian stone-cutters of Diocletian (Sem- 357 sq, and De Rossi Bjdl. di Archeol. 
 
 pronianus or Symphorianus, Claudius, Crist. 1879, p. 45 sq, with their refer- 
 
 Castorius, Nicostratus, and Simplicius) ences. De Rossi (p. 75) regards ' Cle- 
 
 who were put to death by the tyrant (see mentis ' here as either corrupt or belong- 
 
 Mason's Diocletian p. 259 sq). Their ing to an unknown person. The Hiero- 
 
 cultus was early introduced into Rome, nymian Martyrology contains a double 
 
 where it was closely connected both in entry of these martyrs, 
 
 the locality and in the time of celebration vi Id. Nov. Romae natalis sanctorum 
 
 with that of the ' Quatuor coronati,' the Simplicii, Sympronii, Claudii, Cus- 
 
 four Roman martyrs, who were at first tori, Nicostrati. 
 
 anonymous but afterwards had the .names v Id. Nov. Romae natalis sanctorum 
 
 Severus, Severianus, Carpophorus, Vic- Clementis, Symphronii. 
 
 torianus, bestowed upon them. From The last would seem to be derived 
 
 this connexion much confusion has arisen. from this Liberian Depositio. See also 
 
 On the whole subject see especially Hun- above, pp. 99, 192. 
 ziker, Wattenbach, Benndorf, and Rii-
 
 2 52 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 been touched up afterwards, as in one place Constantine is called 
 ' Divus ', and he only died in a.d. 337. 
 
 It may be a question whether these three last pieces (9, 10, 11) 
 were incorporated in the original collection of a.d. 354, as they seem to 
 have been compiled twenty years earlier; or whether they were ap- 
 pended at a later date in some ms which was an ancestor of the Vienna 
 transcript. The former is the view of Mommsen (p. 609) and of 
 Duchesne (p. vii) ; and all the indications point that way. The Hst of 
 the emperors in (10) is required for the completeness of the work; 
 and (9) is intimately connected with (8), as will be seen presently. 
 They have evidently undergone some modifications since they were 
 compiled in a.d. 334, as the example already given of Divus applied to 
 Constantine shows, and this revision should probably be ascribed to 
 the Chronographer of a.d. 354. At the same time he has not taken 
 the pains to bring them strictly down to date, probably because it was 
 unimportant for his purpose to do so. 
 
 Of this compilation made by the Chronographer of a.d. 354,Mommsen 
 has edited all the parts in his monograph, except (i) (2) (3), i.e. the 
 Calendars with the Title Leaf and the Natales Caesarum prefixed, and 
 (11) the Notitia Regionum. The first group however (i) (2) (3) is 
 published by Mommsen elsewhere, Corp. Inscr. Lat. i. p. 332 — 356 ; 
 and the last tract (n) has been edited by Preller Die Regionen der 
 Stadt Rom (Jena 1846) and by H. Jordan Forma Urbis Romae 
 Regionum xiii (Berlin 1874) p. 47 sq (see likewise Becker and 
 Marquardt Rom. Altcrth. i. p. 709 sq). 
 
 The Liberian Catalogue is printed by Mommsen (p. 634) with a 
 collation of various readings. The lacunae are supplied by him from 
 the later documents derived from this catalogue — the different editions 
 of the Liber Pontificalis. Where I have departed from Mommsen's 
 text, the fact is stated in my notes. In these notes FK denotes re- 
 spectively the Felician and Cononian abridgements of the assumed 
 earlier form (c. a.d. 530) of the Liber Pontificalis, while P is used to 
 designate the later form (a.d. 687) of this work. BV are the Brussels 
 and Vienna mss of the Liberian Catalogue itself. When I speak of 
 ' the Fasti,' I mean the Consular Fasti included in the collection of the 
 Chronographer of a.d. 354. In preparing this text of the Liberian 
 Catalogue, I have consulted those of Lipsius {Chronologie p. 26^) and of 
 Duchesne {Lib. Font. i. p. i sq.), comparing them with Mommsen. Oijly 
 those various readings are here given which have some interest, and I 
 have not aimed at a complete list. The dates of the different con-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 253 
 
 sulships are added in brackets for convenience. This papal list has no 
 special heading in the MSS. 
 
 Imperante tiberio caesare passus est dominus noster IESUS 
 CHRISTUS DUOBUS geminis cons. [a.d. 29] viii kl. apr., et post 
 ascensum eius beatissimus petrus episcopatum suscepit. ex 
 quo tempore per successionem dispositum, quis episcopus, quot 
 
 ANNIS PREFUIT, VEL quo IMPERANTE. 
 
 Petrus, ann. xxv, mens, uno, d. viiii. Fuit temporibus Tiberii Caesaris 
 
 et Gai et Tiberi Claudi et Neronis, a cons. Minuci' et Longini 
 
 [a.d. 30] usque Nerine et Vero [a.d. 55]. Passus autem cum Paulo 
 
 die iii Kl. lulias, cons, si, imperante Nerone. 
 Linus, ann. xii, m. iiii, d. xii. Fuit temporibus Neronis, a consulatu 
 
 Saturnini et Scipionis [a.d. 56] usque Capitone et Rufo [a.d. 67]. 
 Clemens, ann. ix, m. xi, dies xii. Fuit temporibus Galbae et Vespa- 
 
 siani, a cons. TracaU et ItaUci [a.d. 68] usque Vespasiano vi et Tito^ 
 
 [a.d. 76]. 
 Cletus, ann. vi, m. duo, dies x. Fuit temporibus Vespasiani et Titi et 
 
 initio Domitiani, a cons. Vespasiano viii et Domitiano v [a.d. 77]' 
 
 usque Domitiaho ix et Rufo [a.d. 83]. 
 Anacletus*, ann. xii, m. x, d. iii. Fuit temporibus Domitiani, a cons. 
 
 Domitiano x et Sabino [a.d. 84] usque Domitiano xvii et Clemente 
 
 [a.d. 95]. 
 Aristus, annos xiii, m. vii, d. duos. Fuit temporibus novissimis Domi- 
 tiani et Nervae et Trajani, a cons. Valentis et Veri [a.d. 96] usque 
 
 Gallo efBradua [a.d. 108]. 
 Alexander, ann. viii^ m. ii, d. uno. Fuit temporibus Trajani, a cons. 
 
 Palmae et TuUi [a.d. 109] usque Veliano*' et Vetere [a.d. 116]. 
 SIXTUS^ ann. x, m. iii, d. xxi. Fuit temporibus Adriani, a cons. Nigri 
 
 et Xproniani [a.d. 117] usque Vero iii et Ambibulo [a.d. 126]. 
 Teles FORUS, annos xi, m. iii, d. iii. Fuit temporibus Antonini Macrini", 
 
 ^ 'Minuci,' a corruption of 'Vinicii.' with VFK. 
 
 Again just below 'Nerine (Nervae in V) ^ For Mommsen's vii (with V) I have 
 
 et Vero' should be 'Nerone et Vetere.' substituted viii with B, which has 'annis 
 
 All these are correct in the Fasti. octo.' This is also required by the in- 
 
 * This should be 'Vespasiano vii et terval of the consulates. 
 
 Tito V,' as in the Fasti. ® The true name is Aeliano, as in the 
 
 VThe consuls of this year are 'Vespa- Fasti. 
 
 siano viii, Tito vi', but the Fasti give " So the MSS here ; but FK have Xystus 
 
 '-Domitiano v', as here; see Klein Fast. (Xistus). See also below, p. -256, note 3. 
 
 Consul, p. 45. ® For 'Macrini', FKP read 'et Marci.' 
 
 ■^ So B. Mommsen has 'Anaclitus' Probably therefore 'Macrini' is an error
 
 254 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a cons. Titiani et Gallicani [a.d. 127] usque Caesare et Balbino' 
 
 [a.d. 137]. 
 HiGiNUS, ann. xii, m. iii, d. vi. Fuit temporibus Veri et Marci, a cons. 
 
 Magni^ et Catnerini [a.d. 138] usque Orfito et Frisco [a.d. 149]. 
 Anicetus, arm. ziii, m. iiii., d. iii^. Fuit temporibus Veri* et Marci a 
 
 cons. Gallicani et Veteris [a.d. 150] usque Presente et Rufino 
 
 [a.d. 153]- 
 
 Pius, ann. xx, m. iiii, d. xxi. Fuit temporibus Antonini Pii, a cons. 
 Clari et Severi [a.d. 146] usque duobus Augustis [a.d. 161]. Sub 
 hujus episcopatu frater ejus Ermes librum scripsit, in quo man- 
 datum continetur, quod ei praecepit angelus, cum venit ad ilium 
 in habitu pastoris. 
 
 SoTER, ann. ix, m. iii, d. ii. Fuit temporibus Severi, a cons. Rustici 
 et Aquilini [a.d. 162] usque Cethego et Claro [a.d. 170]. 
 
 Fleutherus, ann. xv, m. vi, d. v^. Fuit temporibus Antonini et 
 Comodi, a cons. Veri" et Hereniani [a.d. 171] usque Paterno et 
 Bradua [a.d. 185]. 
 
 Victor, ann. ix, m. ii, d. x. Fuit temporibus Caesaris^, a cons. Corn- 
 modi ii et Glabrionis [a.d. 186] usque Laterano et Rufino [a.d. 197]. 
 
 of a transcriber whose eye has wandered 
 lower down. 
 
 ^ Mommsen has 'Albino' with V. I 
 have substituted the correct name 'Bal- 
 bino,' which appears in B. 
 
 - This consul's true name is 'Nigri,' 
 as it appears in the Fasti ; but ' Magui ' 
 is found in FKP. 
 
 * This lacuna in the MSS is supplied 
 by Mommsen from F. He however omits 
 the numbers of the years, months, and 
 days, of Anicetus, inasmuch as F derives 
 these numbers from another source and 
 is not to be followed on this point. The 
 years which I have inserted are those pro- 
 perly belonging to Hyginus, in accord- 
 ance with the rule of displacement which 
 is given below, p. 271 sq. The months 
 and days are those assigned in F to Pius, 
 according to another rule of displacement 
 likewise indicated Ijelow, p. 267 sq. See 
 also the next note but one. Lipsius 
 {Jahrb. f. Prot. Thecl. vi. p. 89) treats 
 these numbers as I have done. 
 
 * So it is read in KP, but Mommsen 
 
 has Sevej-i with F. 
 
 * The numbers for Eleutherus and 
 Zephyrinus I have filled in after Lipsius 
 {Chronologic p. 6},, Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. 
 VI. p. 89) from those MSS of the Liber 
 Pontificalis which have been corrected 
 throughout from the Liberian Catalogue ; 
 see below, p. 282. Though the numbers 
 for Anicetus were supplied from other 
 authorities, the result would have been 
 just the same, if I had taken these MSS 
 of the Liber Pontificalis as my guide ; 
 and this is a proof of the justice of the 
 principle. 
 
 ® This consul's name is not Veri, but 
 Severi. It is rightly given in the Fasti. 
 
 ' The lacuna is filled in mainly from 
 FP. The general name 'Caesar' for a 
 particular emperor or emperors is strange, 
 but occurs in all the three authorities 
 FKP. The true consulship of a.d. 186 
 is 'Commodi v Glabrionis ii,' but it is 
 given as here in FP, and K has a cor- 
 ruption of the same. Here therefore the 
 ii of Commodus is a corruption of v,
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 255 
 
 Zephvrinus, arm. xix^ m. vii, d. x. Fuit temporibus Severi et Antonini, 
 a cons. Saturnini et Galli [a.d. ig8] usque Presente et Extricato 
 [a.d. 217]. 
 
 Callistus', ann. v, m. ii, d. x. Fuit temporibus Macrini et Eliogabali, 
 a cons. Antonini et Adventi [a.d. 218] usque Antonino iii et 
 Alexandro [a.d. 222]. 
 
 Urbanus, ann. viii, mens, xi, d. xii. Fuit temporibus Alexandri, a 
 cons. Maximi et Eliani [a.d. 223] usque Agricola et Clementino 
 [a.d. 230]. 
 
 PoNTiANUS, ann, v, m. ii, d. vii. Fuit temporibus Alexandri, a cons. 
 Pompeiani et Peligniani [a.d. 231]. Eo tempore Pontianus epi- 
 scopus et Yppolitus presbyter exoles sunt deportati in Sardinia, in 
 insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano^ cons. [a.d. 235]. In eadem 
 insula discinctus est iiii Kl. Octobr., et loco ejus ordinatus est 
 Antheros xi Kl. Dec. cons. ss. [a.d. 235]. 
 
 Antheros, m. uno, dies x. Dormit iii Non. Jan. Maximo" et Africano 
 cons. [a.d. 236]. 
 
 Fabius, ann. xiiii, m. i, d. x. Fuit temporibus Maximi et Cordiani et 
 Filippi, a cons. Maximini^ et Africani [a.d. 236] usque Decio ii et 
 Grato [a.d. 250]. Passus xii Kl. Feb. Hie regiones divisit dia- 
 conibus et multas fabricas per cimiteria fieri jussit. Post passionem 
 ejus Moyses et Maximus presbyteri et Nicostratus diaconus com- 
 prehensi sunt et in carcerem sunt missi. Eo tempore supervenit 
 Novatus ex Africa et separavit de ecclesia Novatianum et quosdam 
 confessores, postquam Moyses in carcere defunctus est, qui fuit ibi 
 m. xi, d. xi. 
 
 Cornelius, ann. ii, m. iii, d. x, a consul. Decio iiii et Decio ii' [a.d. 251] 
 usque Gallo et Volusiano [a.d. 252]. Sub episcopatu ejus Novatus 
 extra ecclesiam ordinavit Novatianum in urbe Roma et Nicostratum 
 in Africa. Hoc facto confessores, qui se separaverunt a Cornelio, 
 
 which is correctly given in the Fasti, 
 where however the ii of Glabrio is omit- 
 ted as here. At the end of the lacuna, 
 FKP transpose the names, 'Antonini et 
 Severi,' but the order 'Severi et Anto- 
 nini ' which must have stood in our text 
 is the correct one, as Caracalla is intended 
 by Antoninus. 
 
 * So in B, but Mommsen has Calixtus 
 with V. 
 
 - So B. Mommsen has 'Quintino' 
 with V. 
 
 ' Maximino should be written for 
 Maximo here; and Maximini for 'Maxi- 
 mi ' two lines below. The consul of 
 a.d. 236 was the emperor Maximinus 
 himself. 
 
 ■* Maximini, as B ; but Mommsen's 
 text has Maximiani with V. 
 
 ^ The consuls of a.d. •251 were Decius 
 iii and Decius Caes. ; those of a.d. 252, 
 Gallus ii and Volusianus ; those of A. i). 
 253, Volusianus ii and Maximus. They 
 are all rightly given in the Fasti.
 
 256 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 cum Maximo presbytero, qui cum Moyse fuit, ad ecclesiam sunt 
 reversi. Post hoc Centumcelis expulsi. Ibi cum gloria dormi- 
 cionem accepit. 
 
 Lucius, ann. iii, m. viii, d. x. Fuit temporibus Galli et Volusiani, a 
 cons.^ Galli et Volusiani [a.d. 252] usque Valeriano iii et Gallieno ii 
 [a.d. 255]. Hie exul fuit, et postea nutu Dei incolumis ad eccle- 
 siam reversus est. Dormit^ iii Non. Mar. cons. ss. 
 
 Steffanus, ann. iiii, m. ii, d. xxi. Fuit temporibus Valeriani et 
 Gallieni, a cons. Volusiani et Maximi [a.d. 253] usque Valeriano 
 iii et Gallieno ii [a.d. 255]. 
 
 Xystus^ ann. ii, m. xi, d. vi.* Coepit a cons. Maximi et Glabrionis 
 [a.d. 256] usque Tusco et Basso [a.d. 258] et passus est viii Id. 
 Aug., et presbyteri praefuerunt^ a cons. Tusci et Bassi [a.d. 258] 
 usque in diem xii Kl. Aug. Aemiliano et Basso cons. [a.d. 259]. 
 
 DiONisius, ann. viii, m. ii, d. iiii. Fuit temporibus Gallieni, ex die xi 
 Kl. Aug. Aemiliano et Basso cons. [a.d. 259] usque in diem vii Kl. 
 Jan. cons. Claudi et Paterni [a.d. 269]. 
 
 Felix, ann. v, m. xi, d. xxv. Fuit temporibus Claudi et Aureliani, a 
 cons. Claudi et Paterni [a.d, 269] usque ad consulatum Aureliano 
 ii et Capitolino [a.d. 274]. 
 
 Eutychianus, ann. viii, m. xi, d. iii. Fuit temporibus Aureliani, a 
 cons. Aureliano iii et Marcellino [a.d. 275] usque in diem vii® Idus 
 Dec. Care ii et Carino cons. [a.d. 283]. 
 
 Gaius, ann. xii, m. iiii, d. vii. Fuit temporibus Cari et Carini, ex die 
 xvi Kal.' Jan. cons. Carino ii" et Carino [a.d. 283J usque in x Kl. 
 Mai Diocletiano vi et Constantio ii [a.d. 296]. 
 
 Marcellinus, ann. viii, m. iii, d. xxv. Fuit temporibus Diocletiani 
 et Maximiani, ex die prid. Kl. lulias a cons. Diocletiano vi et 
 Constantio ii [a.d. 296] usque in cons. Diocletiano viiii et 
 
 1 These words Galli et Vohisiani a 
 cons, are wanting in our Mss and in 
 FKP. They are absent also in the texts 
 of Mommsen, Lipsius, and Duchesne. 
 The insertion is needed for symmetry 
 with the other entries, and the omission 
 by scribes is easily explained by the 
 repetition of the names. 
 
 - Dormit is supplied by Mommsen, 
 being absent from the mss. 
 
 ' So VF, but B has Sixtus ; see above, 
 p. 253, note 7. 
 
 * F inserts here, ' Fuit temporibus 
 
 Valeriani et Decii,' but it should be 
 'Valeriani et Gallieni.' It is wanting 
 in K. 
 
 ° These three words are inserted from 
 F, where however they are displaced. 
 
 ^ So too Lipsius and Duchesne read 
 vii with B ; Moinmsen has iiii with V. 
 Tlie Depos. Episc. (see above, p. 249) has 
 vi Idus. 
 
 ^ For xvi Kal., B has vii Kal., and F 
 XV Kal. 
 
 8 It should be Caro ii, as correctly 
 given above.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 Maximiano viii [a.d. 304]. Quo tempore fuit persecutio et ces- 
 savit episcopatus, ann. vii, m. vi, d. xxv. 
 
 Marcellus, annum unum, m. vii', d. xx. Fuit temporibus Maxenti, 
 a cons, x et Maximiano^ [a.d. 308] usque post consulatum x et 
 septimum [a.d. 309]. 
 
 EusEBius, m. iiii, d. xvi ; a xiiii Kl. Maias usque in diem xvi Kl. Sept. 
 
 MiLTiADES, ann. iii, m. vi, d. viii^; ex die vi Nonas Julias a consulatu 
 Maximiano* viii solo, quod fuit mense Sep. Volusiano et Rufino 
 [a.d. 311], usque in iii Id. Januarias Volusiano^ et Anniano coss. 
 [a.d. 314]. 
 
 Silvester, ann. xxi, m. xi. Fuit temporibus Constantini, a consulatu 
 , Volusiani et Anniani [a.d. 314] ex die prid. Kl. Feb. usque in diem 
 Kl. Jan. Constancio et Albino coss. [a.d. 335]. 
 
 Marcus, mens, viii, dies xx. Et hie fuit temporibus Constantini, 
 Nepotiano et Facundo coss. [a.d. 336] ex die xv Kl. Feb. usque 
 in diem Non. Octob. coss. ss. 
 
 luLius, ann. xv, m. i, d. xi. Fuit temporibus Constantini, a consulatu 
 Feliciani et Titiani [a.d. 337] ex die viii Id. Feb. in diem pridie Idus 
 Apr. Constancio v et Constancio Caes. [a.d. 352]. Hie multas 
 fabricas fecit : basilicam in via Portese miliario iii ; basilicam in via 
 Flaminia mil. ii, quae appellatur Valentini ; basilicam luliam, quae 
 est regione vii juxta forum divi Trajani; basilicam trans Tiberim 
 regione xiiii juxta Calistum**; basilicam in via Aurelia mil. iii ad 
 Callistum. 
 
 ^ So BP, and it explains the iiii of 
 other catalogues; but Mommsen has vi 
 with V. Duchesne reads vi tacitly, not 
 mentioning a v. I. ; Lipsius rightly adopts 
 vii, Chronol. pp. 136, 248, 264. 
 
 ^ In A.D. 308 the consuls were Maxi- 
 mianus x, Galerius vii ; but Galerius 
 bore the name Maximianus also. In the 
 Fasti the year is designated as here ' De- 
 cies, et Maximiano vii.' The following 
 year also appears in the Fasti as ' Post 
 consul. X et septimum ' in accordance 
 with the designation here. 
 
 3 So V, but B has ix. 
 
 * Mommsen has ' Maximiniano,' ob- 
 viously a printer's error. In the con- 
 sular Fasti attached to this Chronography 
 (Mommsen p. 623) this year is designated 
 'Maximiano solo.' In the list of City 
 Prefects {ib. p. 628) it is marked by the 
 note 'Consules quos juaaerint dd.nn. 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 AVG. Ex jnense Septembris factum est 
 Rufino et Eusebio.' Mommsen in his 
 note here says it should be 'Volusiano 
 Rufino et Eusebio'; see also De Rossi 
 Rom. Sott. II. p. vii. The name of the 
 City Prefect given for the preceding year 
 is ' Rufius Volusianus.' See also Tille- 
 mont Empereurs IV. p. 630 sq, on the 
 various discrepancies in the authorities 
 for this year's consulate. The Maximi- 
 anus here meant is Galerius. He issued 
 the edict putting an end to the persecu- 
 tion on April 30, and died a few days 
 afterwards. See Clinton Fast. Rom. i. 
 p. 358, II. p. 82. 
 
 ^ This should be Volusiano ii, but the 
 ii is omitted in the Fasti also. So again 
 three lines below. 
 
 ^ V has 'Calixtum' here, and 'Callis- 
 tinu' just below. The readings in the 
 text are those of B. 
 
 17
 
 258 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 LiBERius, . Fuit temporibus Constant!, ex die xi Cal. Tun. 
 
 in diem a consulatu Constantio v et Constantio Caes. 
 
 coss. [a.d. 352]. 
 
 Of the other treatises in this collection the only one which claims 
 our special attention is the Chronicle of the World, as being closely con- 
 nected with this Papal Catalogue with which alone we are directly con- 
 cerned. This connexion is traced with great sagacity by Mommsen 
 p. 585 sq; see also Duchesne Lib. Font. i. p. ix sq. 
 
 It has been mentioned already that this Chronicle of the World, as 
 it stands in our collection, is brought down to the year 334. After the 
 table of contents and the preface follows the heading 
 
 Incipit chronica Horosii 
 Liber generationis mundi 
 
 Plainly the ascription to Orosius is wrong, for he did not flourish till a 
 century later. His name was doubtless prefixed to this anonymous 
 work, as that of a well known chronographer. 
 
 But this same Chronicle is extant elsewhere in a different recension, 
 under the title 'Liber Generationis.' In this latter form and under 
 this title, it is prefixed to the work of the so called Fredegar (a.d. 641), 
 and is likewise found separate in two mss in the Middlehill collection, 
 no 1895 of the 8th or 9th cent., and no 12266 of the loth. The former 
 has been long known ; the latter was brought to light a short time ago 
 by Mommsen {Hermes xxi. p. 142 sq). Though this second MS bears 
 evidence that it is derived from an earlier ms written a.d. 359, and 
 though it contains other matter of the highest interest, which Mommsen 
 has recently made the subject of a valuable paper on Latin Stichometry 
 (1. c), yet for our particular subject it is of inferior value to the other, 
 and contributes nothing new. 
 
 When we compare the two forms together, it becomes evident at 
 once that they are two independent Latin translations of a Greek 
 original. A comparison of an extract from the table of contents will 
 best show this ; 
 
 (A) Liber Generatio7iis (B) Chronographer of i^d^ 
 
 Declaratio gentium quae ex qui- Manifestationes gentium, que gen- 
 bus factae sunt ; tes ex quibus nate sunt ; 
 
 Et quas singuU terras et civitates Et quas singuli eorum provincias 
 sortiti sunt ; et civitates habitaverunt ; 
 
 Quantae insulae clarae ; Quot insule manifeste ; 
 
 Qui ex quibus gentibus transmi- Qui ex quibus gentibus advene 
 graverunt. facti sunt.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 259 
 
 Again A has 'bellorum commissiones,' where B has ' civitatum 
 conventiones,' a various reading ■n-oXejj.wv o-uo-Ta'crets for Tro'Xecov crvo-Tacrcts 
 (see Mommsen p. 593). 
 
 The recension A however is not brought down to the year 334, but 
 terminates with the 13th year of Alexander Severus, which is mentioned 
 more than once, e.g. 'a passione usque ad hunc annum, qui est xiii 
 imperii Alexandri annus,' and accordingly .the catalogue of the 
 emperors ends with 'Alexander annis xiii, diebus ix.' It seems there- 
 fore to have been compiled in the year of Alexander's death a.d. 234, 
 so that it is just a century older than the recension incorporated by our 
 chronographer. At all events it must date from some time during the 
 reign of his successor Maximinus. All these references to the 13th year 
 of Alexander are omitted in B. 
 
 Who then is the author of this Chronicle in its earlier form as 
 represented by A ? The so called Fredegar (Canisius Led. Atitiq. 11. 
 p. 218, ed. Basnage, 1725) names as the sources of his work, 
 *Beati Hieronymi, Idatii, et cujusdam sapientis seu Isidori, imoque 
 et Gregorii chronicas.' As the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th books are taken 
 from Jerome, Idatius, and Gregory, it follows that this ' quidam sapiens 
 seu Isidorus' is given as his authority for the first. The form of 
 expression moreover shows that he was not acquainted with the 
 name of the author of this Chronicle, but conjectured that it might 
 be Isidore. He was evidently catching at the first straw which 
 came in his way, Isidore being a well known chronographer. The 
 ascription to Isidore however would involve a greater anachronism 
 even than the ascription to Orosius. Ducange {Chroii. PascJi. 11. p. 23 sq, 
 ed. Bonn.) first suggested the true author, Hippolytus of Portus. In 
 the catalogue of this father's works, inscribed on his chair, is one 
 entitled xronikoon. In another of his works, the Paschal Tables, which 
 are given in full there, the Easter Days are noted from a.d. 222 — 237. 
 Thus the time of the compilation of this Chronicle of the World would 
 fit in exactly with its Hippolytean authorship. Moreover the state- 
 ments in this Liber Generationis harmonize with the very scanty notices 
 elsewhere referring to the chronology of Hippolytus'. There can 
 hardly be any doubt therefore that it is a translation of the xronika. of 
 Hippolytus. Basnage indeed (Canisius Z<?^/. Ant. 11. p. 148) ascribed it 
 to Africanus; but Africanus wrote some years too early, under Elagabalus 
 (a.d. 221). 
 
 ^ See on this subject (in addition to the iir. p. 92, Krusch Neues Archiv vii. 
 remarks of Mommsen) Salmon 1. c. p. p. 456sq (1882), Gelzer 6Vjt:./?</z«j ^/n- 
 ^iS(\, Diet, of Christ. Biogr. i. p. 506 sq, canus ii. p. i sq (1885). 
 
 - 17 — 2
 
 26o EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 There is good reason however for believing that Hippolytus ap- 
 pended to his Chronica a list of the Roman bishops. At the^ close of 
 the table of contents in recension A we have 
 
 Nomina episcoporum' Romae et quis quot annis praefuit. 
 
 No catalogue of the Roman bishops however follows, either in 
 Fredegar or in the Middlehill MS. In Fredegar it was doubtless omitted 
 because he gives elsewhere a more complete list carried down to pope 
 Theodore (a.d. 642 — 649) ; and the Middlehill MS is imperfect at the 
 end, so that it is impossible to say whether the catalogue appeared 
 there originally or not. On the other hand in recension B (the form of 
 this chronicle given by the Chronographer of 354) neither the table of 
 contents nor the body of the work bears any traces of this catalogue. 
 What account can be given of the omission ? For an answer to this 
 question we must turn to the catalogue of Roman bishops given in 
 another place by this chronographer. 
 
 This catalogue, which is printed above (p. 253 sq), comprises the 
 series of the Roman bishops from S. Peter to Liberius. The length of 
 office is given in each case in years, months, and days. The beginnings 
 and ends of the several episcopates are indicated by the consulships of 
 the several years. The names of the emperors who reigned during their 
 several tenures of office are given. Occasional notes also are added, 
 recording events of importance in the history of the Roman Church. 
 
 This description applies to the whole series. But the catalogue is 
 not homogeneous throughout. There is a marked break at Pontianus 
 (a.d. 231 — 235). During the earlier period up to this point the con- 
 sulships are reckoned as if the several episcopates began and ended 
 with the beginning and ending of a year. In other words the con- 
 sulate for the accession of any one bishop is the consulate for the year 
 next following the consulate for the death of his immediate predecessor. 
 Thus the reckoning of the consulates is inconsistent with the cor- 
 responding durations of office, where not whole years only, but the 
 additional months and days are given. In the latter part of the list 
 from the death of Pontianus onward the consulships are given on a 
 more rational principle. The explanation of this fact seems to be that 
 the editor who added the consulships found no dates in this earlier 
 part — from S. Peter to Pontianus — to guide him, whereas for the later 
 popes — from Pontianus onward — there were already in the document, 
 
 ^ On the reading see Duchesne Lib. in the recently discovered Middlehill MS 
 Pont. I. p. iii, Mommsen Hermes xxi. p. (no 12266), and this thesis is wanting. 
 144. The table of contents is abridged
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 26 1 
 
 if not occasional consulships, at least dates which served to determine 
 the consulships, ready to hand. At all events it suggests that the 
 earlier parts had a separate origin from the later. Moreover there is in 
 the earlier part an exceptional absence of those notices of remarkable 
 events which after Pontianus are given with frequency. From Peter to 
 Pontianus two such incidents only are recorded — the day of S. Peter's 
 crucifixion, and the authorship of the Shepherd, of Hermas. 
 
 This point however at which we find a break in our catalogue is just 
 the date when Hippolytus wrote his Chronick ; and to this, as we have 
 seen, he appears to have attached a list of the Roman bishops. We 
 are thus led to the conclusion that we have here the list of Hippolytus 
 himself, detached from its former connexion, altered in some respects, 
 and completed (as the Chronicle itself is completed) to bring it down 
 to date. We are confirmed in this opinion by finding that the first 
 notice in the supplementary portion, added to this presumably Hip- 
 polytean list, contains a notice of Hippolytus himself; ' Eo tempore 
 Pontianus episcopus et YppoHtus presbyter exoles sunt deportati in 
 Sardinia, in insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano cons.' [a.d. 235]. It 
 would naturally occur to the continuator to add this memorandum re- 
 specting the author of the list which he took as his basis. 
 
 The original list of Hippolytus however did not contain all the 
 matter which appears in the later recension. The heading of Hippolytus' 
 list was, as we have seen (p. 260), 'Nomina episcoporum Romae et 
 quis quotannis praefuit.' The heading in our chronographer is ' Per 
 successionem dispositum, quis episcopus, quot annis prefuit, vel quo 
 ijnperante.^ The addition of the words which I have italicized indicates 
 that the synchronisms of the emperors were an addition of a later 
 editor. This view is borne out, as we shall see (p. 265 sq), by the chro- 
 nological confusion which they involve, and which would have been 
 hardly possible, if they had formed part of the original document. 
 Again the consulships, as we have seen, form another of these later 
 additions. Lastly; the months and days were most probably a third 
 such addition. The words of the heading ' quot annis ' suggest that 
 only the years were given by Hippolytus himself. Moreover the fact 
 already mentioned, that the consulships take no account of the months 
 and days, seems to show that these were added after the addition of 
 the consulships either by the same person or by some later editor. 
 The authorship of the notes may be doubtful, but there is much to be 
 said for the opinion that these were from the pen of Hippolytus him- 
 self. The notice respecting the Shepherd of Hermas seems intended 
 to discredit the pretensions of that work to a place in the Canon and
 
 262 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 therefore would probably be written at a time when such pretensions 
 were still more or less seriously entertained'. With the possible ex- 
 ception of these notes the Catalogue of Hippolytus seems to have con- 
 tained nothing but a list of the bishops in succession with the durations 
 of their respective episcopates given in years only. 
 
 But there is a difficulty attending the ascription of this list to Hippo- 
 lytus. The author of the Philosophumena, who is now generally allowed 
 to have been Hippolytus, speaks of Callistus in language which seems 
 inconsistent with his recognition in this list as a genuine pope. Even 
 Zephyrinus, the predecessor of Callistus, is described in terms which do 
 not harmonize with the respect due to so high an office. Accordingly 
 Dollinger, who maintains that Hippolytus was the first antipope, feels 
 himself constrained to reject the Hippolytean authorship of this papal 
 list'. Hort also {Academy, Sept. 15, 187 1, p. 436), partly I suppose for 
 this same reason, would ascribe the original list from 8. Peter to Pon- 
 tianus, not to Hippolytus himself, but to some contemporary writer. If 
 however there be any force in this objection it may easily be met by 
 supposing that this part of the catalogue was altered subsequently, so as 
 to conform to the recognized opinion of the Roman Church respecting 
 its episcopal succession, by one of the later editors, say the next con- 
 tinuator, who carried the list down to Lucius (a.d. 255) and who seems 
 to have been the author of the note respecting the fate of ' Hippolytus 
 the presbyter.' If indeed Hippolytus, the author of the Philosophumena, 
 was in any sense an antipope, as there are some grounds for surmising, 
 the designation ' presbyter ' applied to him by the continuator of his 
 work, as contrasted with ' episcopus ' applied to Pontianus, may be 
 regarded as an indirect protest against these assumptions. It would 
 not surprise us to find that the earliest antipope was coeval with the 
 earliest Western papal catalogue. A dispute respecting the succes- 
 sion would naturally stimulate enquiry and lead to the formation of 
 rival lists. We have at least one clear example of this phenomenon in 
 the later history of the papacy. At the close of the fifth century the 
 Roman Church was distracted by a contest between Symmachus and 
 
 ^ The motive would be the same as 
 with the author of the Min-atorian Canon, 
 who has a precisely similar note (p. 58, 
 ed. Tregelles). Salmon indeed (p. 122 
 sq) is disposed to identify this anony- 
 mous author with Hippolytus. 
 
 * Hippolytus u. Kallistiis p. 67 sq. 
 He argues that Hippolytus cannot have 
 been guilty of two such great blunders as 
 
 (i) to make two persons out of Cletus or 
 Anacletus, and (2) to transpose the names 
 of Pius and Anicetus. I agree with him 
 so far as to regard these errors as almost 
 inconceivable in one occupying the posi- 
 tion of Hippolytus; but I have endea- 
 voured to show lower down that they are 
 both the work of some later editor.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 263 
 
 Laurentius for the papacy. Symmachus finally prevailed by the inter- 
 position of Theodoric. The first known edition of the Liber Fontificalis 
 was the offspring of this age. It takes the side of the recognized pope 
 Symmachus. But there is also extant the concluding fragment of 
 another similar document, dating from this same epoch, which as dis- 
 tinctly ranges itself with his antagonist Laurentius in this dispute. 
 Unfortunately it is only a fragment, and we are not able to say 
 whether they were two entirely different documents, or whether they 
 were substantially the same document with two different endings — 
 the divergence beginning with the outbreak of the feud. If this latter 
 hypothesis be true, we have a parallel to the suggested double form of 
 the Hippolytean catalogue'. 
 
 But the break already discussed is not the only indication of different 
 authorships in this list. For the papacies from Pontianus [a.d. 231 — 
 235] to Lucius [a.d. 253] the notices of contemporary events affecting 
 the Roman Church are incomparably fuller than for the preceding or 
 the succeeding times. Moreover the dates for this period are strictly 
 correct, due allowance being made for errors of transcription. Thus 
 the first continuator of the Hippolytean list seems to have written under 
 the successor of Lucius and to have described the events of the twenty 
 intervening years from personal knowledge, possibly having access also 
 to official documents. This second break was first pointed out, I be- 
 lieve, by Lipsius {^Chrotiologie '^. 42 sq; comp. Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 
 VI. p. 82 sq) ; and it has been accepted by Hort {Academy I. c. p. 435), 
 Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. ix), and others. 
 
 But again ; there are indications of a third break towards the end of 
 the catalogue. After an entire absence of historical notes from Lucius 
 onwards, an elaborate notice — the most elaborate in the whole docu- 
 ment — is appended to the name of Julius [a.d. 337 — 352] the im- 
 mediate predecessor of Liberius, containing an enumeration of the 
 churches built by him. It is an obvious and reasonable inference that 
 this notice was the work of a contemporary, and presumably therefore 
 of the Liberian editor him.self, whether Filocalus or another. The 
 immediate predecessor of Julius is Marcus who was bishop less than a 
 year and of whom probably there would be nothing to record. Thus 
 we are carried back to Silvester, the predecessor of Marcus, who died 
 on Dec. 31, 335. But we have seen above (p. 249 sq) that the Depositio 
 
 ^ There is another difficulty in sup- 21), Hippolytus placed the Crucifixion 
 
 posing this Catalogue in its present form A.D. 28, whereas our author dates it (see 
 
 to be the product of Hippolytus. If p. 253) a.d. 29. See however Salmon p. 
 
 Gelzer be right {Africanus ii. pp. 19, 96, and Diet, of Christ. Biogr. I. p. 507.
 
 264 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Episcoporuin was originally carried down to this same pope's death, and 
 that the subsequent names were added afterwards. We have seen 
 likewise that three other documents (9) (10) (11), incorporated (as 
 would appear) by the Liberian editor, belong to this same date, having 
 been compiled in a.d. 334 or a year or two later. The Depositio there- 
 fore would appear to have belonged to this same group, which was 
 synchronous with the second editor of the Hippolytean Chronicle, who 
 brought it down to the death of Silvester. 
 
 It follows from this investigation that in order to arrive at the 
 Hippolytean nucleus in the first portion of the Catalogue — from 
 S. Peter to Pontianus — we shall have to eliminate any matter added by 
 three successive editors or continuators ; (i) The continuator who 
 added the portion from Pontianus to Lucius (supposing that this part 
 was added on to the original document in the age of Lucius and did 
 not — as is quite possible — remain a separate document till the time of 
 the next editor) ; (2) The continuator who carried the record on from 
 Lucius to Silvester or (if we take the alternative hypothesis in the last 
 sentence) who carried it on from Pontianus to Silvester, incorporating a 
 separate document for the period from Pontianus to Lucius ; (3) The 
 final editor who added the last three names, thus carrying it on from 
 A.D. 334 to A.D. 354. For this purpose it will be convenient to treat 
 the matter under four several heads. 
 
 (i) In separating the earlier part of the list — from S. Peter to 
 Pontianus — into its component elements, our attention is first directed 
 to the consulships. The dates obtained from these consular names are 
 exhibited in the table on the next page. 
 
 It appears from this table that the consulships are a later addition, 
 and the modus operatidi of the editor to whom they are due betrays 
 itself. He takes only complete years, disregarding the months and 
 days, either because they were not in the list before him or because, 
 being there, they seemed unworthy of notice. He also treats the 
 episcopates as all beginning on Jan. i and ending on Dec. 31. Moreover 
 having a fixed date (a.d. 29) for the Crucifixion at the top of the list, 
 and a fixed date (a.d. 235) for the death of Pontianus at the bottom, 
 he works downwards from Peter to Anicetus, arriving at a.d. 153 for 
 Anicetus' death, and works upward from Pontianus to Pius, arriving at 
 a.d. 146 for Pius' accession. But, inasmuch as he makes Pius the suc- 
 cessor of Anicetus, this last date ought according to his reckoning to be 
 A.D. 154. Thus he overlaps himself by eight years. The names of the 
 consuls (making allowance for errors of transcription) are the same as
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 265 
 
 in the Consular Fasti included by the Chronographer of 354 in his 
 work (see above, pp. 247, 249), and apparently were taken from this 
 document. This will have been evident from the coincidences which 
 are given in my notes (p. 253 sq). 
 
 Bishops 
 
 D 
 
 URATION 
 
 Consulates 
 
 
 ann. 
 
 mens, dies 
 
 A. D. 
 
 Petrus 
 
 XXV. 
 
 i. ix 
 
 30—55 
 
 Linus 
 
 xii. 
 
 iiii. xii 
 
 56-67 
 
 Clemens 
 
 ix. 
 
 xi. xii 
 
 68 76 
 
 Cletus 
 
 vi. 
 
 ii. x 
 
 77-83 
 
 Anacletus 
 
 xii. 
 
 X. iii 
 
 84—95 
 
 Aristus 
 
 xiii. 
 
 vii. ii 
 
 96 — 108 
 
 Alexander 
 
 viii. 
 
 ii. i 
 
 109 — 116 
 
 Xystus 
 
 X. 
 
 iii. xxi 
 
 117 — 126 
 
 Telesphorus 
 Hyginus 
 [x\nicetus' 
 Pius 
 
 xi. 
 xii. 
 
 XX. 
 
 iii. iii 
 iii. vi 
 
 iiii, xxi 
 
 127 137 
 
 [138—149] 
 
 150 153 
 146 — 161 
 
 Soter 
 
 ix. 
 
 iii. ii 
 
 [162 — 170] 
 
 [Eleutherus 
 Victor 
 
 ix. 
 
 ii. X 
 
 171 185 
 [186 — 197] 
 
 [Zephyrinus 
 Callistus 
 
 V. 
 
 ii. X 
 
 198 — 217 
 218 — 222 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 viii. 
 
 xi. xii 
 
 223—230 
 
 Pontianus 
 
 V. 
 
 ii. vii 
 
 231 235 
 
 Nevertheless these consular dates have a value, as enabUng us to 
 correct the numbers of the years, where they have been corrupted by 
 transcription, and to restore the original text of the Chronographer of 
 354. Thus for S. Peter these consular dates give xxvi instead of xxv, 
 for Cletus vii instead of vi, for Pius xvi instead of xx, for Victor xii 
 instead of ix. The corruption in this last case is not easily explic- 
 able ; yet the consular dates are clear, and moreover the result derives 
 some support from the Eusebian lists. In other cases, where the text 
 is mutilated, they enable us to replace the missing numbers, e.g. iv 
 for Anicetus, xv for Eleutherus, xx for Zephyrinus. 
 
 (2) The ifuperial synchronisms for the most part accord with the 
 consulates. During the time of the Antonines however, at which 
 point the confusion in the chronology reaches its climax, they do not 
 agree, while they are inconsistent among themselves, as the following 
 table will show ;
 
 266 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 BISHOPS 
 
 CONSULATES 
 
 IMPERIA L S YNCHR ON I SMS 
 
 Xystus 
 
 A.D. 117 — 126 
 
 Hadrianus 
 
 A. D. 118 — 138 
 
 
 
 fAntoninus 
 
 138— 161 
 
 Telesphonis 
 
 127—137 
 
 \Marcus 
 
 161 — 180 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 138—149 
 
 jVerus 
 (Marcus 
 
 161 — 169 
 161 — 180 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 150 153 
 
 (Verus 
 (xMarcus 
 
 161 — 169 
 161 — 180 
 
 Pius 
 
 146 — 161 
 
 Antoninus Pius 
 
 138— 161 
 
 Soter 
 
 162 — 170 
 
 Verus 
 
 161 — 169 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 171— 185 
 
 jAntoninus 
 (Commodus 
 
 161 — 180 
 180 — 192 
 
 It is unnecessary for my purpose to attempt to explain the blunders 
 and inconsistencies in these synchronisms. Clearly they cannot have 
 been the work of Hippolytus. 
 
 (3) I have already stated (p. 261) that the weeks and days can have 
 formed no part of the original document. But whence they came, and 
 what is their value, is a matter for consideration. Besides this Liberian 
 Catalogue, they appear likewise in two other authorities, 
 
 (i) A series of papal catalogues dating from the age of Felix iii 
 (t A.D. 492) and Hormisdas (t a.d. 523) onward, all founded on a 
 common original, which presumably belonged to the age of Leo the 
 Great (a.d. 440 — 461). An account will be given of these lower down. 
 
 (ii) The FeUcian Book, which is the oldest form of the Liber 
 Po7itificalis, dating about a.d. 530, and of which likewise I shall have 
 occasion to speak hereafter. The two main authorities employed in 
 this Felician Book, so far as regards the dates and numbers, are ; 
 (a) The Liberian Catalogue itself, and {^) The Papal Catalggue which 
 has just been mentioned, and which for convenience I shall call the 
 Leotiine. 
 
 For the earliest bishops the Leonine list has the order of Eusebius — 
 Petrus, Linus, Cletus (or Anacletus), Clemens, Euarestus — without 
 the duplication of Cletus and Anacletus. On the other hand in the 
 Felician Book the series runs ; Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Ana- 
 cletus, Euarestus, thus duplicating Cletus and Anacletus with the 
 Liberian Catalogue, yet not agreeing with this authority in placing 
 Clemens immediately after Linus but retaining him in his proper 
 traditional place as the fourth in order or ' the third after Peter', so 
 that he stands between Cletus and Anacletus.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 267 
 
 The following table then will exhibit the relations between the lists. 
 In the Liberian Catalogue, for Anicetus, Eleutherus, and Zephyrinus, 
 where there are lacunse in the extant mss, I have supphed the missing 
 numbers from certain mss of the Liber Pontificalis, which show that 
 their figures have been revised throughout by those of the Liberian 
 Catalogue'. The numbers of years, months, and days, in the Felician 
 Book are obviously taken from the Leonine Catalogue, though they 
 do not always exactly coincide, the stream of transmission having been 
 corrupted in both cases by clerical errors of the usual type. Having 
 regard to the manifest connexion between the Liberian numbers on 
 the one hand and the Leonine and Felician on the other, I have felt 
 justified, where there are variations, in adopting the reading which 
 brings the Liberian figures into closer accord with the other authorities, 
 and conversely. The variations however are few and unimportant. 
 
 LIBERIAN 
 
 LEONINE 
 
 AND 
 
 FELICIAN 
 
 Names 
 
 Ann. 
 
 Mens. 
 
 Dies \ 
 
 Ann. 
 
 Mens. 
 
 Dies 
 
 Names 
 
 I. Petrus 
 
 XXV. 
 
 i. 
 
 viiii 
 
 xxv. 
 
 ii. 
 
 iii 
 
 I. 
 
 Petrus 
 
 1. Linus 
 
 xii. 
 
 iiil. 
 
 xii '■ 
 
 xi. 
 
 iii. 
 
 xii 
 
 1. 
 
 Linus 
 
 3. Clemens 
 
 viiii. 
 
 xi. 
 
 xii 
 
 xii. 
 
 i. 
 
 xi 
 
 I- 
 
 Cletus 
 
 4. Cletus 
 
 vi. 
 
 ii. 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 viiii. 
 xii. 
 
 ii. 
 x. 
 
 X 
 
 iii 
 
 4- 
 
 Clemens 
 Anacletus 
 
 5. Anacletus 
 
 xii. 
 
 x. 
 
 iii 
 
 viiii. 
 
 x. 
 
 ii 
 
 5- 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 6. (Eu)areslus 
 
 xiii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 ii 
 
 x. 
 
 vii. 
 
 ii 
 
 6. 
 
 Alexander 
 
 7. Alexander 
 
 viii. 
 
 ii. 
 
 i 
 
 x. 
 
 ii. 
 
 i 
 
 7- 
 
 Xystus 
 
 8. Xystus 
 
 X. 
 
 iii. 
 
 xxi 
 
 xi. 
 
 iii. 
 
 xxi 
 
 8. 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 9. Telesphorus 
 
 xi. 
 
 iii. 
 
 iii 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 iiii 
 
 9- 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 10. Hyginus 
 
 xii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 vi 
 
 xi. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii 
 
 10. 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 II. [Anicetus 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii] 
 
 xviiii. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii 
 
 II. 
 
 Pius 
 
 12. Pius 
 
 XX. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 xxi 
 
 viii. 
 
 vi. 
 
 xxi 
 
 12. 
 
 Soter 
 
 13. Soter 
 
 viiii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 ii 
 
 XV. 
 
 iii. 
 
 ii 
 
 13- 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 14. [Eleutherus 
 
 XV. 
 
 vi. 
 
 V] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15. Victor 
 
 viiii. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X , 
 
 X. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X 
 
 14. 
 
 Victor 
 
 16. [Zephyrinus 
 
 xviiii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 X] \ 
 
 xviii(viii). 
 
 vii. 
 
 X 
 
 15- 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 17. Callistus 
 
 v. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X 
 
 V. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X 
 
 16. 
 
 Callistus 
 
 18. Urbanus 
 
 viii. 
 
 xi. 
 
 xii 
 
 viiii(iiii). 
 
 X. 
 
 xii 
 
 17- 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 In comparing the two tables it will be remembered that for the 
 present we are concerned only with the months and days. The rela- 
 tion of the years depends on a wholly different principle, which will be 
 investigated hereafter. As regards the months and days, it will be 
 seen that there is a wide divergence in the case of S. Peter. A 
 
 * See above, p. 254, note 5, and below, p. 287.
 
 268 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 possible explanation of this is given by Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. xx). 
 Both lists take the traditional day of his martyrdom (June 29) as the 
 close of his episcopate ; but it is calculated in the one as commencing 
 from the Crucifixion, in the other from the Day of Pentecost. We 
 thus get 
 
 From March 25 (Crucifixion) to June 29; m. iii. d. iiii, 
 ,, May 15 (Pentecost) „ „ m. i. d. xiiii ; 
 
 numbers which closely resemble the figures in the two tables respec- 
 tively, and from which they would be derived by easy corruptions. 
 From this point onward, taking the Leonine list which omits Anacletus 
 (whose name accordingly I have not numbered), we see at a glance 
 that for twelve episcopates — from Linus to Soter in the Liberian list 
 — the same numbers for the months and days (making allowance for 
 corruptions) are assigned to the bishops who occupy the same position 
 in the series, whether they are different persons or not. The only case 
 about which there can be any doubt is the third name in the list 
 (Clemens in the Liberian, Cletus in the Leonine), but even here the 
 discrepancy may easily be explained by the dropping of letters (xi 
 into i, or la' into a'). From this point onward we have obviously 
 an identical list, though occasionally in the present texts a v has been 
 split up in ii (e.g. vi and iii for the days of the loth bishop) or con- 
 versely (e.g. iiii and vi for the months of the 12th bishop), or a unit 
 has been dropped ; but even such divergences are rarer than might 
 have been expected. This mechanical transference of the figures from 
 the one list to the other, irrespective of the persons, has had a curious 
 result. Inasmuch as there is one name more, Anacletus, in the 
 Liberian list than in the Leonine, from this point onward for nine 
 episcopates the figures of any one bishop in the Liberian list are those 
 of the next bishop in the Leonine. The displacement continues as far 
 as Soter and Eleutherus. With Victor the irregularity is set straight, 
 and from this point onward the same bishop has the same numbers 
 in both lists. It should be added that when the Felician editor, taking 
 as his basis the Leonine list, inserted the name Anacletus from the 
 Liberian Catalogue, he naturally assigned to him the numbers which 
 were affixed to his name in that catalogue, so that in the Felician series 
 the same numbers occur twice in succession — first for Anacletus and 
 then for Euarestus — 
 
 mens. x. dies iii (ii). 
 
 But which was the original position of these figures for the months 
 and days — the Liberian or the Leonine ? There is nothing in the lists
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 269 
 
 which decides this question. Nor do the numbers themselves indicate 
 what was their earUest position. They seem to have been an arbitrary 
 invention, based on no historical or traditional data. They do not bear 
 any relation to the days on which the several bishops were com- 
 memorated in later ages. The reasons for attributing the priority to 
 the one assignment rather than to the other must be sought elsewhere. 
 Nor are such reasons wanting. On the following grounds I venture to 
 think that these numbers were due to the Liberian Catalogue in the 
 first instance, and that consequently they occupy their original position 
 in this list. 
 
 (i) The Liberian Catalogue is a century and a half or two cen- 
 turies older than the Felician and Hormisdan lists, in which the other 
 attribution first appears. There are indeed grounds for believing that 
 these Fehcian and Hormisdan lists had a progenitor in the age of 
 Leo I, but even this is a century later than the Liberian Catalogue. 
 On the other hand we find no trace whatever of these months and 
 days before the Liberian Catalogue. Even Jerome who wrote about 
 a quarter of a century later betrays no knowledge of them. 
 
 (2) The history of the Liberian list explains how their origination 
 may have been suggested to the compiler. In the later continuation to 
 the list from Pontianus onward, the months and days, as well as the 
 years, were given ; and the Liberian chronicler would thus be tempted 
 to supply them for the earlier names, from Peter to Urbanus, so that 
 his list might be symmetrical throughout. 
 
 (3) The present text of the Liberian Catalogue explains the pro- 
 cedure of the Leonine editor, on the supposition that this latter was 
 the plagiarist, but not conversely. The name of Eleutherus is omitted. 
 Now, if we suppose this same lacuna to have existed in the copy which 
 fell into the hands of the Leonine editor, everything becomes plain. 
 There would then be 13 names with numbers for months and days in 
 the Liberian list, and 13 names without such numbers in the Leonine — 
 before Victor, who would be the 14th in both lists. What more simple 
 course then than that the Leonine editor should take the 13 numbers of 
 the other list and apply them in regular order to the 13 names in his 
 own? In this way the numbers in both lists would first coincide in 
 Victor, as we find to be actually the case. 
 
 It will thus be seen that, except so far as they throw any light on 
 the genealogy of the different papal lists, these numbers for the months 
 and days from S. Peter to Urbanus are valueless, and may be neg- 
 lected. From Pontianus onward the case is different. Here we are 
 face to face with contemporary history; and for this reason the sepa-
 
 270 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ration between the years on the one hand and the months and days 
 on the other will no longer hold. The consideration of this period 
 therefore must be deferred, till the years likewise can be taken into 
 account. 
 
 (4) The names, and the years assigned to the names, still remain 
 to be considered. They cannot be investigated apart, as each assists 
 in explaining the other. 
 
 Confining ourselves however for the moment to the names, we find 
 that the peculiarities in this Liberian or Hippolytean catalogue, by which 
 it is distinguished from other early lists, are three ; 
 
 (i) Clement is placed immediately after Linus, thus holding the 
 second place in the list (not reckoning the Apostles), whereas in the 
 other early catalogues he stands third, Cletus or Anacletus or Anen- 
 cletus being interposed. 
 
 (ii) For the one bishop, Cletus or Anacletus (Anencletus), we have 
 two separate names Cletus and Anacletus, treated as two distinct 
 persons, each with his separate term of office in years, months, and 
 days. 
 
 (iii) Whereas in the other lists Pius precedes Anicetus, the two are 
 here transposed so that Anicetus is made the earlier. 
 
 On this last point the Liberian Catalogue is demonstrably wrong. 
 Hegesippus and Irenasus were contemporaries of Anicetus. The former 
 visited Rome during his tenure of the episcopate ; the latter resided 
 there, if not at this same time, yet only a few years later. Both these 
 writers are explicit on the subject. Hegesippus tells us distinctly that 
 Anicetus was succeeded by Soter and Soter by Eleutherus (Euseb. H. 
 E. iv. 22). Irenaeus in three different passages testifies to this same 
 sequence — in two places in his extant work On Heresies (iii. 3. 3, 
 iii. 4. 3) of which this portion at all events was written under Eleu- 
 therus, and in a third passage in his Letter on the Paschal contro- 
 versy of which Eusebius preserves a fragment {H. E. v. 24) and which 
 was addressed to Pope Victor from ten to twenty years later. But it 
 is difficult to suppose that Hippolytus can have been guilty of so great 
 an error respecting events which occurred almost within the range of 
 his own life-time, and on a subject about which he took special 
 pains to inform himself Nor indeed do modern critics, as a rule, 
 father this error upon him. 
 
 Again; the second divergence from the normal type — the separa- 
 tion of Cletus and Anencletus (or Anacletus, as it is written in the 
 Liberian Catalogue and generally in Latin writers) into two distinct
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 2;r 
 
 persons — cannot with any degree of probability be charged to Hippo- 
 lytus. An anonymous writer quoted by Eusebius {H. E. v. 28), the 
 author of the Little Labyrinth^ who was a Roman presbyter in the time 
 of Zephyrinus, speaks of Victor as the 13th Roman bishop after Peter 
 (Tpto-KatSe/caros a7ro IleTpoii kv 'Pw/xr/ eTrt'cTKOTro?). But, if the tWO names, 
 Cletus and Anencletus, be taken to designate two different persons, 
 Victor would be not the 13th, but the 14th after Peter. This writer 
 was certainly contemporary with Hippolytus and thus expresses the 
 mind of the Roman Church in his age. But we may go farther than 
 this. Very cogent reasons exist for identifying this anonymous author 
 with Hippolytus himself. With this fact before us, it is difficult to 
 suppose that Hippolytus could have adopted the duplication which 
 appears in this Liberian Catalogue ; and indeed Lipsius rightly, as I 
 believe, postpones this divergence from the common tradition to the 
 latest stage in the growth of this document'. 
 
 But, if this be so, what sufficient ground is there for charging 
 Hippolytus with the remaining discrepancy, the transposition of the 
 names Cletus and Clemens, so as to place Clement the earlier? This 
 transposition would easily be made, as the names begin with the same 
 letters, KA-iJros, K\i]fir]s. The following hypothesis will, I think, ex- 
 plain all the facts, while it is not improbable in itself. 
 
 The original list of Hippolytus contained only the names of the 
 bishops and their durations of office. The names were the same, and 
 in the same order, as in Eusebius. The durations of office also were the 
 same, allowance being made for slight discrepancies owing to transcrip- 
 tion or other causes. Thus, from Linus to Eleutherus inclusive, there 
 would be twelve names with the corresponding term-numbers. Now it 
 was pointed out by Hort (Academy, Sept. 15, 187 1, p. 436), with the 
 concurrence of Lipsius {Jahrb. f. Prot. TheoL vi. p. 86, 1880), that 
 from Euarestus to Pius the term-numerals in the Liberian Catalogue 
 are one behind those of the Eusebian lists, so that there has been a 
 displacement. This will appear from the following table ; 
 
 ^ Jahrh. /. Prot. Thcol. VI. pp. 96, Prot. Thcol. vi. p. 97); and Salmon 
 
 100, 104, 107 sq, 112 sq, 116 (comp, (p. 114 sq) attributes it to Hippolytus 
 
 Chronologie pp. 6x, 66). His explana- himself. So too Erbes {jfahrb. f. Prot. 
 
 tion of this doubling of Cletus (Anacletus) TIicul. iv. p. 732 sq) supposes the inser- 
 
 I am unable to accept. It will be con- tion of Anacletus to have preceded and 
 
 sidered hereafter. On the other hand to have occasioned the omission of Ani- 
 
 Hort (Academy 1. c.) regards this as cetus. He is controverted by Lipsius 
 
 one of the earliest stages in the corrup- {ib. p. 98 sq). 
 tion of the list (see Lipsius yahrb. /.
 
 2/2 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 LIBER I AN 
 
 EUSEBIAN 
 
 Names 
 
 Duration 
 
 Duration 
 
 Names 
 
 
 
 H.E. 
 
 Ann. 
 
 Hieron. 
 
 Syr. 
 
 
 Petrus 
 
 xxvi [xxv] 
 
 
 XX 
 
 XXV 
 
 
 Petrus 
 
 Linus 
 
 xii 
 
 xii 
 
 xiiii 
 
 xi 
 
 xii 
 
 Linus 
 
 Clemens 
 
 viiii 
 
 xii 
 
 viii 
 
 xii 
 
 
 Anencletus 
 
 Cletus 
 
 vii [vi] . 
 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 
 Clemens 
 
 Anacletus 
 
 xii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 xiii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 viiii 
 
 viii 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 Alexander 
 
 viii 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 Alexander 
 
 Sixtus 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 xi 
 
 X 
 
 iii 
 
 Xystus 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 
 XX 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 xii 
 
 iiii 
 
 iiii 
 
 iiii 
 
 iiii 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 iiii[ ] 
 
 XV 
 
 XV 
 
 XV 
 
 XV 
 
 Pi'us 
 
 Pius 
 
 xvi [xx] 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 
 xi 
 
 ^\ 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 Soter 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 Soter 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 XV [ ] 
 
 xiii 
 
 XV 
 
 XV 
 
 XV 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 In the Liberian list the numbers are here given as corrected by the 
 consulates. The accompanying numbers in brackets are those which 
 stand in the present text, when there is any difference, and are pre- 
 sumably errors of transcription. It will be remembered that in the 
 cases of Anicetus and Eleutherus, where the empty brackets [ ] are 
 added, the term-numerals are missing and the duration of office is learnt 
 from the accompanying consulates alone. 
 
 This comparison of the two catalogues, the Eusebian and the 
 Liberian, suggests a solution. The TrpcuTapxos o.Tr], the initial mischief, 
 in this tragedy of blunders, was the omission of the line containing the 
 name and number of Anicetus in a parent document of the Liberian 
 Catalogue. The number (xi) was thus finally lost to this list ; but the 
 name, being missed, was replaced in the margin, opposite to Pius. In 
 the next transcription it was inserted in the text, but erroneously before 
 Pius. 
 
 At the same, or on a subsequent transcription, the name Clemens, 
 with its accompanying number, was accidentally omitted after Cletus, 
 owing to the identity of the initial letters, just as it is omitted in the 
 papal list in Ancient Syriac Documents p. 71 (ed. Cureton), doubtless 
 from the same cause. The names from Petrus to Soter were thus 
 reduced to twelve; and the term-numbers likewise were twelve. Ac- 
 cordingly the twelve numbers were attached mechanically to the twelve 
 names. Or the omission of Clemens may have been due to another 
 cause. Just as we saw (p. 264 sq) that the editor who added the con- 
 sulates began at the top and bottom of the list of names, so here,
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 273 
 
 having a list ot twelve numbers, he may have filled in the corresponding 
 names similarly. The consequence would be the extrusion of one of 
 the names, inasmuch as the names were one in excess of the term- 
 numbers. On either supposition, when the omission was discovered, 
 the name with its well known term-number would be supplied in the 
 margin, 'Clemens viiii'. At the next transcription it would naturally 
 find a place in the text ; but a similar blunder to that which caused 
 the transposition of Pius and Anicetus befel here also, and the inser- 
 tion was made before instead of after Cletus. 
 
 The doubling of the person, Cletus and Anencletus, comes in at a 
 later stage. A reader missing in this list the name Anencletus, with 
 which he was familiar, places it in the margin, 'Anencletus xii'. He 
 fails to perceive that this same person occurs already under the name 
 'Cletus vii' (the number xii having been already corrupted into vii). 
 Or he may have intended his marginal note to be a corrcdmi of 
 ' Cletus vii', but the next transcriber treats it as an addition and inserts 
 it accordingly in the body of the list. 
 
 Supposing the first blunder, respecting Anicetus, to have been 
 already made and to have produced its consequences, the subsequent 
 errors with their causes will be exhibited in the process of formation in 
 the following table ; 
 
 Petri! s XXV 
 
 Linus xii 
 
 Clemens viiii Cletus vii Anencletus xii 
 
 Euarestus xiii 
 
 Alexander viii 
 
 Xystus x 
 
 Telesphorus xi 
 
 Hyginus xii 
 
 Anicetus iiii 
 
 Pius xvi 
 
 Sotcr viii 
 
 Eleutherus xv 
 
 The numbers here are the same as in the Eusebian list (see 
 above, p. 246), making allowance for the displacements as already 
 explained and for the omission or addition of a stroke (e.g. x or xi, 
 xi or xii, xv or xvi), with the exception of those attached to Cletus and 
 Euarestus. The vii for xii of Cletus is a common type of clerical 
 error. The xiii for Euarestus may in like manner have been a cor- 
 ruption of viii which is the Eusebian number, or it may have arisen 
 
 CLEM. 18
 
 2 74 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 from a confusion between ir and ii (h), when the catalogue was still in 
 its original Greek dress, or it may have been the result of literary 
 manipulation for a purpose which will be explained hereafter. 
 
 This hypothesis supposes that the three errors occurred in the 
 following order: (i) The transposition of Pius and Anicetus 3 then, 
 simultaneously with or soon after this, (2) The displacement of 
 Clemens; and lastly, at a later date, (3) The doubling of the one 
 person, Cletus or Anencletus. This order entirely accords with the 
 external evidence. The transposition of Pius and Anicetus, though 
 the most demonstrably false, is the most widely diffused, of the three 
 errors, being found not only in the African fathers, Optatus (c. a.d. 370) 
 and Augustine (c. a.d. 400), but also in many papal lists of the suc- 
 ceeding centuries. The displacement of Clemens again is found in 
 these xA.frican fathers, and in others'. Yet it was obviously unknown 
 to Jerome ; for in his Catalogus (a.d. 392) he nientions, as an 
 alternative to the common tradition which gave the order Linus, 
 Anacletus, Clemens, only the belief of ' plerique Romanorum ' which 
 placed Clemens immediately after S. Peter and before Linus. Nor 
 again was Rufinus acquainted with it ; for he constructs an elaborate 
 theory to explain how Clement, though coming after Linus and Cletus 
 in the episcopal series, was yet ordained directly by S. Peter himself. 
 Both these fathers therefore were acquainted with the fiction of the 
 Clementines, but both were ignorant of the Liberian order'. Thus the 
 evidence, so far as regards the fourth century, is confined to the two 
 African fathers alone ^ These however are not two authorities but 
 one. It seems highly probable that Augustine took his Hst directly 
 from Optatus, seeing that he uses the facts for the same purpose of 
 confuting the Donatists and that he gives the list in precisely the same 
 form, ' Petro successit Linus, Lino [successit] Clemens, etc.'^ If not, 
 he must have transcribed it from the same or a closely allied copy, as 
 the two exhibit the same errors lower down in the series. Both omit 
 
 ^ See e.g. Vit. xiii Apost. (Zeitschr. linus, Marcellino Eusebius', thus omitting 
 
 / IViss. Theol. xxix. p. 445) 6 II^r/305 three names, while Augustine has the 
 
 KXijAte^ra tov fiad-qTrji' avrou eiriaKoirov series complete at this point 'Felici 
 
 Ywnris Kexeip(yT6v7]Ke, Tou Alvou Trpb^ Ki'piov Eutychianus, Eutychiano Gaius, Gaio 
 
 cKdrifi-qffavTos. Marcellinus, Marcellino Marcellus, Mar- 
 
 - The passages of Jerome and Rufinus cello Eusebius ', is no objection to this 
 
 are given above, p. 173, p. 174 sq. hypothesis. Such omissions are a com- 
 
 ^ The notice in Aposf. Const, vii. 46. i mon form of error with transcribers, and 
 
 will be considered lower down. even in Augustine's text here many Mss 
 
 ' The fact that the present text of omit ' Marcellinus, Marcellino '. 
 Optatus has lower down ' Felici Marcel-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 275 
 
 Eleutherus, and both displace Alexander by six steps, substituting him 
 for Eleutherus. They have also other peculiarities in common. But 
 while they give the order Linus, Clemens, Anencletus, with the Liberian 
 Catalogue, they are free from the error of duplicating Cletus or Ana- 
 cletus, which is found in this document. Thus they seem to have got 
 hold of a copy of this papal catalogue before it received its last touches 
 from the late editor to whom this duplication is due. The earliest 
 instance of this duplication outside the Liberian Catalogue appears in 
 the poem Against Marcion\ but this was almost certainly written later 
 than the date of our chronographer and probably in the next century. 
 This anonymous verse-writer however gives the names in a different 
 order, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens. 
 
 For the earlier part therefore, from Linus to Eleutherus, the 
 Western list which was the original basis of the Liberian Catalogue 
 appears to have been identical with the Eastern list which was in the 
 hands of Eusebius, except perhaps in the name of Linus' successor, 
 which seems to have been Cletus not Anencletus. In other respects the 
 variations are due to later corruptions or manipulations. The next 
 five episcopates however, which carry us to the accession of Pontianus, 
 present somewhat greater difficulties. The numbers in the different lists 
 are as follows; 
 
 
 EUSEBIAN 
 
 LIBERIAN 
 
 NAMES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Armen. 
 
 Hieron. 
 
 Syriac 
 
 //. E. 
 
 Numbers 
 
 Intervals 
 
 Victor 
 
 xii 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 viiii 
 
 xii 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 xii 
 
 cm 
 
 xviii 
 
 xviii 
 
 [xviiii] 
 
 XX 
 
 Callistus 
 
 viiii 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 cm 
 
 viiii 
 
 viiii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 viii 
 
 Pontianus 
 
 viiii 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 vi 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 The intervals, as well as the term-numbers, are given in the case of the 
 Liberian list, because in this case they seem to have been calculated 
 from some earher form of the list itself (see above, p. 265). The number 
 for Zephyrinus has disappeared; but the reason for restoring it xviiii 
 (otherwise xix)' is explained above (p. 254, note 5). In the Armenian 
 
 ^ Adv. Marc. iii. 276 sq. The pas- 
 sage is quoted above, p. 176. 
 
 - I have most frequently written xviiii 
 rather than xix (as also viiii rather than 
 
 18—2
 
 276 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Chronicle the number for Urbanus is omitted, but the corresponding 
 interval is x. In the same way in the Hieronymian the number of 
 Zephyrinus is wanting, but the interval is xix. 
 
 It will be seen that the great discrepancies are in the Armenian ; 
 but they may be practically disregarded. The initial error is the cor- 
 ruption of the number for Callistus ^ for e (9 for 5), and this has led to 
 the readjustment of the neighbouring numbers as explained above 
 (p. 226). This corruption must have been found likewise in the text of 
 the Eusebian Chronicle which was in the hands of Syncellus, for he 
 mentions Eusebius as assigning 1 2 years to Zephyrinus (see above, p. 
 242). But, after the Armenian is set aside, the question will still remain 
 whether the discrepancies in the other lists in the case of Victor and 
 Zephyrinus are not best explained by supposing that the original list 
 was continued by different hands. 
 
 But there are certain phenomena in this Liberian Catalogue on 
 which Lipsius lays great stress {Jahrh. f. Prof. Thcol vi. p. 103 sq), 
 and which seem to militate against the solution here offered. At all 
 events they might suggest that the list in its present form was not 
 so entirely the result of accidental errors, but was manipulated by 
 a literary reviser with a distinct purpose. The Crucifixion is dated 
 by the consulate of the 'two Gemini', i.e. a.d. 29, and the death of 
 Urbanus is placed in a.d. 230, this last being apparently the correct 
 date. There is thus an interval of 201 years between the two events. 
 But if (omitting the months and days) we add up the term-numbers for 
 the years of the successive episcopates from Peter to Urbanus inclusive, 
 we get 207 or 208 years, according as we assign 6 or 7 years to Cletus. 
 No deduction however is here made for the dupHcation of Cletus 
 or Anencletus. As I have already stated (p. 271), I agree with Lipsius 
 in thinking that this duplication took place at one of the latest stages 
 in the growth of the document. He himself assigns it to the last 
 stage of all, ascribing it to the Chronographer of 354, whom he calls 
 Philocalus. But here our divergence begins. In the solution which I 
 have offered, the late intruder is 'Anencletus xii'; and if we deduct 
 these twelve years from the total of 207 or 208, we get a remainder of 
 195 or 196 years, which diverges widely from the 201 years of the 
 historic interval. Lipsius however chooses the other alternative and 
 regards Cletus as the late insertion ; nor would it be difficult to modify 
 my own solution so as to admit this alternative. Not very consistently 
 
 ix) to show the relation to other lists ; Catalogue alw ays have ix, xix. 
 hut as a fact the Mss of the Liberian
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 277 
 
 with himself Lipsius assigns 7 years to Cletus, following in this instance 
 alone the interval (vii), and rejecting the term-numeral (vi)'. Here I 
 believe that he is right and that the vi of our mss is a clerical error ; 
 for not only is vii an obvious corruption of xii the proper term-number 
 for this bishop, but it is found in the Cononian abridgment of the 
 Liber Poiitificalis in which the figures elsewhere are corrected by the 
 Liberian Catalogue. The difference of vi or vii however does not 
 affect the question before us, for whether we deduct 6 from 207 
 or 7 from 208, we get the result 201 years, as the total of the term- 
 numbers, and this total exactly coincides with the historic space. 
 
 If instead of the term-numbers, we take the intervals as determined 
 by the consulates, and add them up, the result is slightly different. 
 The addition gives 209 years in all; and by striking out Cletus, to 
 whom 7 years are here assigned, we reduce the sum to 202, or one 
 year more than the total of the term-numbers and than the actual 
 period comprised within the limits. The same fact may be expressed 
 in another way. Whereas only 7 years are assigned to Cletus, the 
 consulates overlap each other by 8 years"; so that, after casting out 
 Cletus, a superfluous year remains. 
 
 A comparison of the term-numbers and the intervals leads to the 
 following result. While the individual term-numbers and the individual 
 intervals differ from each other in four several cases not counting 
 Cletus (25 and 26 for Peter, 20 and 16 for Pius, 9 and 12 for Victor, 
 19 and 20 for Zephyrinus), yet the variations compensate for each other 
 in such a way, that there is only a difference of a unit in the two totals. 
 The effect of these variations is represented thus; i— 4-^3-1-1 = 1. 
 
 Of Lipsius' theory as a whole I shall have occasion to speak 
 immediately. It seems to me to be burdened with difficulties. But it 
 is entitled to the support, whether great or small, which it derives from 
 the coincidence between the whole historic period and the total of the 
 term-numbers. His contention is, I presume, that the Hippolytean 
 chronicler intended to cover the whole space from the Crucifixion 
 to the death of Urbanus, and that he manipulated the numbers ac- 
 cordingly. Yet I fail to find where he explains how this manipulation 
 was brought about. His discussion, as I read it, seems to come to this; 
 that, while each individual anomaly may be explained as an accidental 
 
 ' 'Sie.Qyahrl)./. Proi. I'/uv/. VI. p. loi 53, riji etc) Lipsius speaks of this as 
 
 'TJie total of the consulates reckoned 7 years. He corrects himself in his 
 
 up shows that ann. vi is a simple clerical later work {Jalwb. /. Frot. Theol. vi. 
 
 error for ann. vii.' [). 100). 
 
 ^ In his earlier work {Chronologic pp.
 
 2^'^ EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 error, as for instance the xiii years of Euarestus (Aristus) as a cor- 
 ruption of the viii assigned to him elsewhere, the numbers attached 
 to Alexander, Xystus, etc, as owing to an accidental displacement (see 
 above, p. 271 sq), and so forth, yet the sum total of these accidental 
 items somehow or other betrays a deliberate design. If deliberate 
 purpose were at work anywhere, a place could best be found for it 
 in the substitution of xx for xv (or xvi) in the case of Pius', or in 
 the addition of a unit in some instances where the Liberian number 
 is one higher than the corresponding Eusebian number. But he 
 does not, so far as I have noticed, explain himself clearly ; and in all 
 these cases the divergences may be easily accounted for by clerical 
 errors. Moreover a chronicler of any discernment would not have 
 desired to fill up the whole space. Such a person would see that 
 the incidents in the Acts, in which S. Peter bears a prominent part, 
 must have occupied a considerable time, to say nothing of the 
 traditional Antiochene episcopate, which he might or might not accept, 
 so that it was necessary to leave an interval, if only of a few years, 
 after the Crucifixion, before the Apostle became, as he is assumed to 
 have become, the head of the Roman Church". On the whole there- 
 fore I am disposed to regard the coincidence at which Lipsius arrives, 
 as accidental. Nor under the circumstances is such a result surprising. 
 From the very nature of the case we should expect the total of the 
 term -numbers in such a list as this to be within a few years of the 
 historic period, in the way either of excess or of defect; so that a 
 very little critical adjustment, such as Lipsius applies, might produce 
 exact agreement. 
 
 Still Lipsius may be right in his contention that the numbers have 
 been manipulated so as to cover the whole interval from the Crucifixion. 
 It is not here that I find the really serious objections to his theory. 
 Such a manipulation is as consistent with my explanation as with his. 
 Only it must have come at a late stage in the genesis of the existing 
 Liberian document. It would only be necessary in this case to suppose 
 that one of the later editors increased the term-numbers by a unit 
 here and there (Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius), so as to bridge over an 
 
 1 In his earlier work {Chronolo^i^ie pp. iv. p. 741 sq), but Lipsius has himself 
 
 58, 64 sq) Lipsius explained this xx as withdrawn it since (ib. VI. p. 104). 
 
 iiii-t-xvi the numbers for Hyginus and - In his CJironclogie p. 67 Lipsius 
 
 Pius added together, and he founded liimself contemplates Hippolytus as plac- 
 
 'thereupon a somewhat elaliorate pedi- ing the beginning of Peter's episcopate 
 
 gree of documents. This solution was in the 3rd year after the Passion, 
 accepted by Erbes (y«//r/'./. Proi. Thcol.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 279 
 
 interval of three or four years, by which the total of the term-numbers 
 fell short of the historical space. This is a simple and natural pro- 
 ceeding in itself, and it is suggested by a comparison of the Liberian 
 numbers with the Eusebian. 
 
 The hypothesis which I have put forward above (p. 272 sq) to explain 
 the peculiar features of the Liberian Catalogue seems to me to give 
 an intelligible account of their origin. I do not venture to say that it is 
 the only reasonable explanation which could be offered; but, if I mistake 
 not, it takes the right direction, as well in ascribing the peculiarities of 
 this list largely to the blundering of transcribers, as also in postponing 
 these errors to the later stages in the development of the document. 
 On the other hand Lipsius takes another view {Jahrb.f. Prot. Theol. 
 VI. p. 100 sq, 1880)'. He credits the Chronicler of the year 234, 
 or in other words Hippolytus himself (see esp. pp. 107, iii, 116), 
 with all the principal blunders in the order of the names and in the 
 numbers of the years ^ except the insertion of 'Cletus vii.' His theory 
 is that the Liberian Chronicler had two wholly independent lists before 
 him. The one was the list of the Chronicler of 234, which had the 
 order Linus, Clemens, Anencletus, which transposed Pius and Anicetus, 
 which displaced the years so as to push them one lower down in the 
 manner described above (p. 271 sq), and which, partly owing to this dis- 
 placement and partly from other causes, incorporated such errors as 
 ascribing xiii years to Euarestus, iiii to Anicetus, xx to Pius, and the like. 
 This list gave the years only. It was manipulated, as we have seen, 
 so as to cover the whole space from the Crucifixion, the first episcopate 
 being placed in the following year. The second list, which was com- 
 bined, or at least partially combined, with it by the Liberian Chro- 
 nographer, was widely different. It had the order Linus, Cletus, 
 Clemens ; and it assigned vii years instead of xii to Cletus. The 
 numbers for the years were (with the exception just named) the same, 
 or substantially the same, as in the History of Eusebius, and from 
 these numbers the intervals in the Liberian Catalogue, as reckoned by 
 the consulates, were taken. Hence their want of agreement with the 
 term-numbers to which they are attached. But besides the years, 
 this document had likewise the months and days, as we find them at a 
 
 1 I am only dealing here with his later offers as an alternative the postponement 
 
 view. His earlier theory {Chronologic of these blunders to the next editor of 
 
 pp. 43, 5-2 sq, 63 sq) is in some re- the Ilippolytean list under Slephanus 
 
 spects preferable, though too elaborate. (A. D. 253). 
 
 ^ Elsewhere however (vi. p. 274) he
 
 2 8o 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 much later date in the Leonine and Felician hsts ; ami these months 
 and days the Liberian Chronographer adopted, but with the displace- 
 ment which has been described above (p. 267 sq). On this hypothesis 
 the original attribution of the months and days is not that of the 
 Liberian Catalogue, as I have maintained above (p. 269), but that of the 
 Felician and Leonine lists. The following table will, I believe, fairly 
 express Lipsius' theory of the two documents. It is right however to 
 add that he speaks with some diffidence about the numbers in his 
 second list ; nor indeed does he express himself with absolute con- 
 fidence as to the existence of any such list, though he considers it 
 to offer the most probable explanation of the phenomena. 
 
 HIPPOLYTEAN 
 
 NAMES 
 
 
 SECOND LIST 
 
 
 XXV 
 
 Petrus 
 
 XXV. 
 
 i. viiii (xiiii). 
 
 xii 
 
 Linus 
 
 xii. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 xii. 
 
 (wanting) 
 
 Cletus 
 
 vii. 
 
 xi. 
 
 xii. 
 
 viiii 
 
 Clemens 
 
 viiii. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X. 
 
 xii 
 
 Anencletus 
 
 
 (wanting) 
 
 
 xiii 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 viii. 
 
 X. 
 
 ii. 
 
 viii 
 
 Alexander 
 
 X. 
 
 vii. 
 
 ii. 
 
 X 
 
 Xystus 
 
 X. 
 
 ii. 
 
 i. 
 
 xi 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 xi. 
 
 iii. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 xii 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 iiii 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 Pius 
 
 xvi. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 vi. 
 
 XX 
 
 Pius 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 xi. 
 
 iiii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 viiii 
 
 Soter 
 
 viiii. 
 
 vii (iii). 
 
 xxi. 
 
 XV 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 XV. 
 
 iii (vi). 
 
 ii (v). 
 
 viiii 
 
 Victor 
 
 xii. 
 
 ii. 
 
 • 
 
 X. 
 
 xviiii 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 xviiii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 X. 
 
 V 
 
 Callistus 
 
 v. 
 
 ii. 
 
 xi. 
 
 viii 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 viiii. 
 
 xi. 
 
 xii. 
 
 This theory appears to me to be complicated and improbable. 
 In the first place, it gives no adequate account of the particular 
 blunders in the Hippolytean list, not to mention the fundamental 
 improbability which has been urged already, that errors of such 
 magnitude should be found at this early date. Secondly ; there is the 
 assumption that the months and days for the earlier bishops were already 
 tabulated, and that the tabulation of the Leonine and Felician lists 
 represents their original place, though all the probabilities point to the 
 opposite conclusion (see p. 269). Lastly; there is the strange mode of 
 procedure thus ascribed to the Liberian Chronographer. He is repre-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 281 
 
 sented as attaching to one list the intervals which belong to another. 
 He does this notwithstanding that his second list contains dififerent 
 names from the first and in a different order. He executes his task in a 
 perfectly arbitrary way, sometimes calculating these intervals from his 
 second list, but frequently abandoning it and basing his calculations on 
 the term-numerals of the first. He gives himself the trouble of going 
 through the successive consulates for more than 200 years in order to 
 note these intervals. He is nothing daunted by finding that all this 
 trouble leads him only into hopeless confusion ; that in individual cases 
 the result is flagrant contradiction between the intervals and the term- 
 numbers, and that for the whole list he has doubled back upon himself 
 and reckoned in the same eight years twice over, thus computing 209 
 years within limits which comprised only 201. This elaborate piece of 
 stupidity is hardly conceivable in any man. On the other hand the 
 solution which I have suggested involves no such improbabilities. The 
 Liberian Chronographer on this hypothesis has before him a very corrupt 
 list with term-numbers. He begins to compute the chronology, reckoning 
 back from a fixed date by means of a list of the Consular Fasti which he 
 has before him. When he has got some way, he is arrested in his calcu- 
 lation, seized perhaps by a misgiving that he is exhausting the number 
 of years at his disposal too quickly. He then begins at the other end 
 and works downward as before he had worked upward. At the meeting 
 point he finds that he has overlapped himself by 8 years. But he has 
 no data before him which will enable him to correct the chronological 
 error. He therefore leaves this slovenly piece of workmanship to take 
 care of itself This is no doubt a careless and not very conscientious 
 proceeding ; but it is at least intelligible according to human motives of 
 action. 
 
 On the whole therefore I am disposed to believe that, except for 
 trivial inaccuracies in his arithmetic, the Liberian editor's intervals as 
 designated by the consulships agreed with the corresponding term- 
 numbers, as he found them in his text, and that where at present they 
 diverge widely, this divergence is due to the corruptions of later tran- 
 scribers. The trifling numerical inaccuracies, which I thus contemplate, 
 would be exemplified by the case of Pius where the interval included by 
 the consulates is xvi years, but where not improbably the term-number 
 in his text was xv, this being the number in the Eusebian Catalogues, 
 and likewise better explaining the corruption xx, which we find in the 
 existing text. So again in the case of Zephyrinus, the interval included 
 by the consulates is xx. Here there is a lacuna and the term-number is 
 wanting. Yet I am disposed to think that Lipsius is right in giving xix
 
 282 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 for the term-number, though it does not exactly correspond with the 
 interval. It is the number found in those mss of the Liber Ponfijicalis in 
 which the figures have been corrected throughout after the Liberian 
 Catalogue (see pp. 254, 267) and, as otherwise written (xviiii = xix), it 
 explains most of the variations in the term-number assigned to this pope 
 in other papal lists, xviii, xvii, viii (though not the xii of the Armenian 
 Chronicle^ of which another explanation may be given). If this were 
 so, the twenty consulates may not have been due to the bad arithmetic 
 of the chronographer, but he may have found the corruption xx already 
 in his text, though the original number was xix. 
 
 If indeed there were any adequate reason for supposing that the 
 Liberian Chronographer had a second list before him, we should natu- 
 rally ascribe to it the intervals, where these differ from the term-numbers. 
 But in this case it would be much simpler to postulate a list of a very 
 different kind from that which Lipsius imagines. We might then sup- 
 pose that our chronographer had in his hands, not two wholly different 
 lists, but two copies (A, B) of the same list', containing the same names 
 and in the same order, and differing only in the numbers assigned to 
 four or (including Cletus) five episcopates during the period under 
 review. From A he took the term-numbers, while from B he derived 
 the intervals, calculating them, or finding them already calculated, by 
 the consulates from its term-numbers. The list, of which these were 
 copies, might then be ascribed to the chronographer who edited the 
 Hippolytean Chronicle some twenty years earlier (see p. 263 sq), and the 
 divergences would be mainly accidental corruptions on one side or 
 the other. This hypothesis would involve far fewer difficulties than 
 that of Lipsius ; and it may possibly be correct. But, if the coincidence 
 which has been pointed out above (p. 277) be disallowed, no adequate 
 reason for postulating a second list remains. 
 
 Salmon goes even farther than Lipsius, though in much the same 
 direction. He not only ascribes the order and the term-numerals, as 
 we find them in the Liberian Catalogue, to Hippolytus himself, but 
 he makes him responsible likewise for the duplication of Cletus and 
 Anacletus. He supposes the date for the Crucifixion 'duobus Geminis' 
 (a.d. 29) to have been the invention of Hippolytus himself, so that the 
 treatise of TertuUian in which it is found" must have been written later 
 
 ' Lipsius himself in his earlier view coss. Rubellio Gcmino ct Rufio Gemino, 
 
 {Chronologic p. 66) supposes that the mense Marlio, temporibus paschae, die 
 
 Chronographer of 354 had before him viii Kalendarum Aprilium, die prima azy- 
 
 two copies of the Hippolytean list. morum. ' 
 
 - Adv. jfttd. 8 ' sub Tiberio Caesare,
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 28 
 
 o 
 
 than Hippolytus' chronological works. The twenty-five years of Peter 
 he likewise ascribes to Hippolytus. Given the date of the Passion as 
 A.D. 29, this term of 25 years followed as a consequence of his desire to 
 harmonize the two facts, (i) that tradition made Linus the first of the 
 Roman bishops and assigned 12 years to him, and (2) that the Clemen- 
 tine story represented Clement as having been ordained bishop by 
 S. Peter himself. But this could only be done by placing the episcopate 
 of Linus in S. Peter's lifetime and by transposing the names of Cletus and 
 Clement. If then S. Peter was martyred in a.d. 67 and room is found 
 for the twelve years of Linus before his martyrdom, Linus' accession 
 must be dated as early as a.d. 55. Neglecting the parts of years, this 
 would leave 25 years from the Crucifixion to the accession of the first 
 bishop after Peter. But by this process the different dates have been 
 pushed 1 2 years earlier, and a gap would be created in consequence. 
 Hippolytus then, finding Cletus in one list and Anacletus in another, 
 and having left 'a space in his chronology large enough to admit of 
 both bishops, convinced himself that the two were distinct.' By this 
 compensation the date of accession of the next bishop Euarestus (or 
 Aristus) does not differ very seriously from that which Eusebius and 
 Jerome assign to it. On this hypothesis the reckoning of the 25 years 
 back from the martyrdom of Peter, as Eusebius and Jerome reckon 
 them, arose out of a misapprehension. They adopted the 25 years 
 as computed by Hippolytus, but they overlooked the grounds of his 
 computation and took a different starting-point. 
 
 This ingenious theory seems to me to be untenable. I may 
 here waive the question whether the date ' duobus Geminis ' was 
 liippolytus' invention or not. Neither is it necessary to enquire whether 
 we owe to him the 25 years of Peter; for it might have been adopted 
 as a convenient round number, and not as exactly spanning a chro- 
 nological gap. The objections to the theory lie outside these two 
 questions. In the first place it takes no account of the list as a whole. 
 As Lipsius pointed out, if both names Cletus and Anacletus are 
 retained, the sum total of the several episcopates exceeds by 8 years 
 the available chronological spaced even if we omit the reckoning of the 
 months and days which would add on several years more to the total. 
 What moreover are we to say of the displacement and confusion 
 of the term-numerals, as described above (p. 271 sq) ? What account 
 
 ^ Salmon must have overlooked lliis polyline chronology, I think it to be 
 
 fact when he writes (p. 115); 'Since without reason that Lipsius has sug- 
 
 both Cletus and Anacletus are required gested that this duplication may have 
 
 in order to fill out the time in the Hip- arisen through transcribers' error.'
 
 284 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 again shall we give of the transposition of Pius and Anicetus? But 
 besides all this, how shall we explain the fact, to which I have already 
 referred, that apparently Hippolytus himself (Euseb. H.E. v. 28) reckons 
 Victor as the thirteenth bishop from Peter, whereas the duplication of 
 Cletus and Anacletus \vould make him the fourteenth? To this ob- 
 jection Salmon can only give the following answer ; ' The mode of 
 counting Sixtus 6th, Eleutherus 12th, from the apostles, etc, must have 
 been too well established in the time of Hippolytus for him to think of 
 changing it; but as he believed the second bishop, Clement, in his 
 series to have been in immediate contact with the apostles, Hippolytus 
 could without inconsistency express the distance of each bishop from 
 the apostles according to the received number' (p. 115). This ex- 
 planation strikes me as too clever to be true'. 
 
 But whether my solution is or is not preferable to its rivals, whether 
 I am right or wrong in postponing the characteristic corruptions in the 
 Liberian Catalogue to its later stages and thus saving the credit of Hip- 
 polytus or his contemporary, the historical result is the same. All these 
 solutions alike go to establish one fact. The original list, from which 
 the Liberian Catalogue was ultimately derived, was essentially the same 
 in the order of the names and in the terms of office, with the list which 
 is embodied in the Chronicle of Eusebius as represented by the Hier- 
 onymian version, and in the Church History of this same writer. Indeed, it 
 would be a distinct gain, if Lipsius and others who throw back the cor- 
 ruptions in this list to the age of Hippolytus could establish their case ; 
 for testimony would thus be furnished to the great antiquity of a 
 document which at this early age had been so largely corrupted. 
 
 The later part of this Catalogue — from Pontianus to Liberius^ias 
 no direct bearing on the earliest bishops, with whom alone we are 
 immediately concerned; but indirectly it is important, as throwing some 
 light on the pedigree and affinities of the several papal lists. We are 
 now on historical ground, and the months and days must henceforth be 
 treated in connexion with the years. Hitherto the Liberian Catalogue 
 has been found far inferior to the Eusebian lists. For the chronology 
 of the period at which we have now arrived it is quite the most im- 
 portant document. Though it still contains several errors of tran- 
 scription, these will net give any serious trouble, as they can generally 
 
 1 In Smith and Wace Diet, of Christ. way, by assigning the work which is 
 Biogr, IV. p. 98 s. V. 'Hippolytus Ro- quoted by Eusebius to Gaius the Roman 
 manus,' he meets the difficulty in another presbyter, and not to Hippolytus.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 28^ 
 
 ) 
 
 2. 
 
 <— 1 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 V2 
 
 en 
 
 p' 
 
 
 P 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 p 
 
 c 
 
 p_ 
 
 
 X 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 'jr. 
 
 re 
 
 P 
 
 r 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 re 
 
 o* 
 p' 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 3 
 
 re 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 p' 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 Cfl 
 
 fD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cy. 
 
 3 I 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 •-C 
 
 tn 
 
 tfl 
 
 K 
 
 ^5 
 
 
 p' 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 
 5' 
 (/I 
 
 h— 1 
 
 v. 
 
 
 5 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 1 
 m 1 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 = : 
 
 < 
 
 g 
 
 <; 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 *^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 X 
 
 ~: 
 
 < 
 
 = : 
 
 X 
 
 3 
 
 <; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •"" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 <; 
 
 x^ 
 
 < 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 X 
 
 ?• 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 r* 
 
 F 
 
 < 
 
 r— 1 
 
 r" 
 
 '^; 
 
 31 
 
 ?'■ 
 
 3: 
 
 
 < 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 _. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 »■ 
 
 c; 
 
 
 1—] 
 
 <_ 
 
 X 
 
 .< 
 
 H". 
 
 -^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^: 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ^' 
 
 x_ 
 
 f_. 
 
 •< 
 
 3; 
 
 ^_ 
 
 
 ^.,. 
 
 ?* 
 
 >3 
 
 
 'p 
 
 T"- 
 
 
 
 7" 
 
 ; 
 
 ^' 
 
 r^* 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 7"* 
 
 * 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 2. 
 
 X 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 <_ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 '<] 
 
 X 
 
 - 
 
 Si 
 
 7^ 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 -= 
 
 -• 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 -: 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ' — ' 
 
 
 
 
 ' — ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' — ' 
 
 
 
 0] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 < 
 
 ^: 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 n* 
 
 
 r' 
 
 
 X 
 
 r- 
 
 r" 
 
 <. 
 
 r- 
 
 -^ 
 
 Si 
 
 3; 
 
 X 
 
 
 <t 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^; 
 
 c: 
 
 - 
 
 X 
 
 - 
 
 5. 
 
 ^1 
 
 o 
 
 n: 
 
 r- 
 
 r- 
 
 y^ 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 <; 
 
 3: 
 
 3: 
 
 r- 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 <_ 
 
 <_ 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 - 
 
 Si 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 — 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 3: 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 ^' 
 
 Co 
 
 ^3 
 
 <_ 
 
 y. 
 
 < 
 
 ^. 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 Ei 
 
 < 
 
 -^ 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 
 -: 
 
 <^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 < 
 
 -; 
 
 ^. 
 
 x_ 
 
 x_ 
 
 <_ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 r"* 
 
 * 
 
 
 r"* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r* 
 
 ■ 
 
 r* 
 
 t> 
 
 --N 
 
 
 -. 
 
 :; 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "T-" 
 
 
 
 _. 
 
 
 
 5; 
 
 5 
 
 Si 
 
 1—1 
 
 '<] 
 
 X 
 
 " 
 
 r- 
 
 '<^ 
 
 S| 
 
 Si 
 
 r- 
 
 fc^i 
 
 3: 
 
 X 
 
 _< 
 
 3: 
 
 31 
 
 (—1 
 X 
 
 r- 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 "T"* 
 
 
 
 
 ^7-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 e: 
 
 1 — 1 
 < 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 f— 1 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 s: 
 
 X_ 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 — 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 si 
 
 X 
 
 x_ 
 
 n: 
 
 5: 
 
 5i 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 3: 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 2. 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 <_ 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 
 <. 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 r- 
 
 <; 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 r- 
 
 
 •-• 
 
 < 
 
 F 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 
 3: 
 
 
 a. 
 
 
 Si 
 
 =: 
 
 <_ 
 
 x_ 
 
 -^ 
 
 -: 
 
 <, 
 
 Si 
 
 Si 
 
 x_ 
 
 x_ 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 3: 
 
 •^ 
 
 3: 
 
 - 
 
 --• 
 
 3; 
 
 
 >3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0? 
 
 <_ 
 
 <_ 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 :: 
 
 <; 
 
 - 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 <_ 
 
 =i 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 si 
 
 <_ 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x_ 
 
 <_ 
 
 i 
 
 
 »-i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 oo 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 l-« 
 
 to 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 lO 
 
 to 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 C\ 
 
 00 
 
 « 
 
 to 
 
 cc 
 
 
 O 
 
 -^j 
 
 4- 
 
 t/l 
 
 to 
 
 4^ 
 
 to 
 
 'j\ 
 
 
 o 
 
 '^ 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 < — 1 
 
 > — 1 
 
 p 
 
 "—I 
 
 > 
 
 
 ' — 1 
 
 
 P 
 
 <— 1 
 p 
 
 <— 1 
 
 > 
 
 5=* 
 
 «— ( 
 
 s 
 
 ' — 1 
 p 
 
 ^ 
 
 "—I 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■— • 
 
 "^ 
 
 -v; 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ^— 
 
 C 
 
 p 
 
 2 
 
 p 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 »< 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 r= 
 
 ' ' 
 
 fl 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 cn 
 
 ^ 
 
 re 
 
 ^ 
 
 • 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 tu 
 
 CM 
 
 OJ 
 
 Ou 
 
 Uj 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 (0 
 
 >o 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 tJ 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 CW 
 
 iw 
 
 
 "-I 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 VO 
 
 CO 
 
 ~j 
 
 ON 
 
 Cjl 
 
 Vi 
 
 •J\ 
 
 Oi 
 
 tn 
 
 Oo 
 
 bo 
 
 OJ 
 
 s 
 
 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 ^I 
 
 0^ 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 o\ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 oi 
 
 1 
 
 NO 
 1 
 
 NO 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4- 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 On 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 J. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 lO 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 to 
 
 
 
 4- 
 
 to 
 
 ^t 
 
 
 o 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 'Jt 
 
 la 
 
 •^i 
 
 o 
 
 ON 
 
 ON 
 
 to 
 
 o» 
 
 
 O 
 
 t« 
 
 00 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 • 
 
 > 
 
 O 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 1 — , 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 OQ 
 
 MJ 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 re 
 p 
 
 a 
 
 re 
 p 
 
 O 
 
 re 
 p 
 
 > 
 
 en 
 
 > 
 
 C 
 7h 
 
 p 
 
 re 
 
 < — 1 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 C/0 
 
 _£5 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 tw 
 
 tw 
 
 OJ 
 
 tKi 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 VJ 
 
 to 
 
 >o 
 
 >o 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 o\ 
 
 tn 
 
 tw 
 
 tw 
 
 *-< 
 
 — 
 
 
 o 
 
 VO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^i 
 
 On 
 
 '-n 
 
 tn 
 
 Ot 
 
 tj\ 
 
 •j\ 
 
 :x» 
 
 tJJ 
 
 
 
 On 
 
 10 
 
 ON 
 
 Oi 
 
 ■^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 4- 
 
 ON 
 
 t« 
 
 4^ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 ^1 
 
 4- 
 
 tu 
 
 O 
 
 ON 
 
 'JX 
 

 
 2 86 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 be corrected by external authorities. For the purposes of reference I 
 have given on the preceding page a comparative table of the principal 
 Latin lists for this period. In the first column, containing the list 
 of the Hieronymian Chronide, I have, in those cases where there are 
 no term-numbers (Xystus ii and Marcellinus), placed in brackets 
 the figures taken from the allied Eusebian lists (pp. 209, 221). In the 
 second column, in the Liberian Catalogue (which I shall call L) the 
 alternative numbers enclosed in brackets give the intervals as calculated 
 from the days of consecration and death, wherever these intervals differ 
 from the term-numbers. The third column gives the Leonine list. 
 It should be stated however that the Mss here fall into two classes, 
 giving different figures in several cases (see below, p. 318). I have 
 only recorded the figures of the first; those of the second, where they 
 differ from the first, are generally identical with those of the Liber 
 Pontificalis. In the fourth column, assigned to the Liber Pontificalis 
 (which I shall henceforth designate LP), the precedence is given 
 to the earlier edition as represented by the Felician Book (F), and 
 where there is any difference of reading, the figures in brackets are 
 those of the later edition (P) or of some mss of this later edition. 
 The fifth and sixth columns give the actual duration of oftice of the 
 respective bishops, with the dates of the commencement and close 
 of their respective episcopates, the notices being sufiicient (with a 
 few exceptions) to determine these with a reasonable degree of pro- 
 bability. The amount of uncertainty existing in any individual case 
 may be gathered from the investigation which follows. 
 
 For the first name in the list, Pontianus, the days of the com- 
 mencement and termination of his episcopate are given. The limits 
 thus fixed agree exactly with the term-numbers. The divergence of 
 the numbers in LP, viiii. v. ii, is easily explicable. There has been 
 a displacement; the years viiii are borrowed from the previous bishop 
 Urbanus (viii or viiii), and the months and days, v. ii, are the years 
 and months of Pontianus himself shifted from their proper places. 
 The close of Pontianus' episcopate (Sept. 28, a.d. 235) was not his 
 death, but his resignation or deprivation, for this must be the meaning 
 of the Liberian notice 'discinctus est'.' The bearing of this notice, 
 
 ^ So Epist. Synod. Sardic. (Labb. jecti']. Hence, when said of a cleric, it 
 
 Cone. II. p. 741, ed. Coleti) 'utjulium is equivalent to 'unfrock.' So again it is 
 
 urbis Romae et Osium ceterosque supra usedof 'cashiering' a soldier, e.g. Vulcat. 
 
 commemoratos discingeret atque dam- Gall. Vit. Anid. Cass. 6 ' ut si quis cinctus 
 
 naret ', Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc, v. inveniretur apud Daphnen, discinctus re- 
 
 28 'ab episcopatu discincti' [v. 1. 'de- dirct.' There can, I think, be no doubt
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 287 
 
 which connects his 'divestiture' with the name of Hippolytus, I have 
 considered already (p. 262) and shall have to return to the subject 
 again. Whatever may be its meaning, we cannot doubt that it states a 
 historical fact. The LP records of Pontianus, 'defunctus est iii (iiii) 
 Kal. Nov.', thus professing to give the date of his death; but this 
 seems to be merely a corruption of the Liberian notice, as several 
 modern critics have seen (e.g. Tillemont H.E. iii. p. 693, Mommsen 
 /. c. p. 635, Lipsius Chron. p. 195), and is therefore valueless. This 
 same work also states that his body was brought from Sardinia to 
 Rome by Fabianus, which is highly probable. In the Liberian Depos. 
 Mart, (see above, p. 251) his deposition is dated on the same day 
 with that of Hippolytus, Aug. 13 (Id. Aug.). This must have happened 
 on one of the following years, A. D. 236 or 237. De Rossi {R.S. 11. p. 77), 
 accepting the date of the LP., places his death on Oct. 30, a.d. 236, 
 and therefore necessarily postpones his deposition till a.d. 237. He 
 calls attention to the fact that an imperial rescript was necessary before 
 removing the body of one who had died in exile {Dii;cst xlviii. 24. 2). 
 
 For Anteros the present text of L gives m. i. d. x; but its own 
 limits require m. i. d. xii. As i. xii is read in LP, it must have stood 
 originally in the text of L. Thus the death of Anteros took place 
 Jan. 3, A.D. 236, whereas the deposition of his predecessor cannot 
 date till Aug. 13 of the same year at the earliest. The circumstance 
 that Anteros was buried in the Cemetery of Callistus before Pontianus 
 and that the translation of Pontianus to this cemetery took place 
 under Fabianus the successor of Anteros, would explain the fact that in 
 some papal lists (notably in F) the order is Anteros, Pontianus, 
 Fabianus — Anteros being placed before Pontianus. This explanation 
 is suggested by De Rossi {Pom. Soti. 11. p. 75) and adopted by Lipsius, 
 Duchesne, and others. 
 
 For the next bishop Fabianus the term in L is xiiii. i. x. Yet 
 his predecessor's death is dated Jan. 3, and his own death Jan. 21 
 (xii Kal. Feb.). Thus there is no room for the one month, and it 
 should probably be obliterated. It may have been inserted to fill 
 the vacant space; or the m. i. d. x may have been a mechanical 
 reproduction of the figures assigned to the previous pope Anteros in L. 
 The m. xi. d. xi,' which we find in some copies of the LP, is doubtless 
 taken from the notice of the imprisonment of Moyses in the same 
 paragraph of L which contains the account of Fabianus. As Fabianus 
 perished in the Decian persecution, and therefore in a.d. 250, the xiiii 
 
 about the meaning. Yet some writers equivalent to 'defunctus est.' 
 (e.g. Tillemont in. p. 693) treat it as
 
 288 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 years of the other catalogues must be correct, rather than the xiii of 
 Jerome, who indeed himself gives xiiii as the interval. 
 
 With Cornelius we arrive at the period of the Cyprianic corre- 
 spondence, which now accompanies us through several pontificates, 
 thus affording means of testing and correcting the numbers in L. After 
 the martyrdom of Fabianus the see remained vacant for more than 
 a year'. The election of Cornelius as bishop cannot be placed before 
 February or March 251, nor can it have occurred later, as it was 
 known in Carthage about April". All this appears from the notices 
 in the Cyprianic letters combined with the statement respecting the 
 schism of Novatus and the captivity of Moyses in L (Cyprian Epist. 37, 
 43 sq; comp. Cornelius in Euseb. H. E. vi. 43). All the Latin lists 
 give two years to Cornelius as against three which appears in the 
 History o{ Eusebius and in some other Greek lists (see p. 241). For the 
 months and days L has m. iii. d. x, and the Leonine list agrees herewith. 
 The figures in LP (ii. ii. iii) are a displacement of those given by L 
 (ii. iii. x), similar to the displacement which we noticed in the case 
 of Pontianus, so that the years and months of L become the months and 
 days of LP. If we calculate our m. iii. d. x from the beginning 
 of March, we shall arrive at the middle of June for the death of 
 Cornelius', which took place according to L at Centumcellae (Civita 
 Vecchia); see above, p. 256. This agrees with the time of the con- 
 secration of his successor, as estabUshed on independent data. 
 
 To Lucius, his successor, L assigns ann. iii. m. viii. d. x. It will be 
 shown presently that the years should be omitted. The m. viii. d. x 
 appear likewise in the Leonine list, and Jerome gives viii months to 
 this pope. On the other hand LP has iii. iii. iii, where the months and 
 days are a mere repetition of the figure for the years, or they may have 
 been handed down from his predecessor Cornelius, whose numbers in 
 
 1 The notices of the length of the directly contradicting the contemporary 
 vacancies in LP are purely fictitious, and testimony incorporated in L, which 
 may be dismissed from our consideration; places his death at Civita Vecchia), 
 see Uuchcsne Lib. Pont. I. p. clx. The adopted xviii Kal. Oct. (Sept. 14) as 
 authentic sources of information here the date of his death. Reckoning back- 
 are L and the Cyprianic letters. ward from this date, and deducting m. 
 
 - The dates are established by Lipsius iii. d. x, they arrived at June 4, as the 
 
 Chronol. p. 200 sq. Duchesne's chro- day of his accession; e.g. Pearson /?«m. 
 
 nology (Z//^ /"ow/. I. p. ccxlviii) agrees. Cypr. \.v>. 251 § 6, a.d. 252 § 13; 
 
 » The older critics, following the LP Tillemont //. E. in. pp. 431, 735. This 
 
 which founds its statements on the introduces confusion into the chronology 
 
 spurious Acta C(?r«£'//z (Schelestrate ^;/- of Cyprian. Sept. 14 was probably the 
 
 tiq. Eccl. Ilhtstr. I. p. 188 sq) and reprc- date of the translation of his body to 
 
 scnts Cornelius as martyred at Rome (thus Rome.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 289 
 
 LP are, as we have seen, ii. ii. iii. At all events ni. viii. d. x was the 
 original tradition. Allowing a reasonable number of days for the 
 vacancy and calculating from the middle of June (the date established 
 for the death of his predecessor), we shall arrive at the beginning of 
 March for the death of Lucius. This agrees with the notice in the 
 Liberian Depos. Episc. (see above, p. 249), which places his death on 
 iii Non. Mart. (March 5). But the three years in L cannot have had a 
 place in the contemporary document, and must have been introduced 
 in the course of transmission before it reached the hands of the Liberian 
 editor. Eusebius had 8 months only for his term of office, as is ex- 
 plicitly stated in the H. E. vii. 3 {fx-rjcrlv ov8' oAots oktw), and as we find 
 in the Hieronymian Chronicle. This is undoubtedly correct. Cyprian's 
 correspondence contains only one letter to Lucius {Epist. 61), in which 
 he says that, having recently congratulated him at once on his ' ordi- 
 nation' and on his 'confession,' he now congratulates him on his 
 return from exile. The banishment and return of Lucius therefore, 
 which are recorded in L (see above, p. 256), must have taken place 
 immediately after his accession. Moreover, when the Synod of Carthage 
 assembled, which was held not later than a.d. 255, Stephanus had 
 already been bishop some time (Cyprian Epist. 68). Thus the death 
 of Lucius falls in a.d. 254. Yet the editor who inserted the con- 
 sular reckoning must have found the three years already in his text ; 
 for three consulates — the same three [a.d. 253 — 255] which are assigned 
 to his successor — are given to him. 
 
 To Stephanus, the successor of Lucius, the present text of L 
 assigns ann. iiii. m. ii. d. xxi, but inasmuch as the consulates only in- 
 clude three years, and as iii is the number in the Leonine list and in the 
 LP, this was doubtless the original reading of L also. It stands hke- 
 wise in the present text of Jerome, but as Eusebius has ii, it might 
 be thought that iii was an accidental alteration of a transcriber, who 
 thus blundered into the correct number. The Depos. Episc. (see p. 249) 
 gives iiii Non. Aug. (Aug. 2) for the deposition of Stephanus, and this 
 must belong to the year 257, if he were more than three years in office. 
 If therefore, reckoning backward, we deduct iii. ii. xxi from 2 Aug. 257, 
 we arrive at 12 May 254 for the day of his accession. This would leave 
 two months and a few days for the vacancy of the see after the death 
 of Lucius. 
 
 His successor Xystus has ann. ii. m. xi. d. vi assigned to him, and 
 here again the two years were evidently in the text of the editor who 
 inserted the consulates [a.d. 256 — 258]. But, if our reckoning hitherto 
 has been correct, so long a term of office is impossible. We know that 
 
 CLEM. 19
 
 290 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Xystus was martyred on 6 Aug. 258 (viii Id. Aug.,Tuscoet Basso coss.); 
 see the Liberian Depos. Mart, above, p. 251, Cyprian Epist. 80, Pontius 
 Vit. Cypr. \\,Act. Procotis. 2. The two years therefore must be struck 
 out'. They may possibly have arisen out of the statement that he 
 was the second of his name, thus ' Xystus ii. m. xi. d. vi.' At all events 
 the absence of any number for the years in the original document 
 will explain the fact that in the Eusebian lists he is credited with eleven 
 years, the number for the months being taken to supply the missing 
 number for the years. If then m. xi. d. vi be assigned to Xystus, he 
 will have been consecrated about 31 Aug. 257, thus leaving nearly a 
 month for the vacancy of the see after the death of his predecessor. 
 The Acta Stephani however {Ad. SS. Bolland. August. T. i. p. 144) give 
 viiii Kal. Sept. {Aug. 24) as the date of Xystus' consecration, which 
 would require d. xii or xiii. The figures in the Leonine list and in the 
 LP give some countenance to such an alteration in L. Otherwise these 
 Acts, being a later production, are not worthy of credit. The consular 
 date for the death of Xystus (a.d. 258) is again correct, all the in- 
 tervening consular dates since the accession of Cornelius having been 
 wrong. The bearing of the dates established for these two last popes, 
 Stephanus and Xystus 11, on the chronology of Cyprian and of Dionysius 
 of Alexandria is traced by Lipsius Chronologie p. 2 1 5 sq, but I am not 
 concerned with it here. After the martyrdom of Xystus the see was 
 vacant for nearly a year, as we learn from L, during which ' presbyteri 
 praefuerunt.' 
 
 Dionysius, the successor of Xystus, is stated in L to have com- 
 menced his episcopate on 22 July (xi Kal. Aug.) and ended it on Dec. 
 26 (vii Kal. Jan.). For this latter day however the Depos. Episc. (see 
 p. 249) gives Dec. 27 (vi Kal. Jan.). Inconsistently with these notices 
 the present text of L assigns to him ann. viii. m. ii. d. iiii. Here it is 
 clear that for the months instead of ii we should read v, as in the 
 Leonine list, by which change the notices are reduced to harmony. 
 For the years there can be little doubt that viii should be changed into 
 viiii, this being likewise the number in the History of Eusebius (vii. 30) 
 and in the Hieronymian Chronicle. It is required moreover to fill up 
 the space of time. The interval indeed, as given by the consulates, is 
 ten years [a.d. 259 — 269]; but without doubt the editor who supplied 
 these consulates has been misled by the date vii (vi) Kal. Jan. (Dec. 26 
 or 27), and given the consuls who entered upon their office on these 
 
 1 The necessity of rejecting the years the older critics; e.g. Pearson Ann. 
 and retaining only the months and days Cypr. A.D. 258, § 5, Tillemont Menioires 
 in the case of Xystus was seen already by in. p. 35.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 291 
 
 Kalends, whereas the year 268 had still four or five days to run at the 
 time of this pope's death. So long an episcopate as ten years is in- 
 consistent with the space required by the bishops who follow. Eor the 
 history of the controversy respecting Paul of Samosata, in its bearing 
 on the papal chronology at this time, I must be content to refer to 
 Lipsius Chronol. p. 226 sq. 
 
 For the three bishops next in order, Felix, Eutychianus, and Gaius, 
 the term-numbers in L seem to be strictly correct. The consulates 
 also are correctly filled in. Here we have not only the term-numbers 
 but also the days of consecration and of death for Gaius' and the day of 
 death for Eutychianus. Moreover the Liberian Depos. Episc. (see p. 249) 
 gives the close of all the three episcopates. The harmony of all these 
 notices one with another, and the intrinsic probability of the results 
 arrived at from their combination, are a guarantee of the historical 
 truth of this portion of the chronology. The results are exhibited in 
 the table on p. 285. The divergences from L in the other lists offer a 
 few points for notice. The variations of the Leonine list and of LP 
 for Felix are difficult to account for. I can only explain them by some 
 confusion of the transcriber's eye with the numbers for Marcelhnus 
 three Unes lower down. A glance at the table will show my meaning. 
 In the case of Eutychianus the divergences are interesting. The con- 
 fusion of years with months, by which 8 months are assigned to this 
 pope in the Eusebian lists, has been already explained (p. 234). The 
 figures in the Leonine list and in LP, ann. i. m. i. d. i, are a transcriber's 
 way of filling up the gaps where the numbers were left blank. The 
 reason of this blank may have been, as Duchesne {Lib. Pout. i. p. xviii) 
 suggests, that some editor finding a wide divergence between the 
 Eusebian and Liberian numbers, omitted them altogether in despair. 
 For Gaius the Eusebian number xv (for xii) is an example of a very 
 common type of clerical error. In L the number of days assigned to 
 him, vii, which should be iiii, is another illustration of the same. 
 
 The next group of four bishops, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, 
 and Miltiades, presents greater difficulties. If this period had stood 
 alone, we should have had some hesitation about relying on the 
 Liberian figures. But for the periods immediately preceding and 
 succeeding they are found to be most excellent guides. The term- 
 
 1 Fragments of the inscription on the h^s pieced them together and restored 
 
 actual tombstone of Gaius have been the whole inscription; p^^iOY- eniCK. 
 
 found. With the aid of the Liberian k&t- npo. 1. K&A. maicon, where k&t 
 
 record De Rossi (see Rom. Sott. in. p. stands for /caTa^eo-ts^rt'c;,^^^??^; see above 
 
 \\l. Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1876, p. 87) pp. 249, 256. 
 
 19 — 2
 
 292 EPISTLES OE S. CLEMENT. 
 
 numbers indeed are very liable to clerical errors, but after due allow- 
 ance made for such they have proved trustworthy. On the other hand 
 in the consulates from a. d. 258 onward this Hst is never once con- 
 victed of error, if we except the date for the death of Dionysius where 
 there is a slight miscalculation of a few days (see above, p. 290 sq). 
 
 The space covered by these four episcopates with the intervening 
 vacancies comprises 17I years, from 30 June 296 to 31 Jan. 314. The 
 term-numbers in L are 
 
 Marcellinus 
 
 viii. 
 
 iii. 
 
 XXV 
 
 Marcellus 
 
 i. 
 
 vii. 
 
 XX 
 
 Eusebius 
 
 
 iiii. 
 
 xvi 
 
 Miltiades 
 
 iii. 
 
 vi. 
 
 viii 
 
 Total 
 
 xiii. 
 
 X. 
 
 ix, 
 
 so that only ann. iii. m. vii. d. xxi are left for all the vacancies. But 
 L after the notice of the death of Marcellinus writes, 'Quo tempore 
 fuit persecutio et cessavit episcopatus ann. vii. m. vi. d. xxv.' As this 
 term largely exceeds all the available space, De Rossi suggested that 
 the expression ' cessavit episcopatus ' does not here signify the vacancy 
 of the see, but the non-recognition of it by the Roman government, 
 when the 'loci ecclesiastici ' were under confiscation \ This however 
 is a wholly unnatural sense to ascribe to the words. No one appears 
 to have noticed the relation of these figures, vii. vi. xxv, to the term- 
 numbers for this pope, viii. iii. xxv, of which they are apparently a 
 corruption or a correction. The original figures therefore for the 
 vacancy, if they ever existed, have disappeared ; and the existing 
 figures have no value, except so far as they may enable us to verify 
 or correct the term-numbers. 
 
 The two successive popes, Marcellinus and Marcellus, owing to 
 the similarity of their names and to their immediate proximity, are 
 frequently confused ; and sometimes the one is entirely absorbed 
 and lost in the other. Thus Jerome recognises only Marcellinus 
 (Marcellianus), while the Leonine Hsts know only Marcellus. So 
 again with the later Greek and Oriental lists. The Chronographer of 
 354, Syncellus, and Eutychius, have Marcellus alone; whereas Nice- 
 phorus and Elias admit Marcellinus (Marcellianus) only. No safe in- 
 
 ^ Rom. Sotte7T. 11. p. vii ; see also quo tempore fuit persecutio 
 Duchesne Lib. Pout. i. p. ccl. Lipsius ann. vii. m. vi. d. xxv. 
 
 {Chronol. p. 249 sq) suggests that some et cessavit episcopatus 
 words have dropped out and that the ann. ii. m. vi. d. xxvii. 
 
 text stood originally thus ;
 
 ) 
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 293 
 
 ference can be drawn respecting Eusebius. In the History he does 
 not trace the papal succession beyond the accession of MarceUinus. 
 The Armenian Version of the Chronicle is mutilated at the end, but it 
 passes the year at which the accession of MarceUinus should be re- 
 corded, and there is no mention of him (see above, p. 216). Of the 
 mention of MarceUinus and the omission of Marcellus in the Liberian 
 Depositio I shall have to speak presently. 
 
 A dark and mysterious story has fastened upon the memory of 
 Marcellinus, not unconnected with our present subject. About a 
 century after his death, a Donatist bishop Petilianus attacked his 
 fair fame, representing him as having, with his presbyters Miltiades, 
 Marcellus, and Silvester, deUvered up the sacred books and offered 
 incense during the persecution'. By the presbyters thus named as impli- 
 cated with him the accuser doubtless intended the three successors of 
 Marcellinus in the papal chair. Indeed Augustine expressly states this 
 of Miltiades, about whom there might have been some doubt. Thus 
 the whole Roman episcopate was in a manner blackened by this charge. 
 The charge however is not recommended either by the form of the accu- 
 sation or by the person of the accuser. The selection of the names of 
 MarceUinus' three colleagues in guilt betrays the wholesale character of 
 fiction ; while the bUnd recklessness of the Donatists in charging Catholic 
 bishops as ' traditores ' and ' thurificati ' bids us pause before crediting 
 their assertions in this particular instance. Moreover in the Conference 
 of Carthage, held a. d. 411, the Donatists produced certain documents 
 which seemed to prove that two persons, Straton and Cassianus, who 
 were deacons under Miltiades, had faUen away during the persecution, 
 but they adduced nothing affecting the character of Miltiades him- 
 self, while Marcellinus, Marcellus, and Silvester, are not even named". 
 If therefore the matter had rested at this point, we might have 
 dismissed the charge without a misgiving. The LP however in its 
 notice of this pope endorses it, but gives the sequel. He appears here 
 as an anticipation of Cranmer alike in his fall and in his recantation. 
 A great persecution, we are told, was raging. Within thirty days 
 sixteen or seventeen thousand persons of both sexes were crowned 
 with martyrdom. Marcellinus was bidden to offer sacrifice and 
 yielded. Within a few days he was seized with remorse, led away 
 penitent, and beheaded by Diocletian. The bodies of the holy martyrs 
 
 ^ The authorities on this subject are Baptismo 27 (,0p. IX. p. 541 sq). 
 
 Augustin. Contra Liitcras Pctiliani ii. - Augustiii. Brev. Coll. 34 — 36 {Op. 
 
 202 sq {Op. IX. p. 275 sq), where the ix. p. 574 sq). 
 
 words of Petilianus are quoted, De Unico '
 
 294 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 lay in the streets twenty days by the emperor's orders. Then Marcellus 
 the presbyter took up the body of Marcellinus with the others and 
 ' buried it on the Salarian Way in the Cemetery of Priscilla, in a 
 chamber that can be seen to this day, as he himself had ordered when 
 penitent, while he was being dragged to execution, in a crypt near the 
 body of the holy Crescentio, on the 6th of the Kalends of May.' 
 With these facts before us we cannot, with Milman {Latin Christianity 
 I- P- 53)> peremptorily dismiss 'the apostacy of Marcellinus' as 'a 
 late and discarded fable adopted as favouring Roman supremacy.' 
 In the earlier form of the story at all events the motive of sup- 
 porting the ascendancy of the Roman see is nowhere apparent. 
 Even in the account of the LP, which I have just given, and which 
 seems to have been taken from a spurious Passio Marcellini no longer 
 extant (see Duchesne Lib. Pont. i. pp. Ixxiv, xcix), there are no traces 
 of any such motive. It appears first in the Acts of the spurious 
 Council of Sinuessa ', where Marcellinus is represented as judging and 
 condemning himself, because only a superior can be a judge and the 
 Roman see has no superior: 'Jam audi, pontifex, et judica causam 
 tuam, quoniam ex ore tuo justificaberis, et ex oretuo condemnaberis.' 
 But these Acts are obviously an afterthought. They presuppose the 
 fact of his lapse and make capital out of it. The character of the pope 
 is sacrificed to the authority of the papacy. On the whole the charge 
 is not sufficiently well supported to deserve credit. At all events 
 there is no reason for thinking that the omission of Marcellinus from 
 some of the papal lists, notably the Leonine, is owing to this slur 
 on his character, as Duchesne supposes {Lib. Pont. i. p. Ixxi sq) ; for 
 the confusion with Marcellus is sufficient to explain the omission of 
 either name, and Marcellus is more often extruded than Marcellinus. 
 Thus Marcellus is omitted even by Jerome, and his numbering of the 
 bishops shows that the omission was not accidental. It should be 
 added that the story of the apostasy does not seem to have been known 
 in the East ; for Eusebius speaks of Marcellinus as having been ' over- 
 taken' by the persecution {LL. E. vii. 32 ov...o 8i(oy/x.os KaTeL\-r](f)€), and 
 Theodoret even describes him as ' having borne a distinguished part ' 
 at this crisis {LL. E. i. 2 tov iv tw Siwy/Aw SiaTrpiij/avTa). This last 
 expression at all events can only be intended as eulogistic. It is right 
 however to mention that Theodoret knows nothing of Marcellus or 
 
 ^ Labb. Cone. i. p. 955 sq (ed, Coleti); turns. He scandalizes Tillemont (//. E. 
 
 see Baronius Atmal. s. ann. 303 § Ixxxix v. p. 613 sq) by this levity when dealing 
 
 sq. Baronius is greatly exercised with the with a question of such moment as the 
 
 question and blows hot and cold by faith of a sovereign pontiff.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 295 
 
 indeed of Eusebius, but mentions Miltiades as if he were the immediate 
 successor of Marcellinus. 
 
 The term-numbers assigned to MarceUinus are viii. iii. xxv. The 
 year of his death then is a.d. 304, both as calculated from these term- 
 numbers and as given by the consulates. This comparatively long 
 term of office agrees with the notices of Eusebius' and Theodoret 
 already quoted, which represent him as still living when the persecution 
 began (23 Feb., 303). If the figures for the months and days are coiTect, 
 he must have died on Oct. 25. But this does not agree with his com- 
 memoration, as given by any authority. The present text of the Liberian 
 Depositio (see p. 249) places it on xviii Kal. Feb., but this, as we have 
 seen (p. 250), is probably a confusion with his successor Marcellus. All 
 the other ancient authorities give his commemoration day in April. It 
 is vi Kal. Mai (April 26) in the Old Roman Martyrology, vii Kal. 
 Mai (April 25) in the Liber Poiiiificalis (FKP), and xii Kal. Mai 
 (April 20) in the Hieronymian Martyrology. The vi and xii seem to be 
 different corruptions of the vii, so that April 25 was probably the original 
 day. This would exactly suit the number of days xxv, but would 
 require a considerable change in the years and months, vii. viiii for 
 viii. iii; but it is not profitable to speculate any further in conjectural 
 emendation. We may perhaps accept the term-numbers provisionally 
 as correct and suppose that owing to the troubles of the times there 
 was a long interval between the death (25 Oct., 304), and the deposition 
 proper (25 April, 305), just as we have seen in the earlier case of 
 Cornelius (p. 288). The dates thus provisionally accepted would not 
 be inconsistent with the story of his lapse and martyrdom. We might 
 then suppose him to have been imprisoned after the Second Edict 
 (about March a.d. 303) which especially aimed at the imprisonment of 
 the clergy but avoided the shedding of blood", 10 have lapsed after the 
 Third Edict, which was an amnesty issued at the vicennalia (21 Dec, 
 A.D. 303) and offered release even to the clergy, provided they would 
 sacrifice'', and to have suffered martyrdom after the Fourth Edict, which 
 was promulgated in Rome by Maximian (30 April, 304). The judicial 
 slaughters perpetrated in consequence extended over many months. 
 
 ^ I do not understand what Lipsius assigned to his predecessor Gaius, and 
 
 (Ckronol. p. 242) means, when he says as the accession of Gaius is placed in 
 
 that ' the 8 years are established by the 278, the accession of Marcellinus ought to 
 
 reckoning of Eusebius in the Chronicon.'' fall in 293. 
 
 Marcellinus is not mentioned in the Ar- - '^Qc'^\^.i,Qx{!%Perseaition of Diocletian, 
 
 menian version, which alone Lipsius p. 103 sq. 
 accepts as representing the original work ■' Mason, p. 206. 
 
 of Eusebius ; but as xv years are there
 
 296 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Marcellinus was the first pope for some generations who was not 
 buried in the Cemetery of Callistus. By his own directions, we are told, 
 he was laid in the Cemetery of Priscilla. From the language which the 
 Z/'uses in making this statement, Lipsius {Chronol. p. 246) infers that 
 this is represented as a penitential act, as if he deemed himself un- 
 worthy of lying with his predecessors in the papal vault, and he himself 
 supposes Marcellinus to have been excluded by reason of his lapse. 
 This is not a very probable account of the fact. It is simpler with 
 De Rossi {Rom. Soft. 11. p. 105) to suppose that the well-known 
 Cemetery of Callistus had been confiscated at the outbreak of the 
 persecution and not yet restored, and that therefore he had to choose 
 some new place of sepulture. 
 
 The two next episcopates were days of trouble for the Roman 
 Church. The epitaphs of Damasus on both Marcellus and Eusebius 
 are extant {Rom. Soti. 11. pp. 195 sq, 204 sq). He tells us that the 
 efforts of these two prelates to enforce penitential disciphne on the 
 lapsed led to strife and bloodshed ; that the Church was rent asunder 
 by feuds; that Marcellus was driven into banishment by the tyrant 
 instigated by one of the oflfenders ; and that Eusebius died an exile 
 and a martyr in Sicily. The word ' martyr ' ought not probably to be 
 interpreted here in its stricter sense. In the Hierony77iian Martyrology 
 he is called a ' confessor.' 
 
 For these two prelates the Liberian Catalogue is very deficient. 
 While the term-numbers are recorded for both, the consulates only, 
 without the days of accession and death, are given for Marcellus, and 
 the days of accession and death alone, without the consulates, for 
 Eusebius. 
 
 The term-numbers for Marcellus are ann. i. m. vii. d. xx. It has 
 been pointed out above (p. 257), that the proper number for the months 
 is vii, as Lipsius correctly reads, not vi, as Mommsen gives it. If 
 however the Martyrologies are right, the ' depositio,' and presumably the 
 death, of this pope fell on Jan. 15 or one of the succeeding days 
 (p. 250). If therefore the death took place so early as January and the 
 year was 309, as the consulate gives it, the accession must belong not to 
 the year 308, as represented by the consulate, but to the preceding 
 year 307. There are three ways out of this difficulty: (i) We may with 
 Lipsius {Chronol. p. 248 sq, 264) suppose a mistake in the consulate 
 and may substitute 307 for 308 as the year of his accession. (2) We 
 may with Duchesne cut out the one year, in which case his episcopate 
 will extend from 26 May 308 to 15 Jan. 309. This is no violent pro- 
 cedure, since transcribers were fond of inserting a unit where they
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 297 
 
 found a blank'. I should prefer this solution to that of Lipsius, seeing 
 that the consulates have in this part of the list proved our safest guides. 
 (3) We may leave both the term-numbers and the consulates intact, and 
 we may suppose that the depositio here, as in the case of Cornelius and 
 probably also of Marcellinus, is the anniversary not of his death, but of 
 his translation to the Cemetery of Priscilla. He may have died in exile; 
 and in these times of trouble, when the Church was assailed by perse- 
 cution from without and torn asunder by internal strife, a long interval 
 might have elapsed before his body was laid peacefully in a Roman 
 Cemetery. In the Leonine list there has been a misplacement of the 
 months and days, so that those of Eusebius have been transferred to 
 Marcellus, and those of Miltiades to Eusebius. Miltiades himself has 
 lost his own months and days in consequence. 
 
 With Eusebius, the successor of Marcellus, the difficulties of re- 
 conciling the different statements are still greater. The beginning and 
 end of his episcopate are given as xiiii Kal. Mai (April 18) and xvi 
 Kal. Sept. (August 17), a period of exactly 4 months. The term-numbers 
 however give 4 months and 16 days. The 'd. xvi' therefore must be 
 struck out. It may have crept in accidentally from ' diem xvi Kal. Sept.' in 
 the context. But another difficulty remains. In the Liberian Depositio 
 his day is given as vi Kal. Oct. (Sept. 26); and so too the Hieronyinian 
 Martyrology on this day, ' Romae Via Appia in coemeterio Calesti 
 (Callisti) depositio S. Eusebii episcopi et confessoris.' But we know 
 that Eusebius died in exile, and his remains would have to be brought 
 to Rome. This latter therefore is the day of his translation. The 
 seven months assigned to this bishop by Jerome are an evident cor- 
 ruption, the iiii becoming vii by a common form of error. The variations 
 in the other lists also are explicable. The numbers in the Leonine list 
 are perhaps borrowed from Miltiades by a displacement ; those of 
 the LP are a variation of the Leonine ". But the year still remains 
 unsettled. No consulates are given to determine it. The alternative 
 lies between 309 and 310, as will be seen presently. 
 
 The term-numbers for Miltiades are ann. iii. m. vi. d. viii (viiii). 
 The beginning of his episcopate is given as vi Non. Jul. (July 2), the 
 end as iii Id. Jan. (Jan. 11). Moreover the latter date accords sub- 
 stantially with the Depositio, which has iiii Id. Jan. (Jan. 10), so that 
 there is an error of a single day only in the one place or the other. 
 Miltiades survived the edict of Milan, when more settled times arrived. 
 Hence there is no interval between the death and the ' depositio ', as in 
 
 ^ See the note on p. 291. 
 
 ^ Lipsius gives another explanation, Jahrb. f. Prot. Thcol. vi. p. 93 sq.
 
 298 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the case of the preceding bishops. So far, well and good. But the 
 three years present a difficulty. If the consulates are correctly given 
 (a.d, 311 — 314), they can only be reconciled with the months and days 
 by writing ii for iii. This is Duchesne's solution {Lib. Pont. i. p. ccxlix); 
 and as the consulates elsewhere have been found trustworthy, perhaps 
 it is the more probable alternative. Otherwise we should be obliged 
 with Lipsius to suppose an error in the consulate for the accession 
 (a.d. 311), and to place it in the previous year. It must be confessed 
 however that the iiii years of Jerome and others are favourable to the 
 larger number iii in this list. Unfortunately external events connected 
 with this episcopate do not assist us in determining this point. A letter 
 from Constantine to Miltiades is extant (Euseb. H. E. x. 5), in which 
 the emperor directs him to summon a synod at Rome to adjudicate on 
 the Donatist question. The synod met on the 2nd of October 313', 
 under the presidency of Miltiades. On the other hand the synodal 
 letter of the Council of Aries, dated the ist of August 314, is addressed 
 to his successor Silvester ^ Thus external history furnishes a signal 
 verification of the Liberian chronology so far as regards the close of 
 this episcopate. Of the beginning it has nothing to say. 
 
 We may now return to Eusebius. The death of his predecessor has 
 been placed in January 309, the accession of his successor in July 311. He 
 himself held the episcopate for four months, from April 18 to August 17. 
 The year 31 1 is thus excluded from the competition 3 and the alternative 
 
 ^ Optat. De Schism. Donat. i. 23 (p. consuls loi^ether for the second time in 
 23, Dupin) 'Convenerunt in domum A.I). 312, for the third time in A.D. 313, 
 Faustae in Laterano, Constantino quater and for the fourth time in a.d. 315. 
 et Licinio ter consulibus, sexto Nonas The form Melciades or Melchiades 
 Octobris die. ..Cum consedissent Miltiades is a corruption of Miltiades, arising out 
 episcopus urbis Romae etc.,' Augustin. of careless Latin pronunciation or tran- 
 Post Collat. 56 {Op. IX. p. 614) 'Mel- scription, more especially the latter, for 
 chiades judicavit Constantino ter et Li- the interchange of C and T is a very 
 cinio iterum consulibus, sexto Nonas common occurrence. In the printed texts 
 Octobres,' Epist. 88 {Op. Ii. p. 214) of Augustine the name is commonly 
 'Domino nostro Constantino Augusto written Melchiades, though the best Mss 
 tertium cos.,' where the same year is seem to support the correct form Mil- 
 intended. The consuls of this year were tiades. The Greek MeXxta57;s can only 
 ' Constantinus iii, Licinius iii,' as ap- have been derived from a corrupt Latin 
 pears from a letter of Constantine on the source. In the different mss of the LP 
 subject in Cod. Theodos. xvi. ii. i (vi. (see Duchesne i. p. 168), we have the 
 p. 22, ed. Gothofred) so that the 'quater' forms Miltiades, Myltiades, Meltiades, 
 of Optatus and the 'iterum ' of Augustine, Meletiades, Melciades, Melchiades, etc. 
 at least of their present texts, must be " Labb. Cone. I. p. 1445 sq(ed. Coleti); 
 corrected. Constantine and Licinius were see Hefele Coitciliengcsch. i. p. i72sq.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 299 
 
 remains of 309 or 310. We have no data for deciding between these 
 two years. 
 
 The next three popes in succession, Silvester, Marcus, and Julius, 
 present no difficulty. We have evidently a strictly contemporary record 
 here. The beginnings and the ends of all the three episcopates are care- 
 fully recorded. The beginnings are all found to coincide with Sundays 
 in accordance with the rule followed from the time of Miltiades. The 
 ends are given likewise in the Dcpos. Episc. (see p. 249 sq) ; and the dates 
 agree exactly with those of our Papal Catalogue, with one slight exception. 
 In the Papal Catalogue for the death of Silvester, instead of 'Kl. Jan.', 
 we should read ' Pr. Kl. Jan." For (i) It is so in the Depos. Episc; 
 (2) It is required to make the reckoning of the xi months ; (3) It is 
 required likewise by the consulates ; for if he had died, not on Dec. 31, but 
 on Jan. i, the consuls would not have been those of a.d. 335, but those 
 of A.D. 336. The xxii years assigned to this pope by Jerome are a round 
 number for the exact xxi years, xi months. For Julius it seems neces- 
 sary that we should correct m. i. d. xi into m. ii. d. vi, for these latter 
 numbers are not only required by the interval, but are reproduced (with 
 slight errors of transcription) in the Leonine Catalogue and in LP. 
 The term assigned to him by Jerome, ann. xvi. m. iiii, is not easily 
 explained and must be an error, though Jerome was probably born 
 some years before his accession. These three episcopates then occupy 
 the period from 31 Jan. 314 to 12 Apr. 352. The limits of each severally 
 are exhibited in the table above, p. 285. 
 
 The accession of the next bishop, Liberius, during whose episcopate 
 this Catalogue was drawn up, is given as xi Kal. Jun. (May 22). This 
 day however was not a Sunday in the year 352. An easy correction 
 (comp. Ign. and Polyc. i. p. 666) would be xi Kal. Jul. (June 21), which 
 would meet the requirement respecting the day of the week. This cor- 
 rection was suggested by Pagi and is accepted as probable by Lipsius 
 {Chron. pp. 262, 264). Another solution however is proposed by 
 Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. cxl). The Hierotiymian Martyrology gives the 
 commemoration ' Liberii episcopi ' under two several dates, xvi Kal. 
 Jun. (May 17) and viiii Kal. Oct. (Sept. 23). In the latter case the entry 
 is, ' Romae, depositio sancti Liberii episcopi.' It would seem therefore 
 that the former is the date of his accession, and that we have here an 
 instance of confusion, which we find elsewhere in this Martyrology, 
 between the days of accession and of death. In this year May 1 7 was a 
 Sunday. The Libelliis Prccuni praef. c. i (Migne's Patrol. Lat. xiii. 
 
 ^ We have a similar omission of the of Marcellinus in FP, wliich have ' Kal. 
 letters 'pr.' in the date of the accession Jul.' for 'pr. Kal. Jul.'
 
 300 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 p. 8i) of Faustus and Marcellus against Damasus places the death of 
 Liberius 'octavo Kalendas Octobris' (Sept. 24), and this (viii, not viiii) 
 is probably correct. The term-numbers for the months and days of 
 this pope would then be m. iiii. d. vii, and this (making allowance for 
 slight errors) accords with the Leonine figures m. iiii. d. viii and with 
 those of the LP m, iii. d. iiii (where iiii is a corruption of vii). We 
 may therefore adopt May 17 as the probable day of his accession. 
 The figures for the years of Liberius in the later Latin lists are wide of 
 the mark. 
 
 Having gone through the whole of the Liberian Catalogue and 
 tested the amount of credibility which attaches to its several parts, we 
 are now in a position to state some conclusions as to its origin and 
 growth. It should be premised however that these conclusions must 
 be regarded as in some points tentative. Whether we shall ever arrive 
 at results which will command a general assent, must depend on new 
 discoveries. Criticism has been working earnestly on this Catalogue for 
 a long time and has almost exhausted its resources. We need fresh 
 documentary evidence before we can hope for a final solution. 
 
 ( 1 ) The ground-work of this Catalogue was a list drawn up under 
 Pontianus a.d. 230-235. There is a fair degree of probability that 
 Hippolytus was its author. If not, it must have been the work of some 
 contemporary. It contained nothing besides a list of names with the 
 years of office, except perhaps the note relating to Hermas. This chro- 
 nographer of the Hippolytean age however was not dependent on oral 
 tradition. He had before him an earlier list of the papal succession. 
 Of the prior document or documents which he used I shall have occa- 
 sion to speak hereafter. 
 
 (2) A hst was drawn up under Stephanus (a.d. 254-257) of the 
 pontificates from Pontianus to Lucius inclusive (five episcopates). It 
 contained the names of the popes in succession ; the terms of office 
 expressed in months, years, and days ; and the dates of the close of 
 each episcopate with the manner of death or other cause of the vacancy 
 ('discinctus', 'dormit', 'passus', 'cum gloria dormicionem accepit', 
 'dormit'). It moreover gave certain historical notices, affecting more 
 especially the government and governors of the Church. Thus it re- 
 corded the deportation of Pontianus together with Hippolytus to Sar- 
 dinia; the Novatian schism under Fabius [Fabianus] and Cornelius; 
 and the banishment and restoration of Lucius. It contained likewise 
 one notice of episcopal administration, which is somewhat different 
 from the rest and which served as a pattern for the later fictions of the 
 Liber Pontificalis. We are told of Fabianus that he divided out the
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 301 
 
 city among the deacons and that he was the author of many erections 
 in the cemeteries. 
 
 The compiler of this portion, which comprises about twenty years, 
 writing under Stephanus, was contemporary with the events recorded. 
 Whether he derived his information from ot^cial archives or from private 
 knowledge, we cannot say. Though not homogeneous with the work 
 of the Hippolytean chronicler, it may possibly have been compiled as 
 a continuation of this work. This relation would explain how the 
 second list begins at the same point at which the first ends. But with 
 the banishment and resignation of Pontianus a new epoch in the 
 history of the papacy commenced, and this fact alone would be enough 
 to suggest the drawing up of a new record. 
 
 (3) We have seen that these first and second portions (a.d. 29-234, 
 and A.D. 234-254), though not homogeneous the one with the other, 
 were yet homogeneous each in itself. This is not the case with the 
 portion comprising the third period, from a.d. 254 — 336. There is much 
 variety of treatment in the different parts. For the half century from 
 Stephanus to Marcellinus (a.d. 254-304) the irregularity is the greatest. 
 Som^etimes the days both of accession and of death are given, some- 
 times the one or the other, and sometimes neither. For the remaining 
 portion, from Marcellus to Marcus (a.d. 308-336), the treatment is more 
 even, and both days are regularly given. The want of homogeneity in 
 this third portion of the Catalogue may suggest that it was not the work 
 of one hand; but that the previous list from Peter to Stephanus re- 
 ceived supplements from time to time from different persons, the latter 
 and homogeneous part being the work of the Chronographer of 336. 
 
 (4) During this period, while it was receiving supplements from 
 time to time, copies of the list were multiplied by transcription, and it 
 was seriously corrupted in the process. Hence the transpositions of 
 Cletus and Clemens, and of Pius and Anicetus, as well as the displace- 
 ment of the figures for the years through several papacies (see above, 
 p. 270 sq), in the former part of the list. Hence likewise the insertion 
 of three years for Lucius and of two years for Xystus 11, with other less 
 flagrant errors, in the latter part. A very inaccurate and blurred copy 
 also fell into the hands of Eusebius, though corrupt in a different way 
 and much purer for the earlier episcopates than the Liberian copy. 
 
 (5) The Chronographer of 336 seems to have inserted Anacletus, if 
 indeed his name had not been already inserted in the process of trans- 
 mission. He also added the consulates. They agree very exactly with 
 the names in the Consular Fasti which form part of his collection (see 
 p. 248; p. 253 sq). But he encountered great difficulties in carrying
 
 302 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 * 
 
 out this task, owing to the gross corruptions which had already crept 
 into the text. He had certain fixed dates, as for instance the Crucifixion 
 (a.d. 29), the exile and deposition of Pontianus (a.d. 235), the martyr- 
 dom of Fabianus (a.d. 250), the martyrdom of Xystus 11 (a.d. 258), and 
 probably some later events also. In some of these cases (e.g. the 
 exile of Pontianus, and the martyrdom of Xystus 11) he probably found 
 the consulates already in the text ' ; at all events they were well known 
 dates. Having the Consular Fasti before him, he filled in the years by 
 the aid of the term-numbers, working backwards or forwards, as the 
 case might be, from the fixed dates. In the earlier part of the list, as 
 far as Urbanus inclusive, there were as yet no figures for months and 
 days. Accordingly he treats the years as whole years in the manner 
 described above (p. 264). In the latter part however he found not only 
 the duration of office in months and days as well as years, but also in 
 many cases the actual day of the year on which the episcopate began or 
 ended. The same consulate therefore, which ends one episcopate, is 
 properly made to commence the next, except where, as in the cases of 
 Felix and of Silvester", a pope died at the very close of a year, so that 
 his successor's consecration necessarily fell in the next. But this mode 
 of working backwards and forwards from fixed dates, though the only 
 course open to our chronographer, had its inconveniences. It is like 
 boring a tunnel underground, beginning at both ends. There is danger 
 that the two may not meet but overlap each other. This mishap befel 
 our chronographer in two instances, (i) In the first (Hippolytean) 
 part of the list he began with the Crucifixion at one end and with the 
 deposition of Pontianus at the other ; but owing to the corruptions in 
 his list the aggregate of the term-numbers was far in excess of the 
 historic space, and accordingly at the middle of this period (Anicetus, 
 Pius) he overlaps himself by eight years (see above, p. 264). (ii) Again 
 in the second (Stephanie) part, having to fill the space between the 
 martyrdom of Fabianus and that of Xystus 11, which were fixed dates, 
 and l)eginning in like manner at both ends, he overlaps himself by three 
 years. Here again the sum of the term-numbers (owing to corruptions) 
 exceeded the available historic space by this period. In the last part 
 of the list, where he was dealing with contemporary history, he had 
 
 ^ The names given to the consuls are tion that they were derived thence, 
 
 so obvious during the period from Pon- - This was likewise the case with 
 
 tianus to Marcellinus, as well as in some Dionysius, but by a slight error our 
 
 other parts, that their accordance with chronographer places his decease in the 
 
 the Consular Fasti of our chronographer wrong consulate (see above, p.iijo). 
 in any particular instance is no presump-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 303 
 
 accurate information, even if he did not find the consulates already- 
 recorded in most instances. His real difficulty would naturally be in 
 the earlier episcopates of this portion ; and it was the greater, because 
 the see was frequently vacant for a long time owing to the troubles, and 
 the episcopates therefore were not chronologically continuous, so that 
 the thread of his reckoning was snapped. Hence no consulates are 
 assigned to Eusebius (a.d. 309 or 310). This omission is unique in the 
 whole list. Probably our chronographer was in the same perplexity as 
 ourselves, having no means of determining the exact year. 
 
 This chronographer is probably responsible for the imperial syn- 
 chronisms also. 
 
 (6) The document received its final touches from the Chrono- 
 grapher of 354. He continued it from the point where his predecessor 
 had dropped it, adding the notices of the episcopate of Julius and of the 
 accession of Liberius, in whose time he Wx-ote. He also inserted the 
 months and days for the earlier part — from Peter to Pontianus — where 
 hitherto only years had been given, thus making the record symmetrical 
 throughout. My reason for assigning this last-mentioned insertion to 
 the latest stage in the growth of the document will have appeared 
 already. From what has been said, it will be evident that the months 
 and days cannot have had any place there when the consulates were 
 added. 
 
 (7) To the carelessness of later transcribers must be attributed 
 such errors as the omission of Anicetus, Eleutherus, and Zephyrinus • or 
 again the corruption of the numbers, where these differ from the inter- 
 vals as determined by the consulates. 
 
 4- 
 THE LIBER PONTIFICALIS. 
 
 It will not be necessary to enter into a detailed account of the 
 history and contents of this work (which I shall continue to designate 
 LP). We are only concerned with it here, so far as it throws back any 
 light on the early papal lists. A short summary therefore will suffice. 
 
 The preface to the work consists of two letters, one purporting to 
 be written by Jerome to pope Damasus requesting him to compile a 
 history of the see from the episcopacy of S. Peter to his own time ; the 
 other a reply from Damasus complying with this request and forwarding 
 to him such particulars as he could discover ('quod gestum potuimus 
 repperire').
 
 304 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 The body of the work comprises accounts of the several popes in 
 order, brief in the earlier part, but increasing in length as time advances. 
 The earlier lives contain notices of their parentage and country, of the 
 date of their accession and length of their pontificate, of their chief 
 episcopal acts, especially their ordinations, and of the day and place 
 of their ' depositio '. 
 
 Owing to the forged letters prefixed to the work, the earlier lives as 
 far as Damasus were supposed to have been written by him, and in 
 the thirteenth century and later, we find such designations as Chronica 
 Damasi or Dainasus de Gestis Pontificum given to it (see Duchesne 
 Lib. Pont. I. p. xxxiii sq). The subsequent lives Panvinio (in Platina 
 de Vit. Pont. Roman, p. 9, Cologne 1600) without any authority what- 
 ever ascribed to Anastasius the Librarian. This date was obviously 
 far too late ; for Anastasius flourished in the latter half of the ninth 
 century, and the LP is frequently quoted by much earlier writers. Yet 
 Bellarmin accepted this attribution, and to Anastasius the work is 
 ascribed in the editio princeps (Mogunt. 1602). Baronius (s. ann. 867 
 § cxxxix) so far modifies this opinion as to hold that Anastasius was the 
 author, only as having collected together lives written by others before 
 him. Somewhat later (a.d. 1687) Pearson arrived at a substantially 
 correct view of the histojy of the LP {Minor Works 11. p. 416 sq). He 
 saw that it must have been written as early as the sixth century and 
 have been interpolated before the age of Anastasius. After him 
 Schelestrate {Antiq. Ecclcs. Lllustr. i. p. 375 sq, Romae 1692) dealt the 
 death-blow to the Anastasian authorship, and his verdict was adopted 
 by Bianchini. Bianchini however unfortunately retained the name of 
 Anastasius in the title of his edition ; and in our own age it is still in- 
 cluded among the works of Anastasius in Migne's Patrol, Latin, cxxvii, 
 
 CXXVIII. 
 
 The materials accumulated by later research have contributed 
 to a more definite solution of the problem. It is now ascertained that 
 there were two distinct editions of the work, the one traced back to 
 the earlier years of the sixth century, the other to the close of the 
 seventh. 
 
 I. The earlier of these editions has not reached us in its complete- 
 ness, but is preserved in two abridgments. 
 
 The first of these (F), the Felician, closes with the life of Felix iv 
 (t A.D. 530), though followed in the mss by a bare list of the succeeding 
 popes as far as Pelagius 11 (t a-d. 590). It was evidently made during 
 the short pontificate of Felix' successor, Boniface 11 (a.d. 530 — 532). 
 In two out of the three mss in which it is preserved {Paris. 1451, Vatic.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 305 
 
 Regin. 11 27) it is prefixed to a collection of Canons. In the third 
 {Bernens. 225) it breaks off suddenly in the middle of a line in the life 
 of Liberius and is followed by Jerome's treatise de Viris Ilhistribus (see 
 Lipsius Chronologie p. 279). There is good reason for supposing that 
 this abridgment was originally made to accompany the collection of 
 Canons, which shows by its contents that it was drawn up in the 6th 
 century and in Gaul (see Duchesne Etude p. 6 sq. Lib. Pont. i. p. xlix sq), 
 though its connexion with these Canons is questioned by Lipsius {Jahrb. 
 f. Protest. Thcol. v. p. 397). This abridgment is quoted by Gregory of 
 Tours. 
 
 The second (K), the Cononian\ is a later abridgment of the same 
 work, but is continued as far as Conon (t a.d. 687). In the extant 
 MSs however there are lists of the popes carrying the series much lower 
 down. The lives from Felix iv (f a.d. 530) to Conon, which are want- 
 ing in F, are taken from the common (later) edition of the LP., but not 
 without abridgment. 
 
 Of these two abridgments of the earlier edition of the LP, F ad- 
 heres for the most part rigidly to the text, omitting but not changing 
 words ; while on the other hand K occasionally gives the substance in 
 different language. Duchesne {Lib. Potit. i. p. 47 sq) has restored this 
 primitive edition of the LP from these two abridgments with the aid of 
 the later recension. 
 
 This opinion, that F and K represent an older text of the LP 
 than the so-called Anastasian work, but in an abridged form, has been 
 put forward with great ability and clearness by Duchesne {Etude p. 6 sq, 
 Lib. Pout. I. p. Ivii sq). It is also shared by Lipsius {Chronol. p. 80 sq. 
 Das Felicianische Papstbuch in Jarhb. f. Prot. Thcol. v. p. 385 sq, esp. 
 p. 425 sq), and will probably meet with general acceptance. On the 
 other hand Waitz {Neues Archiv iv. p. 217 sq, ix. p. 459 sq, x. p. 453 
 sq, XI. p. 217 sq) regards them as abridged from a later altered and 
 somewhat corrupt text of the Anastasian work ; and he seems to have 
 found an adherent, at least to some extent, in Harnack {Theolog. 
 Liicraturz. 1886, no. 11, p. 244 sq). For Duchesne's replies to the 
 criticisms of Waitz see Retme des Questions LListoriques xxvi. p. 493 sq 
 (1879), XXIX. p. 246 sq (1881), Melanges d' Archeologie etc. 11. p. 277 
 sq, IV. p. 232 sq, VI. p. 275 sq. Waitz is also answered by Lipsius, 
 though more briefly, in the notes to his paper \n Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. v. 
 
 1 Care must be taken not to confuse here ; and (2) The later or Cononian 
 
 two different works: (i) The Cononian edition (not abridgment) of the LP, of 
 
 ahridgDicnt of the earher or Fehcian edi- which an account will be given presently 
 
 tion of the LP, of which I am speaking (p. 307 sq). 
 
 CLEM. 20
 
 v3 
 
 06 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 p. 387 sq. The paper itself bad been written before Waitz published his 
 views. 
 
 The earlier edition then of the LP was brought down to the death 
 of Felix IV (a.d. 530). Whatever may be thought of the particular 
 texts of F and K, this fact seems to be established. The lives of the 
 popes at this epoch bear evidence that they were written by a con- 
 temporary or contemporaries. It is Duchesne's opinion that the book, 
 which is thus abridged in F and K, was compiled originally under 
 Hormisdas (a.d. 514 — 523), the successor of Symmachus, and con- 
 tinued by contemporary hands to the death of FeHx {^Lib. Pojit. 1. 
 p. xlviii). Ivipsius {Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. v. p. 395 sq) would place its 
 compilation a io}^ years earlier, in the age of Gelasius (t a.d. 496) or 
 Anastasius 11 (f a.d. 498), the immediate predecessors of Symmachus. 
 Among other reasons he is desirous of giving sufficient room for the 
 corruptions in the text, as they appear in FK. I need not stop to 
 discuss these divergent views. The difference is not great ; nor has 
 the question any bearing on the earlier history of the papacy, with 
 which alone we are directly concerned, whatever may be its interest 
 for the events of the close of the 5th and commencement of the 6th 
 century. 
 
 This period was marked by the contention between Symmachus and 
 Laurentius for the papacy. Symmachus was the chosen of the Roman 
 party ; Laurentius of the Byzantine. The feud was at length brought 
 to an end by the intervention of King Theodoric. Symmachus was 
 established on the papal throne, while Laurentius was consoled with 
 the Campanian bishopric of Nuceria. Such an epoch would direct 
 attention to the previous history of the Roman see, and call forth 
 publications favourable to either side. The LP, of which (as we have 
 seen) the earlier edition belongs to this epoch, advocates strongly 
 the cause of Symmachus. But there is likewise extant in a Vero- 
 nese MS a fragment of what was apparently a papal history, con- 
 taining the few closing lines of a life of Anastasius 11 (Ia.d. 498) 
 followed l^y a life of Symmachus, in which this latter pope is severely 
 handled and the cause of the antipope Laurentius advocated. As the 
 life of Symmachus is followed by a mere list of names and terms of office 
 (in years, months, and days) for the succeeding popes, the work itself was 
 evidently written during this pontificate. Indeed, since it mentions the 
 schism which arose upon the 'henoticon' of Zeno as still existing, it 
 must date before a.d. 519, and therefore within four or five years of the 
 death of Symmachus (Duchesne Lib. Pont. i. p. xxx). Here then we 
 have two contemporary papal histories written from diametrically oppo-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 307 
 
 site points of view. Unfortunately the Laurentian history is only a 
 fragment, and we do not know what preceded it. But it is at least 
 a plausible conjecture that the two histories had the same, or substantially 
 the same, matter in common till towards the close of the fifth century, 
 and that here they diverged, each building upon a common foundation 
 the last storey of contemporary history according to his own prejudices 
 and in his own party interests'. Attention has been called already 
 (p. 262 sq) to this phenomenon, as illustrating what may have occurred 
 at an earlier date, in the age of Hippolytus. The Laurentian fragment 
 is given in full by Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. 43 sq). 
 
 2. The later edition of the Liber Pontificalis can be traced as far 
 back as Conon (Ia.d. 687). Of this we have direct manuscript evi- 
 dence. The Neapolitan MS, to which attention was called by Pertz, 
 and of which I shall have to speak presently, contains this recension. 
 From the handwriting it appears to belong to the end of the 8th 
 century and not later; and originally it must have comprised biographies 
 of the popes down to Conon. It is true that in its present state, owing 
 to the mutilation of the ms, it breaks off in the middle of the life of 
 Anastasius 11 (a.d. 496 — 498), but prefixed to the work is a list of the 
 popes as far as Conon. Moreover the biographies at this epoch, both 
 before and after Conon, in this recension were evidently written by con- 
 temporaries. Thus in the life of Leo 11 (f a.d. 683) the Sixth Ecu- 
 menical Council is mentioned as having been held ' lately ' {Lib. Pont. 
 I. p. 359, ed. Duchesne). The age of Conon therefore is the latest 
 possible date for this recension. Hence it is sometimes called the 
 'Cononian' edition. But there is every reason for supposing that it 
 belongs to a much earlier date and was added to from time to time. 
 The evidence in favour of its earlier origin derived from the history 
 of the text will be mentioned shortly. For this and for other reasons 
 Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. ccxxx sq) would place it as early as the middle 
 of the 6th century, the age of Vigihus (a.d. 537 — 555). His arguments 
 do not seem to me conclusive; but the term ' Cononian,' as applied to 
 this recension of the LP, is certainly misleading, as it suggests a date 
 which is much too late, and it has the further disadvantage of creating 
 a confusion with a wholly different form of this work (see p. 305, 
 note i). 
 
 A full account of the mss of this ' second edition ' of the LP will be 
 
 1 If however the calculations of Du- rect, the earlier lives must have been 
 chesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. xxxi) as to the very much briefer even than those of the 
 contents of the missing portion be cor- Felician al)ridgment. 
 
 20 — 2
 
 3o8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 found in Duchesne (^Lib. Pont. i. p. clxiv sq; comp. Etude p. 46 sq). 
 If we confine our attention to the portion from S. Peter to Felix iv, 
 they fall into two main classes. 
 
 (x^) The chief representative of the first class is the Lucca Ms, no. 
 490, in the Chapter Library of that city. The volume contains various 
 works in different hands of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century. 
 The LP in this MS consists of two parts, (i) the first reaching as far as 
 Constantine (t a.d. 712) in one handwriting, and (2) the second with, 
 a different numbering of the sheets in a different hand, from Gregory 11 
 to Hadrian i (a.d. 715 — 758). Each part presumably was written 
 about the date at which it closes. At the end of the first part is a notice, 
 Hue usque cxxviiii a/mi sunt quod Longobardi venerunt et vii tnejises. 
 The point of time from which the 129 years should be reckoned is a 
 little uncertain'. 
 
 (B) The most ancient representative of the other class is the Nea- 
 politamis iv. a. 5, already mentioned (p. 307), which must have been 
 written before the close of the 7th century. It bears the inscription 
 Liber S. Columbani and most probably therefore belonged originally to 
 the Monastery of Bobbio. For the reasons which have been already 
 stated, we may fairly conclude that it was carried down to Conon 
 (t A.D. 687). Attention was first called to the exceptional importance 
 of this MS for the history of the LP by Pertz {Archiv v. p. 70 sq, 1824). 
 
 Though this MS is some years earlier than the Lucca ms, and perhaps 
 coeval with the completion of this second recension of the LP, yet the 
 type of text B is certainly inferior to the type of text A, and exhibits 
 both corruptions and additions from which the latter is free. This point 
 seems to be made quite clear by Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. p. ccvii sq, 
 comp. Etude p. 40 sq), and Lipsius {Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. v. p. 389) ac- 
 quiesces. On the other hand Waitz {Neues Archiv iv. p. 225 sq, and 
 elsewhere) maintains the priority of the text B against Duchesne. 
 
 But the fact, that in a ms coeval or nearly so with Conon the 
 text is already corrupt, shows that this recension of the LP had already 
 had a continuous history at this epoch, though the age of Conon is the 
 earliest at which we have direct evidence of its existence. It was not a 
 
 ^ In his Etude p. 47 Duchesne dates he assumes the Lucca MS to have been 
 
 the Lombard invasion a.d. 568 ; so that, written not earlier than the accession of 
 
 adding 129 years, we arrive at 697, not pope Constantine (a.d. 708), in which 
 
 715, as the date intended. He therefore case the date (not earlier than 708- 129 = 
 
 supposes this reckoning, A.D. 697, to give 579) will refer to the Lombard invasion 
 
 the date of the original of the Lucca MS.' of the particular country 'where the MS 
 
 In his later work [fAh. Pont. i. p. clxv) was in the 8th century.'
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 309 
 
 cast as of molten metal, but a growth as of a tree. The text of this 
 recension must have existed already in two distinct types before the later 
 lives ending with Conon were attached to it. It is altogether beside my 
 purpose to pursue this question further. Those who are anxious to follow 
 up the subject will do well to consult Duchesne's own account of the 
 relations of the mss and the growth of the text'. But indeed, notwith- 
 standing the great care and ability of his work,, it were too sanguine to 
 hope that the last word had been spoken on a question so intricate and 
 thorny. 
 
 So far as regards the earlier popes, our interest in the LP ends with 
 these two editions or recensions. With the continuations which from 
 time to time were attached to the work, or with the modifications which 
 affect the later portions, we have no concern. A full account of these 
 will be found in Duchesne {Lib. Pont. i. ccxxx sq ; comp. Etude p. 
 199 sq). 
 
 For the early centuries the differences between the two editions of 
 the LP 2Lxe. for the most part inconsiderable. It is only when we have 
 advanced well into the 4th century, that they assume a greater promi- 
 nence. One group of insertions however which appears in the later 
 edition — perhaps the most striking during this early period — affects the 
 first four lives and therefore has a direct bearing on our subject. In the 
 biography of S. Peter a paragraph is inserted, explaining how Linus and 
 Cletus were appointed during the Apostle's life-time to act as suffragans", 
 that he might not be cumbered with business which would interfere with 
 his preaching. It then goes on to speak of his disputes with Simon Magus 
 — all this being preparatory to the succeeding notice ^ which represents 
 S. Peter as ordaining Clement to be his immediate successor, and com- 
 mitting to him the care of the Church (in language borrowed from the 
 Clementine Letter to James)., charging him at the same time to appoint 
 others to relieve him of ecclesiastical business, that he may devote him- 
 self to prayer and to preaching. Accordingly in the lives of Linus and 
 of Cletus, where these two bishops are represented as performing 
 certain episcopal acts, this later edition inserts the words ' ex praecepto 
 beati Petri,' which are wanting in the earlier, thus representing them as 
 only carrying out the directions of a living superior. The same idea 
 again is insisted upon in the life of Clement, where he is said to have 
 
 ' Lib. Pont. I. pp. xlix sq, clxiv sq ; " See above, p. 191 scj. 
 
 see also Melanges (T Archeologie vi. p. •' See above, pp. 186, 191, where the 
 
 275 sq, which contains a summary of forms of the life of Clement in the earlier 
 
 Duchesne's views on this subject. and later editions of the LP are given.
 
 3 JO EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 undertaken the pontificate of the Church ' ex praecepto beati Petri,' 
 this being the last occasion on which the phrase is used. Here the 
 Epistle of Clement to James, which had been indirectly quoted in a 
 previous life, is mentioned by name; and the explanation is given that 
 the names of Linus and Cletus stand before Clement on the roll 
 ('ante eum conscribuntur'), as having been ordained bishops by Peter 
 under the circumstances described. This, it will be remembered, is 
 a suggestion of Epiphanius, who is followed by Rufinus ', to reconcile 
 the discrepancies of order in tlie different papal lists. It should be added 
 that no attempt is made to rectify the chronology, so as to bring it into 
 harmony with this theory. Though Clement is represented as conse- 
 crated by S. Peter himself, he is stated nevertheless to have held the 
 episcopate nine years, and to have died in the third year of Trajan. 
 
 The other changes in these earlier lives likewise betray a later date. 
 Thus Anicetus and Soter are said in the Felician edition to be buried 
 ' juxta corpus beati Petri,' i.e. in the Vatican, which we learn from other 
 authorities to have been the case ; but in this second edition their place 
 of sepulture is given as the Cemetery of Callistus, though this cemetery 
 did not exist in their time. Again Anicetus and Eutychianus are made 
 martyrs, though the earlier edition knows nothing of this ; while Gaius, 
 from being a simple confessor, is promoted to the higher honour of 
 martyrdom. The most significant indication of a later date however 
 occurs in the notice of the Paschal dispute in the life of Victor (Duchesne 
 ZzA J^on^. I. pp. Ixiii, ccxxxi, 138). In the earlier edition, as Duchesne 
 points out, the language is 'inspired by the Li'lfer Paschalis of Victorius 
 of Aquitaine, published in 457'; whereas in the later the editor has in 
 view the system of Dionysius Exiguus, which was given to the world in 
 525- 
 
 But the question of real interest for our immediate purpose has 
 reference to the earlier authorities on which the Liber Pontificalis is 
 founded. These are twofold. 
 
 (i) The Ltberian Catalogue. The whole of this Catalogue is in- 
 corporated in the LP. This is done without any intelligence or appre- 
 ciation, and often with very incongruous results. This fact furnishes 
 one of the strongest evidences that F and K are abridgments. The 
 quotations from the Liberian Catalogue, which appear in full in the 
 later edition of the LP, are found in these authorities in a mutilated 
 form. Yet it is almost inconceivable that the later editor, finding these 
 
 ^ See above, pp. 169 sq, 174 sq, where the passages of Epiphanius and Rufinus 
 are quoted.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 311 
 
 broken fragments in the earlier edition, should have taken the trouble 
 to gather the corresponding pieces from the original document and fit 
 them together, thus restoring the quotations to their pristine condition. 
 We are therefore driven to the only remaining conclusion that at one 
 time they were complete in the earlier edition, as they still are in the 
 later, and that they suffered mutilation by the abridgment of the 
 former. The example which Duchesne gives (i. p. xlii) from the life of 
 Fabianus is a good illustration. 
 
 (2) The Leonine Catalogue. Though this document is no longer 
 extant, its existence must be postulated in order to explain the pedigree 
 of later authorities. A considerable number of papal lists are found, 
 giving the years, months, and days, of the several pontificates, and all 
 obviously derived from one parent. The principal of these are given by 
 Duchesne {Lib. Font. i. p. 12 sq; comp. p. xiv — xxv); see also Anal. 
 Noviss. Spicil. Solesni. i. p. 315 sq, where there is a list of these and 
 other papal catalogues (p. 332 sq). A collation of several will be found 
 in Lipsius Chronol. p. 128 sq. The oldest date from the age of Felix iii 
 (t A. D. 492) and Hormisdas (f a. d. 523). This fact points to about the 
 middle of the 5th century, or a little after, as the lowest possible date of 
 the parent list. 
 
 But in the year 447 a book on the Paschal Cycle was published and 
 dedicated to Leo the Great. Only a few fragments remain, which have 
 been edited by Mommsen {Die Zeitzer Ostertafel vom Jahre 447 
 p. 537 sq, in the Abhandl. der Acad, der Wiss. zu Berlin 1862). This 
 Easter Table derives its name from Zeitz in Saxony, in the library of 
 which place it was found. Happily a portion of the prologue has 
 been preserved, in which the author thus describes the appendix to 
 his work ; 
 
 ' Huic autem collectioni paschalium dierum, non solum seriem 
 consulum conexuimus, sed etiam annos apostolicae sedis antistitum et 
 aetates regni principum Romanorum diligentissima adnotatione sub- 
 didimus (p. 541).' 
 
 An account of this work will be found in Krusch Der S4jdhrige 
 Ostercyclus u. seine Qtiellen p. 1 16 sq. The papal list which accompanied 
 it has unfortunately perished. But was it not the lost parent which 
 has left this numerous progeny of catalogues behind ? I need not stop 
 to enquire whether there is any probability in Duchesne's conjecture 
 {Lib. Pont. I. p. xiv), that the author of this Cycle was none otlier than 
 the chronographer Prosper himself. Whoever he may have been, there 
 are good reasons for thinking that its calculations were adopted for tiie 
 regulation of Easter by the Roman authorities (see Krusch p. 1 24 sq).
 
 312 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 At all events it was brought prominently before the notice of the Roman 
 Church ; and the papal list accompanying it would thus obtain a 
 notoriety which would lead to its frequent transcription. 
 
 Great stress is laid by Lipsius on other documentary evidence which 
 he finds, that the episcopate of Leo the Great marked a distinct stage in 
 the fabric of this pontifical chronicle {Chronologic '^. 126; com]). /a hrb. 
 f. Prot. Theol. v. pp. 450, 456 sq). At the end of the life of Xystus in, 
 the immediate predecessor of Leo, some mss (see Duchesne Lib. Pont. 
 I. p. 235) of the Z/'have the notice, 'A morte Silvestri usque ad hunc 
 primum Leonem sunt anni xcviiii. m. v. d. xxvi.' But the value of this 
 argument is materially diminished by the fact that there is no trace of 
 this note in the earlier edition of the LP, and that it is not found in 
 the oldest and best mss even of the later. Moreover, as Duchesne 
 has pointed out {Etude p. 134), in these same mss, which single 
 out the epoch of Leo i, a similar notice occurs at the close of 
 the Life of Pelagius 11, the immediate predecessor of Gregory the 
 Great, 'A morte sancti Silvestri usque ad hunc primum Gregorium 
 fuerunt anni ccxlvi' {Lib. Pont. i. p. 309). It would seem therefore 
 that the author of this note desired to emphasize the great epochs in 
 the history of the papacy, marked by the three most famous popes of 
 the period, Silvester, Leo, and Gregory, and that he reckoned up the 
 intervals accordingly. 
 
 This Leonine Catalogue, if we may now assume its existence, seems to 
 have been published simultaneously, or almost simultaneously, in Greek. 
 The conspicuous part taken by Leo the Great in the controversies which 
 culminated in the Council of Chalcedon brought the Roman pontificate 
 prominently before the Eastern Church at this epoch, and would naturally 
 excite an interest in the papal succession. At all events in some extant 
 Latin catalogues we find traces of a Greek parentage. Thus in the Corbie 
 MS (now Paris. 12097), the name Osus ("Oo-tos) appears instead of Pius; 
 and elsewhere the forms seem to be influenced by a Greek original, 
 though Lipsius has pressed this point too far {Chronol. p. i'^/^, /a/irb. 
 f. Prot. Theol. v. p. 453). 
 
 At an earlier stage in this investigation (p. 240 sq) attention was 
 directed to certain Greek and Oriental Catalogues (ABCDE) of the 
 Roman bishops, which were subsequent to the age of Leo. One of 
 these, the list of Elias of Nisibis (E), actually ends with this pontificate. 
 Another, that of ' the Short Chronography ' (A), contains imperial 
 synchronisms which break oft' with Leo (Lipsius Chronol. p. 28, 
 Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. v. p. 455). It is not unnatural therefore that we 
 should look to the Leonine Catalogue as the source of their inspiration,
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 313 
 
 and should expect to find strong coincidences with the Latin Catalogues 
 of the 5th and subsequent centuries, betokening affinity of origin. This 
 expectation is not disappointed. It is not however in the early part of 
 the list that we trace any close resemblances. During the period 
 which elapsed before the great persecution, the Eusebian numbers pre- 
 vail. It is only here and there that we see, or imagine we see, the 
 influence of the Leonine list. The resemblances and differences for 
 this earlier epoch will be seen from a comparison of the Greek and 
 Oriental Catalogues on p. 241 with the Leonine list in the table on 
 p. 316. But from Marcellinus onward, where the Eusebian lists cease, 
 the Leonine numbers dominate. The table which follows will make 
 this point clear. It is carried down to Xystus in, the immediate pre- 
 decessor of Leo. 
 
 NAMES 
 
 AC 
 
 B 
 
 D 
 
 E 
 
 LEONINE 
 
 CORRECT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ann. mens. 
 
 "aiin. mens. 
 
 Marcellinus 
 
 oin. 
 
 2 
 
 om. 
 
 10 m. 
 
 om. 
 
 8. 3 
 
 Marcellus 
 
 2 
 
 Olll. 
 
 2 
 
 om. 
 
 I . 4 
 
 . 7 
 
 Eusebius 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 0))l. 
 
 . 6 
 
 . 4 
 
 Miltiades 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 4 • 
 
 2 . 6 
 
 Silvester 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 18 
 
 23 . 10 
 
 21 . 1 1 
 
 Marcus 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 . 
 
 0. 8 
 
 Julius 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 15 . 2 
 
 15 • 2 
 
 Liberius 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 6. 4 
 
 14 . 4 
 
 Felix 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 0)11. 
 
 3 
 
 J) 11 
 
 )> >> 
 
 Damasus 
 
 28 
 
 0)11. 
 
 28 
 
 8 
 
 18. 3 
 
 18 . 2 
 
 Siricius 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 15 . 
 
 15 . 
 
 Anastasius 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 • 
 
 2 . 
 
 Innocentius 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 15 . 2 
 
 15 . 2 
 
 Zosimus 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 7(1) -9(3) 
 
 I . 9 
 
 Bonifacius 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3. 8 
 
 3- 8 
 
 Celestinus 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 9 . 10 
 
 9 . 10 
 
 Xystus III. 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 8 . 
 
 8 . 
 
 The documents designated by the letters A, B, C, D, E, are explained 
 above (p. 240 sq). Of these the first and third (A, C) coincide exactly 
 for this period, and are therefore included in one column. The Leonine 
 list gives months and days, as well as years. I have recorded the years 
 and months, but not the days, for a reason which will appear presently. 
 Inasmuch as coincidence in the numbers is no evidence of identity of 
 origin, where these numbers represent historical facts, I have added the
 
 314 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 correct terms of office, as tabulated by Duchesne ' {^Lib. Pont. i. p. cclxi), 
 giving however only the years and months and omitting the days. The 
 common origin of the Leonine and of the Greek and Oriental lists will 
 be manifest in the numbers assigned to Eusebius, Miltiades, Marcus, 
 Liberius, Anastasius, and Zosimus, where the Leonine numbers are 
 more or less wide of the truth. Li other cases also the affinity appears, 
 when the Roman numerals are used and allowance is made for the acci- 
 dental addition or omission or interchange of a figure, e.g. Silvester xxviii 
 or xviii compared with xxiii (or xxiiii), Damasus xxviii or viii compared 
 witii xviii, Siricius(in D) xiifor xv (the same interchange which has been 
 noticed aljove in the case of Gaius). It will be seen that several of the 
 figures in E are greater by a unit than in the other lists, and this phe- 
 nomenon may be explained in the same way. The 8 assigned to Mil- 
 tiades in E must arise out of a confusion with his successor Silvester; 
 and the 21 given to Celestinus in B is perhaps to be explained simi- 
 larly, as the figure belonging to Leo who stands next but one below him 
 in this list and whose term of office it correctly gives, though it might 
 possibly be accounted for as a confusion of the years and months (ix. x) 
 in the Leonine list. As regards the mode of dealing with the months, 
 I note the following rule observed by the compiler of the Greek table, 
 in which they are omitted. Where the number for the months was 
 6 or over in the Leonine list, the next higher whole number of years 
 was taken. Thus we have i for Eusebius, 8 for Zosimus, 4 for Boni- 
 facius, 10 for Celestinus. As the figures at present stand, Marcellus 
 would be the the only distinct exception to this rule ; but there is good 
 independent reason for thinking that the figures for his months and 
 years were originally ann. i. m. vii, and that by a common type of error 
 they were corrupted into ann. i. m. iiii (see above, p. 257). It is 
 obvious that Marcellinus and Marcellus are fused into one person in 
 these catalogues, and that the figures properly belonging to the latter 
 are assigned to this conjoint person. 
 
 It should be added that, if we make allowance for accidental blun- 
 ders and omissions, these Greek and Oriental lists all agree with the 
 Leonine Catalogue as regards the names and order of the popes. The 
 main points of agreement between the two, where divergence is found in 
 
 1 The calculations of Lipsius {^Chro- 6 m. {instead of 2 yrs. 6 rn.) to Miltiades. 
 
 nologic p. 264) comprise only the early See above, p. 296 sq, where reasons are 
 
 part of this period as far as Julius in- given for preferring the one reckoning 
 
 elusive. His results differ from those of to the other. In Lib. Pont. i. p. xx 
 
 Duchesne in assigning 1 yr. 7 m. (instead Duchesne by an accident assigns 5 months 
 
 of 7 months only) to Marcellus, and 3 yrs. instead of 4 to Liberius.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 315 
 
 other lists, are as follows ; ( 1 ) The order at the commencement of the 
 series is Peter, Linus, Cletus (or Anacletus), Clemens; (2) Cletus is not 
 treated as a different person from Anacletus, though in some of these 
 lists he is called Cletus, in others Anacletus (Anencletus) ; (3) The correct 
 order, Pius, Anicetus, is retained; (4) The correct order, Pontianus, 
 Auteros, is also retained; (5) Marcellinus and Marcellus are fused, as 
 I have already exjjlained; (6) A place is given to Felix 11, the antipope 
 in the time of Liberius. There is indeed one exception to this agree- 
 ment. In C, the list of Syncellus, Anteros is placed before Pontianus 
 (see p. 242). So far as our knowledge goes, he cannot have got this 
 transposition from the Leonine Catalogue. All the extant Leonine 
 lists give the correct order. It is found however in the earlier (FeUcian) 
 edition of the LP, and this may have been the source from which 
 directly or indirectly he derived it. 
 
 I may remark also, before leaving this subject, that the table (p. 313) 
 shows the figures for the pontificates immediately preceding Leo to be 
 strictly accurate ; and this is additional evidence in favour of the Leonine 
 date for the compilation of the Hst. 
 
 There seems then to be sufficient evidence for postulating such a 
 Leonine Catalogue which was the parent on the one hand of the Latin 
 lists of the 5th and following centuries, and on the other of the Greek 
 and Oriental lists, at least from the point where Eusebius ceases. Its 
 existence was affirmed first, I believe, by Bianchini (11. p. Ixx sq), who 
 however diminishes the value of his suggestion by finding this Leonine 
 list in the frescoes of S. Paul (see below, p. 318 sq); and it assumes a 
 special prominence in the investigations of Li^jsius, who invests it with 
 the highest significance {Chronologie pp. 28, 38, 76, 86, 92, 94, 114 — 
 117, 126 — 141, 143; coxn^. Jakrb.f. Prot. T/icoL v. p. 449 sq). On the 
 other hand Duchesne in his earlier work {Etude p. 133) was disposed 
 to deny such a catalogue altogether. He even says (p. 213) that he 
 considers it ' almost certain ' that the catalogues of the age of Hormisdas 
 ' have been extracted from the Liber Pontificalis.'' But in his later book, 
 the edition of the LP., his antagonism to the view of Lipsius is consider- 
 ably modified; and at least for the period between Siricius and Xystus iii, 
 he is prepared to admit a common origin of the Latin and Greek lists 
 and to place the parent document of these two families in' the age of 
 Leo the Great {Lib. Pont. i. pp. xxi sq, Ixix). 
 
 But admitting the fact of such a Leonine Catalogue, two important 
 questions arise ; First, What did it contain ? and Secondly, On what 
 authorities was it founded ?
 
 i6 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT, 
 
 ■v> 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 I^S-xx 
 
 '> 
 
 ===='^1l=5'i'H > X X x== 
 
 
 X X :2 ><'>■> :3:^ 
 
 O) 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .-I :S rt. .-^ 
 
 X 
 
 ■^ '5 :5 := :•= :2 JH '■'^ := =^ '^ =^ "i 
 
 
 •- ':5:='x:5 x x jS 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fresc 
 
 
 'x 
 
 -^-Mi-i%i^%>i 
 
 
 ^|i3;5:3:=-':^|'x 
 
 .^ 
 
 <: 
 
 .« — .- 
 :=:■x X X 
 
 ^s 
 
 '■^-■'''^''^B'^\-^ ^ ^ X =S := 'S ■>< i2 :S :s ■•§ := x.^:= 
 
 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 •S 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 :;:; :^ .^ :^ 
 
 X :s 
 
 ^•?:s;S:S;2:S-^;S:==^:= X >.-.-:=:= > x := ;2 •" iS 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 ^■^^^1 
 
 • .- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 X -r 
 
 1 X x-xiS-x^gfS ^ ^f >;SiS=Si5:=;3^--->:3---x 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 — V— 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 iS-g:S X 
 
 
 :=:::--|:3:SLi'g:=::= '^ '^''^"^t '^ ^ ^ '"lis ^ ^ "S 
 ** X > 
 
 X 
 
 "v^ 
 
 
 
 
 .■>» 
 
 
 
 
 <1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ r-^ rr^r^ -r-^ 
 
 
 :=:=.-E, 
 
 rt 
 
 ■ 1—1 ^ -^H , "^ ^^ " 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 t- 
 
 • r-< ;> 
 
 '::i 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 . ^T^ r-ni— ^ 
 
 
 5-^^d| 
 
 
 .^ .^ . .v:^ :5-3 . . ^ 
 := ^ X •■:? :2 -s =? is ^ V^ > ^I.i'is := li-? •- =! ^s ■- 'i 
 
 X > > 
 
 
 :g 'x ^ 'x 
 
 :2 
 
 :--"B-:3-> 'S-.s X x^S^g X >< X >^"g->:5 ^iS^? 
 
 ■K4 
 
 
 
 
 .*^ 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 ■" IS '-^ x 
 
 X 
 
 f:=:3:=:5 i2 :5 := •== 'x :-•-■- -.S :| := "^^ :S -r^ -^ iS 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 "1^ 
 
 r-l, 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 X 'T^ 
 '^ - > -3 
 .- X .„ -r 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 X ^ 
 
 X 
 
 
 :s g := X 
 
 
 
 bJD 
 
 
 •*■ 
 
 
 
 f— 1 ;s :S 
 
 1 
 
 > .« •'H :« 
 X X "3:2 
 X ■^ > 
 
 
 |xx-,;3-xS|^x|>:|>,:3:=>:5Vi5>>^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■— ' C C 
 
 
 
 
 m "> 
 
 t/J 
 
 
 
 3 t« tn .,1 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 cnSli r!S M., t_£H-(t«C 
 
 < 
 
 •T. 
 
 2 X S2 *^ 
 
 ID 
 
 < 

 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 317 
 
 (i) The first question is answered by Lipsius in a way which would 
 greatly enhance the value of the document, if we could accept his 
 answer. He supposes it to have marked a distinct stage in the growth 
 of the LP. On his showing it was not a mere catalogue of names and 
 figures, but contained divers facts or fictions relative to the popes. Tn 
 other words it was a series of short biographies and thus, in point of 
 contents, it would stand somewhere midway between the Liberian 
 Catalogue (a.d. 354) and the Felician Book (a. d. 530), where also it 
 stood in point of date (c. a.d. 440). In short he makes it responsible, 
 so far as regards the earlier popes, for almost all the statements in the 
 LP which were not taken from the Liberian Catalogue. More especially 
 he urges that the notices of the depositions of the several bishops, 
 introduced with the words ' qui sepultus est,' were derived from this 
 document ; so that in several instances (Fabianus, Lucius, Dionysius, 
 Eutychianus, Gains, Silvester, Marcus), where the Liberian Catalogue 
 likewise preserved a notice of the deposition, the statement is doubled, 
 the one being sometimes in accordance with the other, sometimes at 
 variance (see Chro?iologie p. 114, Jahrh. f. Prot. Theol. v. p. 458 sq). 
 For all this there is absolutely no evidence. It is indeed extremely 
 probable that the compiler of the LP had before him a list of de- 
 positions which was tolerably continuous ; and that he inserted this 
 into his book, as he inserted those of the Liberian Catalogue, regardless 
 of repetitions or contradictions ; but there is no ground whatever for 
 supposing that these notices were interwoven so as to form part of the 
 Leonine papal list containing the names and terms of office. So far as 
 the evidence goes, the Leonine Catalogue was a simple list with term- 
 numbers, like the Latin lists derived from it. 
 
 (2) But, if so, on what previous documents was it founded? Does 
 it furnish independent testimony to the early papal chronology, or is it 
 altogether derived from sources otherwise known to us? I believe 
 Duchesne to be right in supposing that for the period till the middle 
 of the 4th century the sources of the Leonine list were two and two 
 only ; (i) The notices in the Hieronymian Chronicle, and (ii) The Libe- 
 rian Catalogue ; to which perhaps we should add the earlier document 
 (see p. 300 sq) incorporated by the Liberian editor (see Etude p. 134 sq. 
 Lib. Pont. I. p. xvi sq). For the period between Peter and Urban the 
 numbers of the years coincide with those of Jerome, as the table 
 given above (p. 316) shows, and as Lipsius himself allows {Jahrh. f. 
 Prot. Theol. v. p. 450). On the other hand the months and days are 
 taken from the Liberian Catalogue, but with the displacement explained 
 above on p. 267 sq.
 
 3l8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 It should be added that the Mss of the Leonine lists, as Duchesne 
 has pointed out {Lib. Font. i. p. Ixxix), fall into two classes with dis- 
 tinctive variations in the figures. The one type (A) can be traced as 
 far back as a.d. 523 ; whereas the other (B) is only extant in lists 
 carried down to the age of Gregory the Great (a.d. 590 — 604) or later. 
 Yet the readings of B appear most commonly in the LP, They are 
 also not unfrequently closer to the readings in the sources from which 
 the Leonine Catalogue was derived, the Hieronymian Chronicle and 
 the Liberian Catalogue ; and in such cases they are presumably the 
 original readings. In my table (p. 316), where there was any variation 
 worth recording, I have given the preference to what was apparently 
 the original reading, and placed the variation in brackets after it. 
 
 No account of the Liber Pontifcalis would be complete which 
 omitted to mention the evidence of monumental records closely con- 
 nected with it. The ancient basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul at Rome 
 had two sets of portraits of the popes painted in fresco round the 
 church. The more ancient was above the cornice of the entablature 
 over the arcade of the nave ; the more modern was immediately above 
 the capitals of the columns. The later is known to have been executed 
 in both these churches by order of Pope Nicolas in (a.d. 1277 — 1280), 
 who also decorated S. John Lateran with a similar set of portraits. The 
 upper series was much more ancient. 
 
 Of the upper series in S. Peter's we have no information which is of 
 any value for our present purpose ; but there is every reason to believe 
 that in both churches the names and term-numbers for the several 
 popes who had a place in the earlier series were copied in the later. 
 The lower series in S. Peter's commenced with Pius, then came Soter, 
 Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Urbanus, Anteros, Pontianus, 
 Fabianus, etc. It included both Marcellinus and Marcellus ; and it 
 recognized likewise Felix 11, the opponent of Liberius (see Miintz's 
 Rechcrches siir L' CEuvre Archcologiqiie de J. Gritnaldt, p. 249, included 
 in the same volume with Duchesne's Etude). 
 
 Of the papal frescoes in S. Paul's we have fuller information. This 
 basilica was burnt down in 1823', when the greater part perished, but 
 the South wall containing the earlier popes was left standing. The 
 portraits were carefully preserved, as far as possible ; but no attention 
 
 ^ Lipsius {Chronologie p. 86) writes as His description of the order of the me- 
 if he were unaware thai this basilica had dallions on the North wall seems to be 
 perished in the fire and been rebuilt. founded on a misconception.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 319 
 
 was paid to the inscriptions. In the earlier part of the i8th century 
 however they had been copied with great care by Bianchini and are 
 included in his edition (a.d. 1724) of 'Anastasius' (11. p. Ixxxii sq). 
 Somewhat later, when Benedict xiv undertook the restoration of these 
 frescoes, Marangoni published an elaborate work giving the portraits 
 and inscriptions [Chrofioiogta Rommioniin Pontificum superstes iu pariete 
 australi Basilicae S. Pauli etc, Romae 1751); but it is disfigured by 
 great carelessness, so that Bianchini remains our chief authority on the 
 subject. Besides these, there is extant a ms in the library of the 
 Barberini Palace at Rome i^Cod. xlix. 15, 16) containing coloured copies 
 of the portraits, executed by order of Card. Barberini (a.d. 1634), with 
 notes relating to their respective positions and to the inscriptions 
 accompanying them. Using all these sources of information, Duchesne 
 {Lib. Pont. I. p. Ixxxi sq) has given a table of the numbers with a full 
 collation of the different authorities. 
 
 The more ancient series began at the East end of the South wall 
 and then passed round the West wall and along the North side to the 
 East end near the high altar. The portraits were medallions grouped 
 two and two, each pair occupying the spaces corresponding to the 
 intercolumniations ; and between the medallions were the inscriptions 
 giving the respective names and terms of office in years, months, and 
 days. Of the portion of the series on the Western wall no trace is pre- 
 served. For the North wall our information is very fragmentary, but 
 we know that here the portraits were jumbled together without any 
 regard to chronological order. In some cases the same pope was in- 
 troduced a second time. Among the portraits on this wall was the 
 antipope Laurentius who for several years (a.d. 501—506) contested 
 the possession of the see with Symmachus. The South wall comprised 
 42 portraits, from S. Peter to Innocent i inclusive. The order of the 
 immediate successors of S. Peter was Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus. 
 Pius was correctly placed before Anicetus, but on the other hand 
 Anteros preceded Pontianus as in the Liber Felicianus and in Syncellus. 
 This last point seems to have been satisfactorily established by Duchesne 
 {Lib. Pont. I p. xxviii sq), though Bianchini and Marangoni read it 
 otherwise, and they have been followed by subsequent writers (e.g. 
 Lipsius Chronologie p. 87). Both Marcellinus and Marcellus were 
 included, and a place was accorded to Felix 11. In this way Innocent 
 became the 42nd in the series. Thus in every respect, except the 
 inversion of the order of Pius and Anicetus, the series on the South 
 wall corresponded with the earlier edition of the LP as represented by 
 the Felicianus. Of the number of years, months, and days, ascribed to
 
 320 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the successive popes in these frescoes, I shall have occasion to speak 
 presently. 
 
 Bianchini (p. Ixx) supposed that portraits and inscriptions ahke 
 belonged to the age of Leo the Great (a.d. 440 — 461), and accordingly 
 he attached the highest value to them. This view however seems un- 
 tenable. It is stated indeed that Leo 'renovated' the basilica of S. Paul 
 after it had been set on fire by lightning ('post ignem divinum'), and 
 extant inscriptions show that his work of restoration was very consider- 
 able (Duchesne Lib. Pont. i. p, 240). But there is no evidence that he 
 placed the portraits in the church. The heads which once decorated the 
 South wall are purely conventional. This applies equally to Innocent 
 I (t A.D. 417), as to the earlier heads. At what point in the series 
 there was any attempt at portraiture we cannot say, as the succeeding 
 popes for some decades after this time are wanting. But Laurentius is 
 certainly a portrait \ nor indeed would a place have been assigned 
 to him in the series after the schism was ended and Symmachus 
 recognized as pope. We must suppose therefore that this particular 
 portrait was painted while he and his party had possession of most of 
 the Roman basilicas, though not of S. Peter's {^Lih. Pont. i. p. 46). If so, 
 the series must have existed before his time. As regards the portraits, 
 De Rossi {BnJl. di Archeol. Crist. 1870, p. 122 sq) judges that they 
 belong rather to the middle than to the end of the 5th century; and, if 
 so, they may have been part of Leo's work. But it does not follow 
 that the inscriptions were contemporary with the portraits. Duchesne 
 lays great stress on the inversion, Anteros, Pontianus, which was his 
 own discovery, and concludes from this inversion that the inscriptions 
 must have been later than the LP, and therefore not earlier than the 
 6th century. He urges that the source of the inversion is the recension 
 of the LP which is represented by the Feliciamis. His explanation of 
 the error seems highly probable. An account of it has been given 
 already (p. 287). Yet it would be possible to explain the inversion in 
 another way. The manner in which the inscriptions were linked 
 together two and two in the frescoes of S. Paul would render such a 
 transposition easy on the part of the painter, and as a matter of fact we 
 know that Anteros and Pontianus did form such a couple (Duchesne 
 Lib. Pont. I. p. xxviii sq). It is conceivable therefore that the frescoes 
 may themselves have been the source of the inversion; and, if so, 
 they would have been prior to the Liber Pontijicalis. 
 
 After tracing, however briefly, the history and relations of the Liber 
 Pontijicalis., it remains for us to add a few words respecting first the
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 321 
 
 names and order of the bishops, and secondly the term-numbers assigned 
 to them severally, in the two recensions of this document. 
 
 (i) In the names of the earliest bishops the Liberian Catalogue is 
 followed in both recensions of the LP. Not only the duplication of 
 Cletus or Anencletus, but the order of the names, is taken from this 
 document — Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus. Again the 
 transposition which places Anicetus before Pius is adopted in the earlier 
 recension (FK) from the Liberian list, but in this instance the correct 
 order is restored in the later (P). Again the transposition lower down 
 in the list, by which Anteros is made to precede Pontianus, was 
 adopted by the editor of the earlier recension, who not improbably 
 originated it. It still stands in the abridgment F, but the true order 
 has been substituted not only in the later recension P, but also in the 
 other abridgment K of the earlier. This transposition has been already 
 discussed, pp. 287, 320. Marceliinus and Marcellus are properly dis- 
 tinguished in both recensions. The antipope Felix 11, who contested 
 the see with Liberius, has also a place after Liberius in both recensions. 
 It is no part of my plan to pursue the list lower down. 
 
 {2) The figures for the terms of office — the years, months, and 
 days — in both recensions of the LP are taken directly from the Leonine 
 Catalogue, as a glance at the tables (pp. 285, 316) will show, But as 
 Anacletus was wanting in the Leonine list, his term-number could not 
 be supplied thence. For this reason he seems to have remained for a 
 time without any term-number. Afterwards it was supplied in two 
 different ways. In mss of the earlier edition, as represented by F, the 
 numbers for Anacletus in the Liberian Catalogue were borrowed ; but 
 in the later edition (P) the numbers for Clemens, the pope next above 
 him, were adopted, so that they occur twice. The relations of the 
 figures assigned in these lists to Marceliinus and Marcellus have been 
 already discussed (p. 291 sq). 
 
 It will be remembered that the Leonine figures are not a mere 
 copy of the Liberian. They are combined with the Hieronymian, and 
 they have been seriously displaced (see above, p. 267). Thus the result 
 is something very different from the Liberian original, especially in the 
 earlier part where the displacement is chiefly active. Hence the wide 
 divergence from the Liberian Catalogue in the LP, which copies the 
 Leonine numbers. 
 
 But certain mss of the LP {Guelpherbytan. Lat. 10, 11, Bernens. Lai. 
 408, and others') betray the hand of a reviser who has somewhat 
 
 1 See especially Duchesne Z//;. /\^;//. I. p. 63, Jalirb. f. Prot. Theol. V. p. 451, 
 p. Ixxxviiisq; comp. Lipsius Chroiiologie VI. p. 89, and see above, p. 254, note 5. 
 
 CLEM. 21
 
 322 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 capriciously substituted the figures of the Liberian list here and there, 
 but not throughout, for the original figures of the LP. This revised 
 series of figures corresponds with that of the frescoes in S. Paul's, which 
 must have been taken from it, unless indeed the revision had its origin 
 in the frescoes, and the figures in these mss of the LP were copied 
 thence. In the table (p. 316) I have taken this revised list from the 
 frescoes rather than from any MS. The differences are unimportant. 
 
 But besides these mss of the later recension of the LP, the second 
 abridgment, the Cononian, of the earlier edition, has likewise been 
 revised as regards the figures and from the same source, the Liberian 
 Catalogue. This revision however is less complete even than the last. 
 As nothing depends on the figures of this Cononian abridgment, I have 
 not thought it necessary to record them in the table. Those who are 
 curious will find them in Duchesne i^Lih. Pont. i. p. Ixxxi sq). 
 
 At an earlier point (p. 220) I mentioned a papal list contained in a 
 Syriac MS, but deferred the consideration of it. This MS, Brit. Mus. 
 Add. 14642, is described in Wright's Catalogue p. 1041, where it is 
 numbered dccccxvi'. It is a palimpsest, the vellum being made up of 
 portions of several Greek mss. The upper writing is Syriac, in a hand 
 or hands of the loth century, containing 'part of a chronicle, chiefly 
 ecclesiastical, compiled from the similar works of Eusebius, fol. i b, 
 Andronicus, foil, i b, 15 a, and others, and continued to A. Gr. 1108, 
 A.D. 797, fol. 36 a. The later additions, foil, -^d b — 39 a, bring the history 
 down to A. Gr. 1122, a.d. 811 (^Catalogue 1. c.).' 
 
 Of Andronicus I know nothing, except that he is one of the authors 
 quoted by Gregory Barhebrseus'; that Elias of Nisibis in an unpub- 
 lished work speaks of him as the author of a Canones Ajinorum, i.e. a 
 Chronography, which is cited as the authority for events at least as late 
 as A,D. 335, and states that he lived in the age of Justinian (a.d. 527 — 
 565)"^; and that he is quoted by Jacob of Edessa and by Jacob's contem- 
 porary and correspondent John the Stylite' about a.d. 715, so that he 
 
 ^ I owe the particulars which are not 
 found in Wright's Catalogue — more espe- 
 cially the account of the papal list — to 
 the kindness of Dr Wright and Dr Bezold, 
 who examined the MS and extracted the 
 matter which was of importance for my 
 immediate purpose. 
 
 ^ See Greg. Barhebr. Chron. Ecdcs. i. 
 p. 5, ed. Abbeloos and Lamy; comp. 
 Assem. Bibl. Orient, in. pp. 310, 313. 
 
 ^ Forshall Catal. Cod. Orient, qui in 
 MtiscBo Britannico asservantur I. p. 86, 
 a reference which I owe to Abbeloos and 
 Lamy (1. c). 
 
 ■* Wright's Catalogue pp. 598, 9S8. A 
 tract on the ' Names of the Nations which 
 arose after the Confusion of Tongues' is 
 ascribed to Andronicus, ih. p. 1066. It 
 was not improbably connected with his 
 C'lironography.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 o 
 
 23 
 
 
 ^K/^/WC CATALOGUE. 
 
 Brit. 
 
 Mus. Add. 14642 
 
 
 Order 
 
 NAMES 
 
 DURATION 
 
 Order 
 
 NAMES 
 
 DURATION 
 
 I 
 
 Petrus 
 
 XX. 
 
 ii. iii 
 
 31 
 
 Miltiades 
 
 iiii 
 
 2 
 
 Linus 
 
 xi. 
 
 ? 
 
 32 
 
 Silvester 
 
 xxiiii. X 
 
 3 
 
 Anacletus 
 
 xii. 
 
 i 
 
 33 
 
 Marcus 
 
 ii 
 
 4 
 
 Clemens 
 
 viiii 
 
 
 34 
 
 Julius 
 
 [x]v. ii 
 
 5 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 viii. 
 
 X 
 
 34 
 
 Liberius 
 
 vi. iii 
 
 6 
 
 Alexander 
 
 X. 
 
 vii 
 
 35 
 
 Felix 
 
 no figures 
 
 7 
 
 Xystus 
 
 X. 
 
 ii 
 
 36 
 
 Damasus 
 
 XV. ? 
 
 8 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 xi 
 
 
 37 
 
 Siricius 
 
 XV 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 Hyginus 
 Pius 
 
 ? 
 xviiii. 
 
 iii 
 iiii 
 
 38 
 
 Innocentius 
 
 [ ] 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 12 
 
 Anicetus 
 Soter 
 
 xi. 
 viiii. 
 
 iiii 
 ? 
 
 
 A lacuna in the MS 
 
 [] 
 
 Leo 
 
 xxii. i 
 
 13 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 xiii 
 
 
 44 
 
 Hilarius 
 
 vi. iii 
 
 14 
 
 Victor 
 
 X. 
 
 vi 
 
 45 
 
 Simplicius 
 
 xvi 
 
 15 
 
 Zephyrinus 
 
 xviii. 
 
 vii 
 
 46 
 
 Felix 
 
 viii. xi 
 
 16 
 
 Callistus 
 
 V. 
 
 ii 
 
 47 
 
 Gelasius 
 
 iiii. viii 
 
 17 
 
 Urbanus 
 
 [ 
 
 ] 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 Anastasius 
 Symmachus 
 
 viiii. xi 
 viii 
 
 
 A lacuna in 
 
 the MS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 Hormisdas 
 Johannes 
 
 no figures 
 
 [] 
 
 Dionysius 
 
 ix. 
 
 ii 
 
 26 
 
 Felix 
 
 V. 
 
 iii 
 
 
 Bonifatius 
 
 
 27 
 
 Eutychianus 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 Johannes 
 
 
 28 
 
 Gaius 
 
 XV. 
 
 vii 
 
 
 Agapetus 
 
 
 29 
 
 Marcellinus 
 
 xvii(?). 
 
 iiii 
 
 
 Silverius 
 
 
 30 
 
 Eusebius 
 
 vi. 
 
 i{?) 
 
 
 Vigilius 
 
 
 21 — 2
 
 324 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 must have flourished before the last date at all events. These facts 
 point to the familiar use of his work among the Syrian Christians. 
 
 No authority is given for the papal list. This was drawn up in part, 
 either mediately or immediately, from the History of Eusebius. So much 
 is evident from the fact that our chronicler dates the accessions of the 
 several popes by the regnal years of the emperors, as far as Eusebius 
 dates them, and no farther; that in these notices he most frequently 
 adopts the very language of Eusebius; and that the numbers of the 
 years are in some cases characteristic of the History ^ e. g. xiii for Eleu- 
 therus and xv for Gains. But he must have used some other authority 
 also, since he gives not only the years but the months for most of the 
 popes, and in the case of S. Peter the days likewise. Moreover he 
 carries the catalogue much lower down. The last pope whose term of 
 oflice he gives is Symmachus (t a.d. 514), and the last pope whom he 
 numbers is his successor Hormisdas (tA.D. 523); but the names of the 
 six succeeding popes are added, ending with Vigilius (a.d. 537 — 555)- 
 These are introduced with the words, ' But the high-priests that were in 
 the days of Justinian in Rome (were) John, and after him Bonifatius,' 
 etc. These facts would seem to show that the papal hst, which was 
 used by our chronicler, had been drawn up in the time of Hormisdas 
 and that the author in whom he found it had supplemented it with the 
 names (and nothing more) of the subsequent popes whose accessions fell 
 in the reign of Justinian and who were his own contemporaries. This 
 author therefore may well have been Andronicus. It will be remembered 
 that the age of Hormisdas is (roughly speaking) the date of the oldest 
 extant papal lists which represent the Leonine Catalogue (see above, p. 
 311). It was also an age in which the Eastern Christians would be 
 especially interested in the Roman succession, inasmuch as at this time 
 the popes were interfering actively in the affairs of the East, and the 
 feud between the rival popes Symmachus and Laurentius (see above, 
 pp. 262 sq, 306 sq) had brought the matter prominently before them. 
 
 To a catalogue of this family the author seems to be indebted for 
 the months during the period comprised in the History of Eusebius, 
 and for both the years and months afterwards. Where the mss of the 
 Leonine Catalogue vary, his figures agree generally with the readings 
 of Class B (see above, p. 318). Like the Leonine lists he includes 
 Felix the antipope in the time of Liberius (without however giving his 
 term of office); but as he repeats the number 34 twice (for Julius and 
 Liberius), Damasus becomes the 36th in order, just as he would have 
 been, if Felix had not been inserted. Both the numbers giving the 
 order of the popes and the numbers giving the terms of office are in
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 325 
 
 red ink — the former above the names, the latter in the Hne with the 
 rest of the text. During the Eusebian period he has added the months 
 which he found in the Leonine Catalogue to the years which he found 
 in Eusebius ; but he has not done his work completely, and in some 
 cases the months are omitted, e.g. Clement and Eleutherus. The 
 Leonine list which he used (directly or indirectly) was in Latin. The 
 form ' Anacletus ' points to a Latin source, and the corruptions in the 
 numbers tell the same tale. Thus he gives vi for iii to Victor, and 
 vii for iiii to Gaius, and in other cases a unit has been dropped 
 or added. 
 
 As this is the only Eastern catalogue, so far as I am aware, which 
 has the months as well as the years, I have given a fuller account of it 
 than its intrinsic value deserves. Indications indeed have been found 
 (see above, p. 313 sq) that lists with the months were not unknown in 
 the East, though the months themselves are not recorded. For con- 
 venience I have arranged it in a tabular form (see p. 323), and I have 
 omitted the regnal years, where given, as these coincide exactly with 
 the History of Eusebius. All irrelevant matter which intervenes be- 
 tween the notices of the several popes is necessarily excluded. 
 
 5- 
 THE HISTORICAL RESULTS. 
 
 In the previous investigations the genealogy of the different papal 
 lists has been traced, so far as it was necessary for my purpose. Inci- 
 dentally also something has been said about the bearing of these docu- 
 ments on history ; and more especially for the period from Pontianus 
 to Liberius the historical gains have been gathered together and ap- 
 praised (p. 284 sq). It remains for us now to concentrate our attention 
 on the earlier period, and to gauge the value of the chronological data 
 furnished by these lists. 
 
 It has been seen that the earliest Eastern and Western lists, though 
 at first sight diverging in many respects, may yet be traced back to one 
 and the same original — the same not only in the order of the names, 
 but likewise in the terms of years assigned to the several episcopates. 
 
 Omitting the xxv years assigned to S. Peter, which I purpose con- 
 sidering at a later point, the list (as far as Eleutherus) runs as follows ;
 
 326 
 
 
 EPISTLES 
 
 OF 
 
 S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 Linus xii 
 
 
 7- 
 
 Telesphorus 
 
 ; xi [xii" 
 
 2. 
 
 Anencletus xii 
 
 
 8. 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 iiii 
 
 3- 
 
 Clemens ix 
 
 
 9- 
 
 Pius 
 
 XV [xvi 
 
 4- 
 
 P^uarestus viii 
 
 
 lO. 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 xi [ 
 
 5- 
 
 Alexander x 
 
 
 II, 
 
 Soter 
 
 viii 
 
 6. 
 
 Xystus X [xi 
 
 
 12. 
 
 Eleutherus 
 
 XV, 
 
 where the main figures represent the Eastern list, and the secondary 
 figures in brackets the possible variations in the Western. The empty 
 bracket attached to Anicetus denotes that his number in the Western 
 list has been lost beyond recovery. In the three other cases — Xystus, 
 Telesphorus, and Pius — the Western list, at the earHest point to which 
 we can trace it back, differs by a unit from the Eastern. It is a pro- 
 bable supposition however that the units in these cases were either 
 errors introduced in the course of transcription, or manipulations in 
 order to fill up the historical space, as explained above (pp. 273, 278). 
 
 The only other point, which may raise a question, is the xv years 
 assigned to Eleutherus in the Eastern Ust. Though the Armenian, 
 Hieronymian, and Syriac versions of the Chronicle all agree in xv, 
 and though this is the number likewise in the early Western list in- 
 corporated in the Liberian Catalogue, yet in the History, as read in the 
 existing text, Eusebius distinctly assigns to him xiii years. With this 
 weight of evidence for xv, we can only conclude that the xiii is either 
 a slip of Eusebius himself or an error of some early transcriber. The 
 present text of Eusebius {H. E. v. 22) runs, 'Now in the tenth year 
 of the reign of Commodus, after administering the office of the episco- 
 pate thirteen years, Eleutherus is succeeded by Victor (AeKaTw ye /xtJi/ 
 T^s Ko/xoSou ySacrtXetas eVei StKa Trpos TpiuXv eVecrt ttJi' iTrKrKorrrjv AeXetrovp- 
 yijKOTa 'EXevOepov SiaScp^erat BiKTtDp); in which year (or at which time) 
 also {iv w Koi), Julianus having completed his tenth year, Demetrius 
 takes in hand the administration of the dioceses of Alexandria (twv Kar 
 'AXe^avSpcLav TrapoiKLwy).' The form of the sentence, combined with 
 other facts, suggests that through the carelessness of Eusebius or of 
 some later scribe the y of the ty' (or t tt/dos y) may have been transferred 
 to the wrong place. Not only is Victor the 13th bishop according to 
 Eusebius' own reckoning in the Chronicle^, but the death of Eleutherus 
 
 1 The number xiii is distinctly given to tlie xiiith. But by an error the Alex- 
 Victor in the Hieronymian version. In andrian bishop Agrippinus is designated 
 the Armenian there is some confusion at 'Romanorum ecclesiae episcopus xii,' 
 this point. Soter is numbered as tlie and consequently Eleutherus is counted 
 xith and Zephyrinus as the xivth, so that the xiiith. When the transcriber arrived 
 Eleutherus should be the xiith and Victor at Victor, he found that he had no num-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 27 
 
 and accession of Victor according to that same reckoning falls in 
 A.D. 192, which was the 13th year of Commodus (who died on the 
 last day of the year), though Eusebius himself there reckons it the first 
 of his successor Pertinax'. There were thus many possibilities of 
 confusion". The versions confirm the existing text in the main and 
 thus seem to show that Eusebius himself was the offender, rather 
 than a later transcriber^. 
 
 But what is the historical value of this list of names with the term- 
 numbers annexed? Can we ascertain the authority on which it rests, 
 or at all events the date at which it was compiled? 
 
 We have seen (p. 203) that the list of names is found in a work 
 of Irenffius, written during the episcopate of Eleutherus, whose date 
 may be placed provisionally about a. d. 175 — 19c. A few years earlier 
 however, under Anicetus (about a.d. 155 — 165), a catalogue was drawn 
 up by Hegesippus then sojourning in Rome, though not published 
 till the time of Eleutherus. Is this catalogue irretrievably lost, or can 
 we recover it in any later writer*? 
 
 Attention has been called already (p. 202 sq) to the motives which 
 
 ber left for him, and consequently he is 
 unnumbered. The enumeration in the 
 Armenian chronicler Samuel is correct, 
 thus showing that the errors in the ex- 
 isting Armenian text of Eusebius are 
 later than his date (see above, p. 214). 
 In the Syriac, Soter is xith and Zephyrinus 
 is xivth, but the numbers of Eleutherus 
 and Victor are not preserved in either 
 epitome of this version (see p. 221). 
 
 ^ Strangely enough in the account of 
 Eleutherus in Syncellus (p. 667) the num- 
 ber 13 appears in the context twice over, 
 but in different connexions from these: 
 'Pwfj.alwv 17' eTTtV/coTTos 'EXevd^pios ^tt] e' 
 'AvTioxeias e^do/xos eiriaKOiros JMci^i/Uos ^Tiq 
 
 where the enumeration of Eleutherus as 
 the 13th includes S. Peter, and where e' 
 is an error for le'. 
 
 " See also above, p. 243. The fact 
 there stated that, though the number for 
 Eleutherus in the Chronicle is xv, the 
 interval is only xiii, may suggest another 
 explanation of Eusebius' statement in the 
 History, viz. that in this instance he de- 
 
 serted the document which contained the 
 term-numbers and followed the docu- 
 ment which gave the intervals : see be- 
 low, p. 334 sq. 
 
 * Rufinus renders the passage ; ' Igitur 
 sub ejusdem Commodi principatu Eleu- 
 thero in urbe Roma tredecim annos sa- 
 cerdotio functo Victor succedit; sed et 
 Juliano apud Alexandriam post decern 
 annos defuncto Demetrius substituitur ', 
 where the xiii is retained, though the 
 rendering possibly betrays a conscious- 
 ness that there was something wrong, 
 and that the accessions of Eleutherus of 
 Rome and Demetrius of Alexandria did 
 not both fall in the same year, the tenth 
 of Commodus. In the Syriac translation 
 of the History (yet unpul)lished) the 
 reading accords exactly with the existing 
 Greek text, as I have ascertained. 
 
 ^ The opinion here maintained that 
 the catalogue of Hegesippus is preserved 
 in Epiphanius, was first put forward by 
 me in the Academy, May 21, 1887, p. 
 362 sq. It is accepted by Salmon In- 
 fallibility of the Church p. 353 sq.
 
 328 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 prompted Hegesippus to undertake this task and to the language in 
 which he describes it ; but my present purpose requires me to dwell 
 at greater length on his statement. 
 
 Eusebius {H. E. iv. 22) records that Hegesippus 'after certain 
 statements respecting the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, pro- 
 ceeded as follows (eTTtXeyovTos Tavra) ' ; 
 
 'And the Church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox doc- 
 trine till the episcopate of Primus. Their acquaintance I made {pis 
 a-vvefii^n) on my journey to Rome, when I stayed with the Corinthians 
 a considerable time (v'/xepas iKuvas), during which we refreshed one 
 another {a-wavendiqiiev) with the orthodox doctrine. And after I went 
 to Rome, I drew up a list of succession ^ as far as Anicetus, whose 
 deacon Eleutherus (then) was. After Anicetus Soter succeeded, and 
 after Soter Eleutherus. But in every succession and in every city 
 they adhered to the teaching of the Law and the Prophets and the 
 Lord.' 
 
 It will be observed that Hegesippus is here dealing with heresies 
 and that the catalogue of the Roman bishops, as I have already ex- 
 plained (p. 203), was drawn up as a practical refutation of these. It 
 should be noted likewise that this catalogue is mentioned in immediate 
 connexion with Clement's Epistle and with the dissensions in the 
 Corinthian Church which called it forth. We may infer then that the 
 catalogue was included somewhere in these Memoirs, and not im- 
 probably in the context of the passage which Eusebius quotes. 
 
 Now Epiphanius {Haer. xxvii. 6) devotes a long paragraph to the 
 early history of the Roman bishops, in which he introduces a list of 
 succession. It has been strangely neglected by writers on the subject. 
 Even Lipsius barely mentions it once or twice casually, and (so far as 
 I remember) never discusses it. Yet a catalogue of this early date 
 (c. A.D. 375), which is plainly independent of the Eusebian lists, fieserves 
 more than a mere passing mention. 
 
 Epiphanius has been speaking of Carpocrates and his school, and 
 as connected therewith he mentions one Marcellina, a lady heretic, 
 who taught in Rome in the time of Anicetus". His opening words 
 are sufficiently curious to deserve quoting ; 
 
 ' It has been contended that the words 5oxw Troie'tffOai., it is sufficient to quote 
 
 diadoxv" eTroirjad/xrjv cannot have this H. E. v. 5 oiVos [EipTyvafos] ri^v eirl 'Pdifi-qs 
 
 meaning, and that we should read 5to- ttjv diadoxv" ewicKOTroiv iv Tpirrj aw- 
 
 Tpi^riv for diaSoxyi" ■ I have already dis- rd^ei tQiv irpos rds alpiaeis Trapad^fifvos 
 
 posed of this ahernative reading, which k.t.X. 
 
 is purely conjectural; see above, p. 154. - See /g/iat. and Polyc. I. p. 436. 
 As regards the interpretation given to 5ia-
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 329 
 
 'A certain Marcellina who had been led into error by them [the 
 disciples of Carpocrates] paid us a visit some time ago {^Xdev Se eh 
 i^fias ^8r] TTcoi MapKfWiva Ttf)^ She was the ruin of a great number of 
 persons in the time of Anicetus bishop of Rome who succeeded Pius 
 and his predecessors^. 
 
 He then commences a list of the Roman episcopate, in which he 
 places 'first Peter and Paul, apostles and bishops, then Linus, then 
 Cletus, then Clemens, who was a contemporary of Peter and Paul' 
 This leads him to explain how Clement, though a contemporary, was 
 not next in succession after the apostles. He suggests that, though 
 consecrated to the episcopate by the apostles who still survived, 
 Clement may have waived his claims in favour of others for the sake 
 of peace, as ' he himself says in one of his letters, / withdraw^ I will 
 depart, let the people of God ref?iain at peace {eva-TaOeiTw) ^ ; for I have 
 found this,' adds Epiphanius, ' in certain Memoirs (eV tutlv vTrojxvrjixa- 
 Ticr/xots).' Then, after other alternative solutions of the difficulty, Epi- 
 phanius continues ; 
 
 ' But possibly after Clement was appointed and had waived his 
 claims (if indeed it did so happen, for I only surmise it, I do not affirm 
 it), subsequently after the death of Linus and Cletus, when they had 
 held the bishopric twelve years each after the death of saint Peter 
 and Paul, which happened in the twelfth year of Nero, he [Clement] 
 was again obliged to take the bishopric. Howbeit the succession of the 
 bishops in Rome is as follows ; Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, 
 Clement, Euarestus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Pius, Anicetus, 
 who has been mentioned above in the catalogue (6 aVw ev rw KaraXoyco 
 7rpo8f8rjXu)fi€voi) \ 
 
 after which he resumes his account of Marcellina. Have we not here 
 the lost list of Hegesippus? My reasons for thinking so are as follows ; 
 (i) It is evident that Epiphanius does not quote the passage of 
 Clement's Epistle from the Epistle itself His own language shows 
 this. Nor does he elsewhere betray any direct knowledge of it\ 
 
 ^ In Hae7\ xxviii. 6 we have the ex- 
 pressions Tt TTopaSocreajs irpayixa 7]Kdiv ds 
 ■ri/j.as and ij irapdooais rj eKOovffa els rjfMois, 
 'reached our times, reached our ears,' 
 and in the passage before us it might 
 occur to some one to read ttws and trans- 
 late ' The tradition has reached our times 
 how one Marcellina etc' The harshness 
 of this rendering however is a sufficient 
 condemnation. The expression in the 
 
 text might possibly indeed mean 'sur- 
 vived to our own times ' (see Euseb. //. 
 E. iv. 22 quoted below, p. 330, note i); 
 but nothing would be gained by this. 
 
 - The passage which follows will be 
 found quoted at length above, p. 169 sq. 
 
 ^ The passage is in Clem. Rom. 54, 
 but it is very loosely quoted. 
 
 •* See the next chapter.
 
 330 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Whence then did he obtain it? He himself answers this question. 
 He found it 'in certain Memoirs (eV rtcriv i;7ro/Avr;/AaTto-/x,ors). ' I had 
 thought at one time that by this expression he meant some collection 
 of excerpts, but I now see a more probable explanation. Eusebius not 
 only designates the work of Hegesippus viro/jLvrjimTa in two other 
 passages', but he uses the corresponding verb vTToixvr]^aTi'Cf.(T6aL of the 
 writer", perhaps quoting his own expression. Were not these then the 
 very vTiojxvq}i.ari(T^x.oi in which Epiphanius read the words of Clement ? 
 
 (ii) Another passage of Epiphanius, a few pages lower down 
 {Haer. xxix. 4, p. 119), where the same word is used, affords a strong 
 confirmation of this view. He is there discussing the Nazorseans, and 
 refuting their views respecting the parentage of Jesus. This leads him 
 to speak of James the Lord's brother and to explain that he was a son 
 of Joseph by another wife, not by Mary; and he proceeds, 
 
 ' For he was Joseph's eldest born {tvp^totokos rw 'iwo-ij^) and conse- 
 crated [as such]. Moreover we have found that he exercised a priestly 
 office {IfpaTeva-avra) according to the old priesthood. Wherefore it was 
 permitted to him to enter once a year into the holy of holies, as the 
 law enjoined the high-priests in accordance with the Scriptures. For 
 so it is recorded concerning him by many before us, Eusebius and 
 Clement and others. Nay he was allowed to wear the (high-priest's) 
 mitre {rh neTaXov) on his head, as the afore-mentioned trustworthy 
 persons have testified, /« t/ie Monoirs wriiten by tlicm (eV roT? vii aJrcoi/ 
 
 where I have underlined the words to which I desire to direct at- 
 tention. 
 
 Whom else can Epiphanius have had mainly in view in these ' others' 
 who wrote ' Memoirs,' but Hegesippus ? Hegesippus is quoted by 
 Eusebius for several of the facts here mentioned respecting James the 
 Lord's brother. He is quoted likewise by him for information re- 
 specting the kindred of Joseph {H. E. iii. 11, iv. 22)^ Moreover it 
 
 ' //. E. ii. 23 h Ty Tri/nTTTiji avrov indebted to Hegesippus for some of his 
 
 vTTo/xvrj/xaTL, iv. 22 ev irivTe to'ls eis 7)/j,as statements. On some points indeed, 
 
 eXdovffiv i<irofj.vr]!xa(Ti.. The word vTrofivrj- though the ultimate source of the in- 
 
 /xara however is used very comprehen- formation was Hegesippus, he might 
 
 sively. have derived it through the medium of 
 
 " H. E. iv. 8 T7]v a.ir\a.vy\ ■jrapdoocni' Eusebius, e.g. when he mentions that 
 
 Tov aTro(rTo\i.Kov srjpvyfiaTos airXovdraTri Clopas was the brother of Joseph (p. 
 
 (TvvTa^ei ypacpTJs vwofjivriiJiarLadfievos. 1039; comp. Eus. //. E. iii. 11, 32, iv. 
 
 ^ It may be suspected likewise that in 22), but in the same context he gives 
 
 another passage also, Haer. Ixxviii. 7 sq, many particulars besides — whether true 
 
 where Epiphanius is discussing the rela- or false — which are not found in Eu- 
 
 tionship of the Lord's brethren, he is sebius.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 331 
 
 should be noted that the fragmentary remains of Hegesippus show a 
 strong affinity to Epiphanius in his account of the heretical sects among 
 the Jews and Judaic Christians (Euseb. H. E. iii. 20, 32, iv. 22). I 
 may add also that in an extant fragment of Hegesippus the Carpo- 
 cratians are mentioned together with other Gnostic sects (Euseb. H. E. 
 iv. 22). Nor is it perhaps altogether beside the question to call 
 attention to the fact that Hegesippus made use of ' the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews' (Euseb. H. E. iv. 22), while Epiphanius 
 in this immediate neighbourhood several times mentions this Gospel 
 (xxix. 9, XXX. 3, 6, 13, 14). 
 
 (iii) Hegesippus certainly dwelt at some length on Clement's letter 
 and on the feuds at Corinth which called it forth. Eusebius refers to 
 his testimony respecting the Epistle of Clement, not only in the passage 
 quoted, but in another place also {H. E. iii. 16). Moreover the 
 mention of Clement's letter occurred in the same context with the 
 mention of the Roman succession, just as it occurs in Epiphanius. It 
 should be added that the discussion of Clement's position is quite out 
 of place in Epiphanius', where its introduction can best be explained 
 on the supposition that Clement occupied a large space in the authority 
 which lay before him. Nothing in his own context suggests this long 
 digression. 
 
 (iv) Hegesippus tells us that his catalogue was in the first instance 
 brought down to Anicetus, and the list in Epiphanius stops at this same 
 episcopate. On the other hand the catalogue of Irensus reaches as 
 far as Eleutherus. The value of this coincidence might indeed be 
 thought to be diminished by the fact that Epiphanius has been speaking 
 just before of Marcellina, who taught in Rome in the time of Anicetus. 
 But this fact only strengthens the coincidence. For 
 
 (v) We may reasonably surmise that this very notice of Marcellina 
 was taken from Hegesippus, and that in its original context in the elder 
 writer it elicited the reference to the Roman succession, just as it does 
 in Epiphanius. It is difficult to assign any probable sense to the 
 opening sentence of the whole paragraph '^Yi.XO^v Se ct5 17^019 k.t.A., ' A 
 certain Marcellina paid us a visit etc.', so long as Epiphanius is supposed 
 to be speaking in his own person. The expression gives some trouble 
 to Lipsius, who contemplates the possibility of its being taken verbatim 
 from the Syntagma of Hippolytus". What if it were taken verbatim 
 
 ^ Lipsius Qiiellenkritik des Epiphanios ist natiirlich cin hier zicmlich tmpassendes 
 
 p. 114 'Die lange Exposition liber die j^mjc/izV^^j-^/ des Epiphanios selbst.' 
 Reihenfolge dcr romischcn Bischofe und - Lipsius 1. c. p. 114, note 3. 
 
 uber Clemens und Cletus insbesondere
 
 -> T -1 
 
 J3- 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 from the Memoirs of Hegesippus? This would explain everything. 
 A portion of the context indeed, relating to the Carpocratians and 
 Marcellina^ so closely resembles the language of Irenseus, that it cannot 
 be independent of this father's account. If therefore my hypothesis 
 be true, either Irenaeus must have borrowed from Hegesippus, or 
 Epiphanius must have been indebted partly to Hegesippus and partly 
 to Irenjeus, besides using the Syntagma of Hippolytus. But I see no 
 difficulty in either supposition. 
 
 (vi) At another point at all events Epiphanius is detected trans- 
 ferring the language of a previous authority verbatim into his account, 
 without modifying it so as to adapt it to his own context. He refers 
 back to 'the catalogue' in which the name of Anicetus had been 
 mentioned already (d avw eV tw KaraXoyw SeSr^Xw/xeVos). But no cata- 
 logue has been given previously. Is not this then a careless insertion 
 of the very words of Hegesippus, in forgetfulness that his own mani- 
 pulation and transposition of the matter borrowed from Hegesippus 
 had made them no longer appropriate ? 
 
 This result throws light upon another point. The name of Linus' 
 successor in Irenaeus and Eusebius is Anencletus, but Epiphanius calls 
 him Cletus. This alone shows that Epiphanius cannot have borrowed 
 his list from either of these authors. Yet the form Cletus must have 
 appeared in some early list, inasmuch as it is found in several catalogues 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries. In the West it is the most frequent 
 form. It appears in the Latin Canon of the Mass ; it has a place side 
 by side with Anacletus in the Liberian document and in lists derived 
 therefrom, as well as in the anonymous poem 'Against Marcion'; it is 
 the form commonly found in the Leonine catalogues ; and it occurs in 
 Rufinus. From a survey of the existing mss we might be led to 
 suppose that Jerome had substituted it for Anencletus in the Chronicle 
 of Eusebius', but this would probably be a wrong inference; for in the 
 Catalogus (c. 15) he apparently writes Anencletus, though here again 
 there is a various reading. Even Optatus and Augustine have Anencle- 
 tus (Anacletus). In the East the form Cletus is less frequent ; but it 
 
 ^ See above p. 216. Duchesne {Lib. 
 Pont. I. p. Ixx) writes, ' II faut remarquer 
 que saint Jerome emploie tanlot I'un des 
 deux noms, tantot I'autre.' This is true 
 of Jerome's transcribers, but there is (so 
 far as I know) no evidence that Jerome 
 himself used the two names indifferently. 
 In the only two passages where he has 
 
 occasion to mention this person, he is 
 copying Eusebius, and where the evi- 
 dence of the MSS is conflicting, we may 
 suppose that he followed his authority 
 and wrote 'Anencletus'; especially as 
 ' Cletus ' was the more familiar form with 
 Latin scribes and therefore likely to be 
 substituted by them.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 333 
 
 appears, as we have seen, in Epiphanius and is found likewise in 
 Ancient Syriac Documents p. 71. In the list of Hegeslppus, who had 
 relations with both East and West, we seem to have found the root, 
 from which this form was propagated. 
 
 Moreover, if Epiphanius did thus derive his list from Hegesippus, 
 one highly important result follows. Epiphanius gives the durations of 
 office of Linus and Cletus respectively as twelve years each. The 
 catalogue therefore which he used had not only the names of the 
 bishops but the term-numbers also. He might indeed have gathered 
 the numbers from different parts of the History (iii. 13, 15) or of the 
 Chronicle of Eusebius. This however is improbable in itself, and the 
 fact that Eusebius gives the name Anencletus, not Cletus, makes it 
 doubly so. But, if Hegesippus was the authority for these term- 
 numbers, the tradition is carried back at least to Eleutherus, under whom 
 he published his ' Memoirs,' if not to Anicetus, under whom he first 
 drew up the Hst. 
 
 We are now in a position to consider tlie theory of Lipsius, which 
 has been mentioned already (p. 237); and we shall find reason for 
 agreeing with him in the broad results, though unable to follow him 
 always in the reasons which he alleges or in the inferences which he 
 draws. The two documents which he supposes Eusebius to have 
 employed in matters relating to the Roman episcopate were as 
 follows : 
 
 (i) The one was a simple list of the Roman bishops, giving the 
 lengths of their several episcopates in years. This list he supposes to 
 have been drawn up under Victor, the immediate successor of Eleu- 
 therus, and therefore in the last decade of the second century. 'Jliough 
 I am unable to adopt his arguments for this particular date, I have no 
 fault to find with his conclusion, having myself in the previous investi- 
 gation arrived at substantially the same result, though by a wholly 
 different path. Speaking generally, we may say that a catalogue which 
 was the progenitor alike of the Eusebian and the Liberian lists 
 cannot well be dated later than the close of the second century. 
 If indeed it were possible to accept his position that Hippolytus 
 writing about a.d. 235 or, if not Hippolytus himself, a subsequent 
 redactor editing the Hippolytean work some twenty years later, had 
 already in his hands a grossly corrupt copy of this original list — the 
 order of the names being in some cases transposed, and the term- 
 numbers not only corrupted in themselves but shifted through a consi- 
 derable part of the list — this fact alone would be powerful evidence of
 
 334 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 its early date. But for reasons which have been explained above 
 (p. 270 sq) I cannot claim the support of this argument. 
 
 (2) The other document, which Lipsius in common with other 
 recent writers has postulated as necessary to explain the phenomena of 
 the Eusebian lists, is of a different kind. Like the former, with which it 
 was nearly contemporaneous, it emanated from Antioch ; but it was a 
 Chronicle, not a Catalogue. The main reasons for postulating such a 
 second document are twofold. 
 
 (i) It is plain that Eusebius had before him some work in which the 
 early Antiochene episcopates were co-ordinated with those of Rome 
 and Alexandria with which they were, or were supposed to be, synchro- 
 nous (see above, p. 223 sq). While he had in his hands a list of the 
 Roman bishops with term-numbers — which we have just been consi- 
 dering — and another list of the Alexandrian bishops likewise with 
 term-numbers — with which we are not directly concerned here — he 
 had no such list of the early Antiochene bishops giving the corre- 
 sponding information. In the Chronicle and in the History alike he is 
 silent about the duration of office in the case of the Antiochene bishops. 
 Yet in the History he mentions their several episcopates in connexion 
 with the contemporary Roman (and Alexandrian) bishops; and in the 
 Chronicle he sets them down under the same or the neighbouring year. 
 In this latter work he was constrained by the exigencies of the case to 
 give definiteness to information which, as he found it, was indefinite'. 
 
 (ii) The imperial synchronisms likewise seem to require such a 
 document. The beginnings of the Roman episcopates, as defined by 
 the regnal years of the emperors, are given in the History by direct 
 statement and in the Chronicle by tabulation. Thus we get the intervals 
 between any two successive accessions, and these ought to correspond 
 exactly to the numbers which give the durations of the several episco- 
 pates. This however is not the case ; and the conclusion seems to be 
 that the two were drawn from different documents. Moreover these 
 intervals as recorded in the Chronicle^ where they differ from the term- 
 numbers in that same work, agree so closely with the intervals in the 
 History (reasonable allowance being made for errors of transcription) 
 as to suggest that in both works the imperial synchronisms which give 
 these intervals were derived from the same authority. The following 
 table exhibits for comparison the numbers in the two works from the 
 accession of Linus to the accession of Eleutherus. This is a convenient 
 
 1 In llie Hist07-y we have such Ian- time flourished' (v. 22 Ka<?' ov^-.A-yviii- 
 guage as 'Then also flourished' (iv. 20 pi^dTo), or other equally vague expres- 
 TTji'iKavra kul. . .iyvupt^ero), or 'in wiiose sions. 
 
 1
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 
 
 -1 -1 
 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 period for our purpose, because it ends with the same year (a. d. 177) 
 in both works. Beyond this point comparison becomes difficult owing 
 to the confusion introduced by the twofold error of Eusebius, the 
 one relating to the imperial chronology at the death of Commodus 
 (see above, p. 216) and the other affecting the length of office of the 
 bishop Eleutherus (see above, p. 326). For the Chro7iicle I have taken 
 the Hieronymian version and rejected the Armenian for reasons which 
 have been already given. The numbers in brackets are the corrections 
 which it seems necessary to make of errors due either to Jerome himself 
 or to some early transcriber. The fuller facts will be found in the 
 tables given above, pp. 208, 209. 
 
 BISHOPS 
 
 CHRONICLE 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 • Duration 
 
 Interval 
 
 Duration 
 
 Interval 
 
 Linus 
 
 xi [xii] 
 
 12 
 
 xii 
 
 
 Anencletus 
 
 xii 
 
 12 
 
 xii 
 
 12 
 
 Clemens 
 
 viiii 
 
 7 [8] 
 
 viiii 
 
 8 
 
 Euarestus 
 
 viiii [viii] 
 
 10 [9] 1 
 
 viii 
 
 9 
 
 Alexander 
 
 X 
 
 10 
 
 X 
 
 10 
 
 Xystus 
 
 X 
 
 9 
 
 X 
 
 9 
 
 Telesphoms 
 
 xi 
 
 10 
 
 xi 
 
 10 
 
 Hyginus 
 
 iiii 
 
 4 
 
 iiii 
 
 — 
 
 Pius 
 
 XV 
 
 15 
 
 XV 
 
 — 
 
 Anicetus 
 
 xi 
 
 12 [11] 
 
 xi 
 
 — 
 
 Soter 
 
 viii 
 
 8 [9] 
 
 viii 
 
 9 
 
 In the column containing the term-numbers or durations of office 
 in the Chronicle, as represented by Jerome's text, two corrections should 
 be made. To Linus should be assigned xii instead of xi years, since 
 xii appears in the Syriac version (see above, p. 221) and is the tra- 
 ditional number for this bishop ; and for Euarestus we must substitute 
 viii for viiii, this correction again being supported by the Syriac version. 
 So corrected, the term-numbers in the Chronicle agree exactly with the 
 term-numbers in the History. In the intervals of the Chronicle again 
 two corrections must be made. The accession of Euarestus must be
 
 33^ EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 brought one year lower down, and the accession of Soter pushed one 
 year higher up. Thus the intervals for Clemens and Euarestus become 
 8 and 9 instead of 7 and 10 • and the intervals for Anicetus and Soter 
 become 11 and 9 instead of 12 and 8. For the former correction 
 there is no authority (the intervals in the Syriac Version not being 
 preserved), but it has this recommendation at least, that the discrepancy 
 between the term-numbers and the intervals is lessened; the latter 
 correction is supported by the Syriac version, which in this case 
 preserves the intervals, giving 11 to Anicetus and 9 to Soter. Thus 
 after making these corrections there are 5 names (Clemens, Euarestus, 
 Xystus, Telesphorus, Soter), for which the intervals differ from the 
 term-numbers (though only by a unit); and in all these cases the 
 Chronicle and the History are in exact accordance with one another. 
 The value of this fact indeed is not great, where the induction is so 
 slender ; but it serves to confirm the inference already drawn from other 
 considerations, that, besides the episcopal list with term-numbers, 
 Eusebius made use of a second document, and that this document gave 
 the imperial years of the episcopal accessions, as well as the synchronisms 
 of the Antiochene see. 
 
 What then was the date and country of this second document ? 
 Erbes (^aZ/r/A / Protest. Theol. v. p. 474 sq, 1879) assigns it to Antioch 
 and to the year a.d. 192 (or 193). Lipsius likewise assigns it to this 
 same place and date {ib. vi. pp. 241 sq, 245 sq, 254 sq, 260, 266 sq, 274, 
 277, 1880). At the same time he believes that Eusebius did not use 
 the original document directly, but only through the medium of a later 
 chronicler of the year 218 or thereabouts {ib. pp. 254, 274), and that 
 this later chronicler was probably Africanus. It may be a question 
 however whether there is sufficient ground for postulating any document 
 of the year 192, as the facts seem to be fully satisfied by supposing that 
 the Chronicle of Africanus himself was the original of the imperial dates 
 and of the episcopal synchronisms. 
 
 The document seems to have been Antiochene, or at least Syrian, 
 if the calculations of Gutschmid be accepted as correct. He has 
 pointed out {De temporum notis etc. p. 8 sq) that the regnal 
 years of the earlier emperors in Eusebius' Chronicle are Antiochene 
 years, which began on the first of October, and that each Antio- 
 chene year is coordinated with the year of Abraham which began 
 on the preceding Jan. i, the years of Abraham being in fact Julian 
 years. Thus for instance the date of Trajan's accession was Jan. 25, 
 A.D. 98, but it is set down to a.d. 97 (=Ann. Abr. 21 14) because the 
 corresponding Antiochene year was Oct. i, a.d. 97 —Oct i, a.d. 98.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 2,?>7 
 
 This holds good of all the emperors up to a certain point, with the 
 exception of Nerva, whose accession (xiv Kal. Oct. = Sept. i8), falling 
 at the close of one Antiochene year has been transferred by a very 
 natural error (xiv Oct. for xiv Kal. Oct.) to the next'. 
 
 To this argument Lipsius {ib. vi. p. 241) adds another indication of 
 Antiochene origin. The Antiochene episcopates, as far as Zebennus 
 (6th or 7th year of Alexander) inclusive, are attached not to the 
 years of Abraham (the left-hand margin) but to the imperial years 
 (the right-hand margin). This is perhaps significant ; but it might be 
 largely due to the fact that, as the Antiochene episcopates were for 
 the earlier period treated as synchronistic with the Roman, the right- 
 hand margin was already in most cases preoccupied by the Roman 
 episcopates. 
 
 A glance at the tables on p. 208 sq will show that the imperial 
 synchronisms, as given in the History, are fairly continuous till the 
 accession of Alexander (a.d. 222), and that after this point they cease. 
 It would seem therefore that his document failed him here. This how- 
 ever was just the point down to which Africanus brought his Chronicle 
 (a.d. 221, the last year of Elagabalus). 
 
 In the absence of any direct evidence therefore, everything points 
 to the Chronicle of Africanus as the document containing the imperial 
 years, v/hich was used by Eusebius for these papal lists. Gutschmid 
 however (I.e. p. 10 sq) considers that Eusebius' earliest authority ended 
 at A.D. 192, and in this he is followed by Erbes and Lipsius, as we have 
 seen. The grounds are threefold, (i) That the Antiochene years cease 
 at this point, and Alexandrian years take their place; (2) That there is 
 a break in the imperial chronology at this same point, as explained 
 above, Eusebius being led astray by the confusion which followed on 
 the death of Commodus (see above pp. 216, 217); (3) That at this 
 same point also the historical notices suddenly diminish in frequency, 
 ' argumentorum ubertas subito exarescit.' To these three indications 
 which he draws from Gutschmid, Erbes adds another, (4) That the 
 synchronisms between the Antiochene and Roman bishops likewise 
 cease here. 
 
 (i) As regards the first point, I cannot see that Gutschmid has 
 brought any evidence of a change of reckoning from Antiochene to 
 Alexandrian years, though he himself assumes this change in his treat- 
 
 ^ Gutschmid's calculations are here ac- voting more time to these investigations 
 cepted, though not without misgiving ; than I have been able to give. As re- 
 but I had no right to challenge the work gards the result, I see no reason to doubt 
 of a chronological expert without de- the Antiochene origin of the document. 
 
 CLEM. 22
 
 338 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ment. There is not a single accession of a Roman emperor from a.d. 
 192 to A.D. 221, or till some time later, which can serve as a test'. The 
 Antiochene year began on the ist of October; the Alexandrian year on 
 the 29th of August. To test such a change therefore we require an 
 accession which took place between the end of August and the end of 
 September. But none such is forthcoming. 
 
 (2) The error in the imperial chronology does not in any way 
 suggest a transition from one authority to another at this point. It is 
 only one of three places within a little more than half a century (a.d. 
 192 — 243), where Eusebius reckons a year too much, as Gutschmid's 
 table (p. 12) shows. In this particular instance Africanus had been 
 guilty of the same error, if Gelzer {Sext. Julius Africariiis I. p. 279) is 
 right ; and he may have led Eusebius astray. 
 
 (3) Nor again does it seem to me that much weight can be at- 
 tached to the sudden paucity of the historical notices. Fluctuations are 
 very common in other parts of this Chronicle, both before and after this 
 point. There are indeed periods of four or five years immediately 
 after which are bare of incidents ; but these are equalled and even 
 exceeded elsewhere during the imperial age (e.g. Ann. Abr. 1975— 
 1982). On the whole the disparity is not so great, as to justify the 
 postulate of different documents. 
 
 (4) The synchronisms of the Antiochene bishops with the Roman, 
 both in the History and in the Chronicle, end with Eleutherus and 
 Maximinus* (a.d. 177), or at all events with their successors Serapion 
 and Victor. After this point the accessions to the two sees are inde- 
 pendent of each other. This however is what we should expect in an 
 author of the age of Julius Africanus. For the earlier bishops of 
 Antioch, having no definite information, he could only give rough 
 approximations; but when he arrived at those who were his own contem- 
 poraries he was able to assign them to definite years. 
 
 It seems therefore that the arguments adduced in support of an 
 earlier chronicle (a.d. 192), which was afterwards incorporated and 
 carried down to a.d. 221, all break down. Still, though severally weak 
 and inadequate, they may be thought to have a cumulative force and 
 so to justify the conclusion. But if Africanus really had such a docu- 
 ment in his hands, may it not have been the work of Bruttius, whom 
 
 ^ The dates of the emperors' deaths Elagabalus, March 11, -222; Alexander, 
 
 are as follows: Commodus, Dec. 31, 192; P^eb. 10, 235. 
 
 Pertinax, March 28, 193; Julianus, June " See the table in Ignat. and Polyc. 11. 
 
 I, 193; .Severus, Feb. 4, 211; Caracalla, p. 464. 
 April 8, 217; Macrinus, June ir, 218;
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 339 
 
 we have already seen good reason to regard as a Christian chrono- 
 grapher (p. 48), and whose chronicle we have on independent grounds 
 supposed to have been known to Africanus ? 
 
 We have thus arrived at the same result with Harnack, viz. that the 
 symmetrical relations of the early bishops of Rome and Antioch, which 
 appear in the Chronicle of Eusebius, were probably derived from Julius 
 Africanus. But the way by which we have reached it has been quite 
 different. Supposing that the Armenian version represented the original 
 papal chronology of the Eusebian Chronicle, Harnack found that the 
 early Antiochene bishops were placed about 4 years after the corre- 
 sponding Roman bishops severally, and he explained this by the fact 
 that Africanus arranged his Chronicle by Olympiads. Rejecting the 
 papal clironology of the Armenian version, as a later revision, we our- 
 selves have rejected the Olympiad-theory with it. The regularity of the 
 intervals (not always 4 years however, but sometimes 3, sometimes 5) 
 is due to the fact that the reviser of the Armenian recension (for reasons 
 of his own) pushed back the earlier papal chronology a few years, and 
 thus from actual synchronisms produced equal intervals. On the other 
 hand we have found that the phenomena of the episcopal synchronisms 
 and of the regnal years in the History and the Chronicle of Eusebius 
 suggest a chronological document of the age and country of Africanus, 
 and therefore presumably the work of Africanus itself, as their source. 
 Of the manner in which Africanus may have recorded the episcopal 
 synchronisms we can form some idea from the practice of Syncellus. 
 
 But, if this papal chronology, as determined by the regnal years 
 of the several accessions, proceeded from Africanus or a contem- 
 ])orary, what weight shall we attribute to it ? Has it an independent 
 value ? or was it calculated from a list containing the term-numbers, 
 such as we have seen existing before the close of the second century, 
 and such as I have attributed to Hegesippus ? The latter seems to me 
 the probable alternative. The discrepancies between term -numbers and 
 the intervals are comparatively slight, never varying by more than a 
 unit, so that the latter may easily have been derived from the former 
 by a backward reckoning, with possibly here and there some fixed date 
 as a guide. As Hegesippus was a Palestinian Christian, his work would 
 probably be in the hands of Africanus, who was himself a native of 
 Emmaus. 
 
 If so, we must fall back upon the simple catalogue of names with 
 the accompanying term-numbers, as our sole authority for the chro- 
 nology of the early bishops. But, if this catalogue dates from the 
 
 22 — 2
 
 340 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 pontificate of Eleutherus or at the latest of Victor for its publication, 
 and probably from that of Anicetus for its compilation, it will have the 
 highest value. By its aid therefore we may restore the chronology of 
 the Roman episcopate by working backward from some fixed date, 
 with results which will be approximately true. But in using the list for 
 this purpose the following considerations must be borne in mind. 
 
 (i) As we have no ground for assuming that, when first drawn up, 
 it was founded on any contemporary written documents, we can only 
 treat it as giving the best tradition which was accessible to its author, 
 though perhaps in some cases he may have been guided by con- 
 temporary records. Its value therefore will increase, as we approach 
 his own time. As regards the first century this will not be great ; 
 but from the beginning of the second century onward it will claim the 
 highest deference. Of the xxv years of Peter I need say nothing here, 
 except that there is no ground for supposing that it formed any part of 
 the original list. Whether it was first introduced by Hippolytus, or by 
 Eusebius, or by some third person, and on what grounds (whether of 
 tradition or of criticism) it was so introduced, I will leave for dis- 
 cussion at a later point. Adequate reasons will then be produced to 
 show that it is wholly unhistorical. To the two next in succession, 
 Linus and Cletus (or Anencletus), twelve years each are assigned. The 
 symmetry of the numbers suggests that, where no direct information 
 was attainable, the author of the list divided the vacant space — a rough 
 quarter of a century — between them. As regards the names, I see no 
 reason to question that they not only represent historical persons, but 
 that they were bishops in the sense of monarchical rulers of the Roman 
 Church, though their monarchy may have been much less autocratic 
 than the episcopate even of the succeeding century. With Clement we 
 seem to emerge into the dawn of history. He at all events has a 
 historical record independently of the catalogue. Let me add also 
 that I see no sufficient ground for placing the daybreak of the papal 
 chronology at the epoch of Xystus, whose episcopate may be dated 
 roughly at a.d. 115 — 125. Those who take up this position' have no 
 other reason for their opinion than that Irenaeus, writing to Victor in 
 the last decade of the century and speaking of the Roman usage as 
 regards Easter, appeals to the practice of 'the elders who before Soter 
 presided over the Church ' of Rome, ' Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and 
 Telesphorus and Xystus^'; but this has reference solely to the Paschal 
 
 ^ So Lipsius Chronol. 169, 263, Jahrh. - Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 
 
 /. Prot. 'Fhcol. VI. p. 119. 
 
 \
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 34 1 
 
 question, in which case he does not go beyond living memory in sup- 
 port of his contention. It does not in any sense mark a period. 
 
 (2) The original list gives whole years only; for the months and 
 days are a much later addition and were unknown to Eusebius. How 
 then were these whole years calculated ? Was the whole number next 
 below the actual term of office taken, so that the fractions of years 
 however great were entirely neglected? If so, we might on a rough 
 average estimate add 6 months for every episcopate, so that the period 
 from Linus to Eleutherus inclusive, comprising twelve episcopates, 
 might be reckoned as six years longer than the addition of the term- 
 numbers makes it. Or was the whole number nearest to the actual 
 term of office, whether greater or less, taken? Or was sometimes one 
 course and sometimes another adopted? As these questions cannot 
 be answered, a large margin of uncertainty must remain. 
 
 (3) But we must reckon likewise with another element of uncer- 
 tainty. In times of persecution more especially there was frequently 
 an interregnum between the end of one episcopate and the beginning 
 of another. Thus there was an interval of a year after the martyrdom 
 of Xystus I, and apparently one of several years after the death of 
 Marcellinus. The same probably occurred more than once during the 
 earlier period, with which we are concerned. It is not probable, for 
 example, that when Telesphorus was martyred, his successor would be 
 installed in office immediately. 
 
 {4) Since for all these reasons the chronological results derived 
 from the list can only be regarded as approximately true for the second 
 century, it follows that, if we are able to ascertain any dates in the 
 history of the papacy independently on highly probable grounds, and 
 if the dates so ascertained are at variance with the results derived from 
 the papal lists, the latter must yield to the former. On the other 
 hand, if these independent dates agree with the chronology as derived 
 from the episcopal catalogue, this agreement is an important verifi- 
 cation of its trustworthiness. In other words the independent dates 
 must be used to test the accuracy of the chronology of the papal list, 
 and not conversely^ . 
 
 i. One such independent date (within narrow limits) is furnished 
 by the account of the earlier life of CaUistus, as related in Hippolytus 
 {Haer. ix. 11 sq)^ Callistus was condemned by Fuscianus the City 
 Prefect^, and transported to Sardinia to work there in the mines. After 
 
 ^ This caution applies especially to the ^ See Lipsius Chronol. p. 172 sq. 
 
 treatment of the date of Polycarp's death ^ Capitolin. Perthiax 4, Dion Cass, 
 
 by Lipsius. Ixxiv. 4.
 
 342 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a time ((uera xp'^vov) he was released through the influence of Marcia 
 with the emperor Commodus, much to the displeasure of bishop Victor. 
 Now Fuscianus held the consulship for the second time in a. d. i88, 
 and would not be appointed to the City prefecture till after the expiration 
 of his tenure of office or, in other words, not till a.d. 189'. On the 
 other hand Commodus was assassinated on the last day of a.d. 192. 
 Between these limits therefore (a.d. 189 — 192) the condemnation, 
 exile, and pardon of Callistus must have taken place, and Victor must 
 have been in office before the termination of the period, probably some 
 time before. 
 
 ii. Again ; we are informed on the best authority that Polycarp 
 visited Rome to confer with Anicetus, who was then bishop", and 
 that the visit was paid at Eastertide. But recent criticism has shown, 
 on evidence which must be regarded as almost, if not quite decisive, 
 that Polycarp was martyred a.d. 155, in February I Therefore the 
 latest possible date for the accession of Anicetus is the beginning of 
 A.D. 154. 
 
 iii. Again ; the date of Clement's Epistle is fixed with a fair degree 
 of certainty at a.d. 95 or 96, as it was written during, or immediately 
 after the persecution under Domitian. This year therefore must fall 
 within the episcopate of Clement. 
 
 To ascertain how far the chronology of the papal list satisfies these 
 three tests, we will take as the earliest fixed date the resignation or 
 deprivation of Pontianus, assuming that the consulships ' Severo et 
 Quintiano' [a.d. 235] in the Liberian list (see above, p. 255) formed 
 part of the original document, and are therefore historical. But, if 
 exception be taken to this assumption, we have only to advance to the 
 martyrdom of Fabianus, who certainly suffered under Decius [a.d. 250] ; 
 and, as the notices of time between Pontianus and Fabianus are very 
 definite even to the days of the month, we reckon back from this 
 and arrive independently at the same date, a.d. 235, for the close of 
 Pontianus' episcopate. Taking this then as our fixed date, we have the 
 following figures : 
 
 From accession of Linus to accession of Clemenl 
 
 12+12 =24 years 
 
 1 See Borghesi QLirin-es viii..p. 535, the prefectures were very rapid at this 
 
 IX. p. 322 sq, De Rossi Bull, di Archcol. time; Lamprid. Commod. 14. 
 Crist. IV. p. 4 sq. He was succeeded in " IrenKUS in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 
 
 the prefecture by Pertinax during the ^ See the chapter on the ' Date of the 
 
 life-time of Commodus. The changes in Martyrdom' in Ignat. and Polyc. vol. i.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 343 
 
 From accession of Clement to accession of Anicetus 
 
 9 + 8+10+10+11+4+15 = 67 years 
 
 From accession of Anicetus to accession of Victor 
 
 11+8 + 15 =34 >, 
 
 From accession of Victor to resignation of Pontianus 
 
 10(9) + 18(19) 4- 5 + 9(8) + 5(6) =46—48 „ 
 
 SO that the accession of Victor would be placed a.d. 187 — 189, the 
 accession of Anicetus a.d. 153 — 155, and the accession of Clement 
 A.D. 86 — 88, without making allowance for the treatment of months 
 and days or for possible interregna'. 
 
 Having thus tested the list at three different points, from external 
 chronology, we have in all cases obtained confirmation of its trust- 
 worthiness as affording a rough approximation ; but at the same time 
 these tests strengthen the suspicion which the probabilities of the case 
 suggest, that the numbers in the earlier part of the hst are less true 
 to fact than the later. 
 
 The term of office assigned to Clement with exceptional unanimity 
 in the lists earlier and late is nine years. His death is assigned by 
 Eusebius to the third year of Trajan". This result may have been 
 attained by Eusebius himself or by some previous writer by calculation 
 from the term-numbers, thus following the same process which I have 
 followed. If so, it has no independent value. But it may possibly repre- 
 sent a separate tradition. If we accept it, the episcopate of Clement will 
 extend over the last nine years of the century (a.d. 92 — 100). This 
 reckoning is some four years at least later than the approximation at 
 which we have arrived from our backward reckoning of the episcopal 
 catalogue as a whole; but, as we have seen, the character of this cata- 
 logue does not justify us in expecting that by this path we should arrive 
 any nearer to the correct date. 
 
 Before leaving the subject of Clement's episcopate, a few words 
 more will be necessary as to the different places which he occupies in 
 the various lists. The only position which has any historical value, as 
 resting on a definite tradition, is, as we have seen, that which places 
 
 1 It will be seen that by this reckoning prol)abIy a few years too early, but this 
 
 the whole period from the accession of point will be discussed when I speak of 
 
 Linus to the deprivation or resignation S. Peter in Rome. 
 
 of Pontianus [a.d. 235] is 161 — 163 - Euseb. If. E. iii. 34, Hieron. Vir. 
 
 years. The accession of Linus would ///. 15; see above, pp. 166, 173. 
 thus be placed .\. D. 62 — 64. This is
 
 344 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 him after Linus and Anencletus, and tiius reckons him third after the 
 Apostles. The Eastern romance of the Clementines however made 
 him the immediate successor of S. Peter and so first on the list (see 
 above, p. 158). This story was so flattering to the corporate pride 
 of the Roman Christians in the unique position which it assigned to 
 Clement, that it rapidly spread and largely influenced popular opinion in 
 Rome. Whether Tertullian when he states (see above, p. 160) that the 
 Roman Church recorded Clement to have been ordained by S. Peter, 
 and himself therefore presumably regards Clement as the Apostle's next 
 successor in the episcopate, was influenced directly or indirectly by the 
 Clementine fiction, or whether it was his own independent inference 
 drawn from the fact that Clement had been a hearer of S. Peter, we have 
 no means of determining. The second position, which Clement occupies 
 in many Western lists, where he is the immediate successor of Linus, 
 apparently originated in a blunder (see p. 272 sq). It does not satisfy 
 the Clementine story and seems to have been quite independent of its 
 influence. Though this same position is likewise given to him by the 
 writer of the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46), it is not probable (consi- 
 dering the date and country of this writer) that he derives it from these 
 Western lists. He states that ' Linus was appointed first by Paul, and 
 then Clemens the second, after Linus' death, by Peter.' This seems to 
 be an independent attempt to combine the story of the Clementines, 
 which was obviously familiar to him, with the established tradition that 
 Linus was the earliest bishop of Rome after the Apostles, which he may 
 have learnt from Irenaeus or Hegesippus or from common report. 
 
 The whole episcopal list from the age of the Apostles to the age of 
 Constantine falls into three parts : (i) From Linus to Eleutherus ; 
 (2) From Victor to Pontianus; (3) From Anteros onwards. For the 
 first of these periods it has been shown that the catalogues of Eusebius 
 and the Easterns were founded on one and the same traditional list 
 (committed to writing) with the Western catalogues (see p. 275 sq). For 
 the tliird period it has appeared that Eusebius used a written document 
 which contained substantially the same record of numbers with the 
 Western lists, though it was mutilated and misread by him (see p. 233 
 sq). But, inasmuch as this record of numbers was, so far as we can 
 discern, strictly historical, and inasmuch as the Roman Church at this 
 age would probably preserve archives in some form or another, this 
 coincidence is no ground for supposing that he had before him the 
 same literary document. Indeed, considering the phenomena of the 
 different lists and the circumstances of the case, this is hardly probable.
 
 EARLY ROMAN SUCCESSION. 345 
 
 The Western document which is incorporated in the Liberian Catalogue 
 would not probably be accessible to Eusebius, and indeed it contains 
 facts of which he betrays no knowledge. For the second and interme- 
 diate period — from Victor to Pontianus inclusive — it is difficult to form 
 any definite conclusion as to the relations between the Eastern and 
 Western lists (see above, p. 275 sq). On the whole they would seem to 
 be independent. The Eastern lists so far agree with the Western, that 
 they may be regarded as substantially historical, while they exhibit dif- 
 ferences which point to a distinct source of information.
 
 THE LETTER OF THE ROMANS 
 
 TO 
 
 THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 THE following eight points relating to the Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 which bears the name of Clement, will be considered in this 
 chapter: (i) The date; (2) The authorship ; (3) The genuineness and 
 integrity; (4) The ecclesiastical authority; (5) The purport and con- 
 tents; (6) The liturgical ending; (7) The doctrine; (8) The printed 
 text and editions. 
 
 I. The date. 
 
 Common opinion places the date of this document about the close 
 of the reign of Domitian or immediately after (a.d. 95, 96). This view, 
 which was put forward by Patrick Young the first editor (a.d. 1633), has 
 commended itself to critics of divers schools, and has now become so 
 general that it may be regarded as the received opinion. On the other 
 hand some writers of consideration, such as Grotius (Cotel. Patr. Apost. 
 I. p. 133 sq, ed. Cleric. 1724), Grabe {Spicil. SS. Fair. i. j). 254 sq, ed. 2), 
 and Wotton (S. Clem. Rom. Epist. p. cciii sq, 17 18) with others, and 
 in more recent times Uhlhorn {Zeitsch. f. Hist. Theol. 1851, p. 322 ; 
 but retracted, ib. 1866, p. 33), Hefele {Fatr. Apost. p. xxxiv sq, ed. 3), 
 and Wieseler {Untersuch. i'lber die Hebr. p. 339, 1861 ; Jahrb.f. Deutsche 
 Theol. 1877, p. 383 sq; Zur Gesch. d. Neatest. Schrift etc p. 48 sq, 18S0), 
 with one or two besides, assign it to the close of Nero's reign (a.d. 
 64 — 68) ; while a few extreme critics of our own age such as Schwegler 
 {Nachapost. Zeitalter \\. p. 125 sq, 1846), Volkmar (77/6^;/. y^Z/^r^^. 1856, 
 p. 362 sq; 1857, p. 441 sq ; Einl. in die Apokr. i. i. p. 28 sq, and 
 elsewhere ; see my note on § 55), and after Volkmar, Baur [Dogmengesch. 
 p. 82, 1858; Vorles. iiber Nciitest. Theol. p. 41 sq, 1864), Keim {Gesch. 
 Jesu von Nazara i. p. 147 sq, 1867), and one or two others, have
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 347 
 
 placed it as late as the reign of I'rajan or of Hadrian or even later. 
 But the two minorities, even when added together, are not comparable, 
 either in weight or in numbers, to the vast majority in favour of the 
 intermediate date. 
 
 The external testimony is altogether favourable to the received view, 
 as against the earlier and later dates. The notices of Hegesippus and 
 Iren^us alike point to this intermediate epoch. They had both 
 visited Rome, where apparently they had resided a considerable time, 
 when the memory of Clement was still fresh. The former tells us 
 explicitly that he arrived in the metropolis during the episcopate of 
 Anicetus (c. a.d. 154 — 167) and did not leave till Eleutherus the next 
 but one in succession occupied the episcopal throne (c. a.d. 175), so 
 that he must have been there eight or ten years. We must confess 
 indeed that the account which Eusebius' gives of the language of 
 Hegesippus, referring to Clement, is not altogether free from ambiguity. 
 If the words 'in his time' (/cara tovtov) refer to Domitian, as I have 
 contended above (p. 165), then we have the direct statement of this 
 writer in support of the received date ; but, even if they do not, 
 Hegesippus at all events expressed himself in such a way as to lead 
 Eusebius to this conclusion, and indeed the fragments preserved by 
 this historian make the same impression on ourselves. Moreover, 
 Hegesippus drew up a list of the bishops of Rome in order of succession; 
 and there is every reason to believe that he placed Clemens where 
 Irenseus placed him, in the last decade of the first century. The 
 testimony of Irenseus himself^ is quite explicit on this point. He too 
 gives a succession of the Roman bishops — perhaps not independent of 
 Hegesippus — in which he places Clement third in order. The founders 
 of the Roman Church are 'the glorious Apostles Peter and Paul' They 
 committed it to the charge of Linus, who is mentioned in the Epistles 
 to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 21). The next in succession to Linus was 
 Anencletus. After Anencletus followed Clemens, 'who also had seen 
 the blessed Apostles and conversed with them and had the preaching of 
 the Apostles still ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes.' 
 ' Nor was he alone in this,' continues Irenseus, 'for many still remained at 
 that time who had been taught by the Apostles.' 'In the time (i.e. 
 during the episcopate) of this Clement a feud of no small magnitude 
 arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a 
 very sufficient (tKavwrarr;!/) letter to the Corinthians, striving to bring 
 
 1 H. E. iii. 16, quoted above p. 153 sq. - Hae7-. iii. 3. 3, given at length above, 
 
 On the chronology of Hegesippus see p. 156 sq; see also p. 203 sq. 
 esp. pp. 154, 203, 3:8.
 
 '> 
 
 48 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 them to peace and quickening their faith and declaring the tradition 
 which they had so lately (vcwo-rt) received from the Apostles'; after 
 which follows a brief summary of the contents of our epistle, concluding 
 ' This Clement was succeeded by Euarestus.' It is evident that the 
 position of Clement in the succession, and the relations of Clement 
 himself and his contemporaries to the Apostles, as here described, are 
 equally inconsistent with a date so early as Nero, or so late as 
 Hadrian. 
 
 Besides this more direct external testimony, which consists in 
 historical statement, we have the evidence drawn from the influence of 
 this epistle, as shown in subsequent writers. It is undeniable that the 
 Epistle of PoLYCARp is pervaded through and through with indications 
 of a knowledge of Clement's letter (see above, p. 149 sq). But, if the 
 Epistle of Polycarp was written about a.d. no, or soon after, the 
 inference in favour of an earlier date than Hadrian is irresistible. If 
 the genuineness and integrity of Polycarp's Epistle be accepted (and I 
 have shown, if I mistake not, elsewhere', that doubts respecting these 
 points are unreasonably sceptical) Polycarp wrote while the martyrdom 
 of Ignatius was recent, and before the news of his death had reached 
 Smyrna, though the martyrdom itself was foreseen. Some passages in 
 Ignatius himself also seem to reflect Clement's language (see p. 149); 
 and more especially his references to the past history of the Romans 
 {Rom. 3, 4) seem to me to be best explained by the fact of Clement's 
 letter^ But not much stress can be laid on these. Nor can I see any 
 force in the parallels adduced by Hilgenfeld to show that the author of 
 the Epistle of Barnabas was acquainted with Clement's language (see 
 above, p. 148 sq). On the other hand, the allusion in Hermas {Vis. ii. 
 4. 3) seems to be an obvious recognition of the existence of this letter ; 
 ' Thou shalt write two copies (y8t/3At8apta) and shalt send one to 
 Clement. ..and Clement shall send it to the foreign cities. ..for this duty 
 is committed to him (cKetVo) yap eTriTeV/DaTrTat),' where Clement is 
 represented as the writer's contemporary who held a high office which 
 constituted him, as we might say, foreign secretary of the Roman Church. 
 If our Clement be meant, this notice is at all events inconsistent with 
 the early date assigned to the epistle, the close of Nero's reign ; but the 
 passage is not without its difficulties and will be considered presently 
 
 (P- 359 sq). 
 
 The internal evidence in favour of the intermediate date — the reign 
 
 1 See Ign. and Poly c. i. p. 562 sq, ed. 371 sq, ed. 2); 11. pp. 203, 209; see also 
 I (P- 579 sq, ed. 2). above, p. 71. 
 
 * Ign. and Polyc. I. p. 357 sq, ed. i (p.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 349 
 
 of Domitian, or immediately after his death — is still stronger than the 
 external. 
 
 (i) The personal notices more especially point this way. Of the 
 delegates who are sent by the Roman Church, as the bearers of the letter, 
 the writer or writers say, 'we send you faithful and prudent men, who 
 have conducted themselves blamelessly among us frotn youth to old age, 
 and they shall be witnesses between you and us' (c. 63). Here the 
 words which I have italicized are unintelligible on the supposition of 
 the early date. If the epistle was written about a.d. 68 or earlier, how 
 could it be said of any Roman Christian that he had lived from youth to 
 old age in the Church of Christ, seeing that the first Apostle visited 
 Rome about a.d. 60, and that two years earlier when writing to 
 the Roman Church, while recognizing the existence of a Christian 
 congregation, he speaks throughout as though this were practically a 
 virgin soil in which he was called to sow the seed of the Gospel? The 
 chronology of these delegates' lives as suggested by their names, 
 Claudius and Valerius, I have pointed out already (see above, p. 27 sq). 
 Again, when we turn to the notice of the feuds at Corinth, we have still 
 more decisive evidence in favour of the intermediate date as against the 
 earlier and later alike. The Apostles, we are there told (c. 44), having 
 complete foreknowledge of the strife that would arise concerning the 
 office of bishop (or presbyter), appointed the persons aforesaid (their 
 contemporaries) and made provision that 'if they should die, other 
 approved persons should succeed to their ministration.' 'Those therefore,' 
 the letter continues, 'who were appointed by them (the Apostles) or 
 afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church 
 and have ministered unblameably...and for long years (ttoAAois xpo''^'?) 
 have borne a good report with all men — these persons we consider to be 
 unjustly deposed from their ministration.' If we remember that the first 
 point of time, when the narrative in the Acts will permit us to place the 
 appointment of a regular ministry at Corinth, is about a.d. 52, and that 
 the language here points to a long succession and not a few changes in 
 the presbyterate, we feel instinctively that the sixteen years which elapsed 
 to A.D. 68 are not enough to satisfy the requirements of the passage. 
 On the other hand we cannot suppose that not a few of those who 
 had been ordained by the Apostles S. Paul or S. Peter, being then no 
 longer young men, as their appointment to the presbyterate suggests, 
 should have survived to a.d. 120 or later, in other words, 50 or 60 years 
 after the death of these Apostles. At the same time I cannot lay stress, 
 as some have done, on the fact that the Church of Corinth (§ 47) is 
 called 'ancient' or 'primitive' (apxaLo), though I can scarcely believe that
 
 350 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 a community not yet twenty years old would be so designated, and the 
 analogies brought to support this view seem to me to be fallacious'. 
 
 (ii) The notices of the persecutio7is point the same way. All the 
 early Church writers speak of the first persecution under Nero and the 
 second under Domitian. This is the case not only with Eusebius, who 
 had the great mass of the earliest Christian literature before him, but 
 with Melito, TertuUian, and Lactantius (see above p. 104 sq). The only 
 exception to this universal belief is Hilary, who mentions Vespasian as 
 a persecutor of the Church. If his language be not founded altogether 
 on a misapprehension, it must refer to some local troubles in Gaul. But 
 on this subject I have already spoken ^ We may safely assume then 
 from the universal silence, that during the intermediate reigns between 
 Nero and Domitian no assault was made on the Christians of the 
 metropolis which deserved to be dignified by the name of a persecution. 
 Nor indeed did the third persecution, under Trajan, so far as we know, 
 touch the Roman Church. It was fierce enough in some parts of Asia 
 Minor and the East, but the evidence of any martyrdoms in Rome is 
 confined to spurious Acts and other equally untrustworthy documents^ 
 
 Now the letter to the Corinthians speaks of two persecutions. In the 
 fifth and following chapters we have an unmistakeable reference to the 
 troubles of Nero's reign. The sufferers are there described as 'the 
 athletes who lived very near to the present day ' (rows eyyto-ra yevo- 
 
 ^ Grabe {Spicil. Patr. i p. 256), fol- suming the former sense to be Clement's, 
 
 lowed by Hefele {Patr. Apost. p. xxxvi, It stands to reason that, a person writing 
 
 ed. 3), argues that because S. Paul [Phil. a.d. 64 (or at the outside a.d. 68) could 
 
 iv. 13) uses ev apxf; ToO ei!a77eMou of the hardly call a community 'ancient' or 
 
 Philippian Church which was some nine ' primitive ' which came into existence 
 
 years old [say rather 'eleven' or 'twelve'], after considerably more than half of the 
 
 Clement could a fortiori use the same whole period of the Church's history had 
 
 expression of the Corinthian Church passed. Nor again is Wieseler justified 
 
 which at the supposed date (the close of (Jahrb. f. Deutsch. Theol. xxii. p. 387) 
 
 Nero's reign) was from fifteen to eighteen in citing Acts xv. 7 as a parallel, for S. 
 
 years old. This is true, but not to the Peter, speaking of the conversion of Cor- 
 
 point. Grabe himself explains the words nelius or possibly some earlier event, could 
 
 to mean '/r/wa /,V(Z«f^t72Y, vel simpliciter well describe the epoch as a<^ Tj/j-epuv 
 
 in orbe vel in specie apud ipsos praedicati, apxa-L<^'' even in A.D. 51; since on any 
 
 tempera'' ; and plainly both S. Paul and showing it belonged to the beginnings of 
 
 Clement use them in the latter sense the spread of the Gospel. In Acts xxi. 16 
 
 ' when the Gospel was first preached to dpxo-^os iia.6-qT7]s is ' a primitive disciple ', 
 
 yoii\ Strangely enough he goes on to i.e. an early convert to the Gospel, 
 argue after Dodwell, that those churches '■' See above, p. 81, and comp. Ign. and 
 
 could be called apx"-^"-'- which were con- Polyc. i. p. 15. 
 verted h ctpy^ roO ei'a77fXtot', thus as- ^ See Tgn. and Polyc. T. p. 52 sq.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 35 I 
 
 fX€vov<; aOX-qra^), and again as 'the noble examples belonging to our own 
 generation' (ri)? -yevca? t^/xwv rot yevvaia v7ro8€ty/x,aTa). This is the sort of 
 language which we Englishmen to-day (1889) might use of the heroes 
 of the Crim.ea (1854) or of the Indian Mutiny (1857). It implies a 
 certain lapse of time, and yet the persons so designated could well be 
 called contemporaries of the writer. The letter then describes the 
 principal figures among the martyrs : ' Let us set before our eyes the 
 good Apostles,' where the epithet (as I have elsewhere stated, p. 73) 
 seems to imply personal acquaintance. These are the Apostles S. Peter 
 and S. Paul, whose martyrdom is distinctly mentioned. Gathered round 
 these, as the central figures, was ' a great multitude of the elect ' who 
 after suffering cruel tortures were put to death, and thus ' set a glorious 
 example among ourselves (yTroheiyfxa KaXXiarov iyevovro €v 1^fuv).' The 
 paragraph ends with the warning, ' Jealousy and strife overthrew great 
 cities and rooted out great nations.' In this last sentence some have 
 seen a special reference to the Jewish war and the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem (a. d. 79). Bearing in mind the language in which Josephus on 
 the one hand, and Hegesippus' on the other, describe the causes of 
 the Jewish war, we cannot consider this allusion altogether fanciful. 
 
 Universal tradition speaks of S. Peter and S. Paul as suffering under 
 Nero in consequence of the general assault on the Christians. Whether 
 they were martyred at the same time with the great bulk of the sufferers 
 in the year of the fire (a.d. 64), or whether they were isolated victims of 
 the spent wave of the persecution (a.d. 67 or 68), we need not stop to 
 enquire. The allusion in the letter would be satisfied by either. 
 
 On the other hand the letter speaks of a persecution, which was 
 now raging or had been raging very recently, when it was written. This 
 is separated chronologically from the persecution under Nero by the 
 significant language (c. 7) which follows immediately after the account 
 of these earlier troubles ; ' These things, beloved, we write, not only to 
 warn you but fo reiiihid ourselves^ for we are in the same lists and the 
 same contest awaits us^ which awaited these earlier sufferers. In the 
 commencement of the letter (c. i) an apology is offered by the Romans 
 for the long delay in writing to the Corinthians on the ground that 
 they had been prevented from attending to the matter by the 'sudden 
 and successive troubles ' which had befallen them. 
 
 It should be remembered also, that the language used in each case 
 is, as I have already observed (p. 81), especially appropriate to the 
 particular persecution. Nero's attack was a savage onslaught, regardless 
 
 ^ P'or Josephus, see Bell. Jud. v. i sq, Eus. //. E. ii. 23 koX evdvs Ovecnracnavos 
 vi. I a.n(\ Jxissim : for Hegesippus, see 7^oXtop^■e^ ailroiJs, with the context.
 
 352 EPISTLES OF S. CEEMENT. 
 
 alike of sex and age, a war of extermination : Do mitian's consisted of 
 short, sharp, intermittent assaults, striking down now one and now 
 another, not perhaps deserving the name of a general persecution, but 
 only the more liarassing from its very caprice. 
 
 Here then we have the two persecutions ; and the letter was written 
 either during the continuance of the second or immediately after its 
 cessation— in the last year of Domitian or the first of Nerva (a.d. 95 or 
 A.D. 96). The alternative depends largely on the reading, yevoync'va? or 
 •yivo/xcVas. On the whole yci/o/xevas should probably be retained, as the 
 better supported, and this points to the time when by the accession of 
 Nerva the Christians breathed more freely again'. 
 
 (iii) Of the notices of Church government we may say generally, 
 that they savour of the first rather than the second century. We find 
 eTTto-KOTTos still used as a synonyme for 7rpea(3vT€po<i, as it is in the New 
 Testament^; though in the first or second decade of the succeeding 
 century in the Epistles of Ignatius the two words are employed to 
 designate two distinct offices of the ministry, so that in Asia Minor, 
 and apparently in wide regions besides, the ofiice of the episcopate 
 proper was definitely established and recognized. Moreover in the 
 account of the feuds at Corinth no mention is made of any single pre- 
 siding ruler of the Church, and we must suppose either that there was a 
 vacancy in the bishopric at this time, or that the bishop's ofifice had not 
 yet assumed at Corinth the prominence which we find a few years later 
 in Asia Minor. It should be remembered that when the letter was 
 written the last of the twelve Apostles, if the best ancient tradition may 
 be credited, was still living, the centre of a body of Christian disciples, 
 at Ephesus. 
 
 Of the Christian ministry at Rome I have already spoken (p. 68 sq). 
 Not only have we no traces of a bishop of bishops, but even the very 
 existence of a bishop of Rome itself could nowhere be gathered from 
 this letter. Authority indeed is claimed for the utterances of the letter 
 in no faltering tone, but it is the authority of the brotherhood declaring 
 the mind of Christ by the Spirit, not the authority of one man, whether 
 bishop or pope. The individual is studiously suppressed. This how- 
 ever was apparently the practice of the Roman Church for some genera- 
 tions, the letter of bishop Soter to Corinth (c. a.d. 170) being ap- 
 parently cast in the same mould. It seems to have been retained 
 
 ' On the various readings see above, p. and Polyc. i. p. 375 sq, ed. \ (p. 389 sq, 
 58, and the note on the passage. ed. 2). 
 
 ■■' See Philippians p. 95 sq ; comp. Ign.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 353 
 
 still later, when Victor wrote at the close of the century'. This feature 
 therefore does not assist us to decide between the rival dates, but is 
 consistent with a later epoch than either. 
 
 (iv) One important test of date in early Christian writings lies in 
 the Biblical quotations — both the form and the substance. Now the 
 quotations from the Gospels in this letter exhibit a very early type. 
 They are not verbal ; they are fused ; and they are not prefaced by 
 'It is written (yeypaTrrai) ' or 'The Scripture saith' (7; ypa^-q Xeyet) or 
 the like, but a more archaic form of citation is used, 'The Lord spake' 
 (o Kvptos ctTrev), or some similar expression. Of the Canonical writings 
 of the New Testament, besides the definite reference to S. Paul's First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians (a.d. 57), where not only the main purport 
 of the epistle is described but the Apostle's name is directly men- 
 tioned, we seem to have sufficiently definite traces of the influence of 
 several other Pauline Epistles, of the Epistle of S. James, and of the 
 First Epistle of S. Peter, while the expressions taken from the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews are numerous and undeniable (e.g. § 36). Now this 
 last mentioned epistle seems to have been written, so far as we can 
 discern from internal evidence, whether by Apollos or by Barnabas or 
 by some other disciple or companion of the Apostle, soon after the 
 Apostle's death and when Timothy, of whom we last read as about to 
 join the Apostle in Rome (2 Tim. iv. 9) and who apparently had shared 
 his master's captivity, had been again set free (Heb. xiii. 23). If the 
 letter to the Corinthians were written in Nero's reign (a.d. 64—68), these 
 quotations would be highly improbable, if not altogether impossible. 
 
 One argument however has been alleged in favour of the early 
 date — the reign of Nero — which at first sight has some value. The 
 present tense is used of the sacrifices and the temple-worship at Jeru- 
 salem, as if the catastrophe under Vespasian and Titus had not yet 
 overtaken the holy city (§ 41). However specious, this argument is 
 found to be altogether delusive. Parallel instances will be adduced in 
 the notes on this passage, which show conclusively that this mode of 
 speaking was common long after the destruction of the temple and the 
 cessation of the sacrifices, so that no argument respecting date can be 
 founded on it. 
 
 But Volkmar, who adopts the latest date — the reign of Hadrian — 
 finds his chief argument in one of the references to a quasi-scriptural 
 
 1 Victor did not indeed suppress his the plural (Eus. H. E. v. 24 v^l.d^i ij^tw- 
 own name, but he wrote on behalf of the (j(x.r€\ ; see Salmon Infallibility of tJie 
 Church, for Polycrates in replying uses Churcli p. 374. 
 
 CLEM. 23
 
 354 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 book in the letter (see above, p. 346). In the 55th chapter there is a 
 direct reference to the apocryphal book of Judith. This book he 
 assigns to the reign of Hadrian ; and in this he has been followed 
 by Baur and a few others. It may however be said with confidence 
 that the arguments which place the Epistle of Clement in the first 
 century are a hundred-fold stronger than those which place the book 
 of Judith in the second; so that any uncertainty in the date of the 
 latter must be decided by the date of the former and not conversely. 
 
 The story which forms the plot of the Book of Judith runs as 
 follows. 
 
 It is the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar the Assyrian 
 king whose capital is the great city Nineveh. The king of the Medians 
 at that time is Arphaxad, whose seat of government is Ecbatana. Ne- 
 buchadnezzar makes war against Arphaxad in the great plain of Rhagau, 
 and the people of the East, dwelling in the mountain region and on the 
 banks of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Hydaspes, are arrayed under him'. 
 He likewise summons to his standard the Persians and the nations of 
 the West, of Cilicia and Syria and Palestine, Galilee and Samaria and 
 Judrea, and the Egyptians, as far as the ^Ethiopian frontier. They 
 however refuse to obey the summons. Then in the fifteenth year he 
 marches against Arphaxad and takes Ecbatana. The whole country is 
 subjugated, and Arphaxad is slain. 
 
 Afterwards in the sixteenth year he determines to avenge himself on 
 the rebel nations of the West. For this purpose he sends an army 
 under Olophernes his chief captain, which carries everything before it. 
 Of the offending nations some are subdued by force ; others surrender 
 voluntarily. Having thus made a clean sweep of everything which 
 stood in his way, he meets the Israelites at Bethulia and calls on them 
 to surrender. While he is encamped there, an Israelite widow, Judith 
 by name, gains access to his tent, ingratiates herself with him, and kills 
 him in his sleep, cutting off his head and carrying it away as a trophy. 
 The next day the Assyrians retire in dismay, and Israel is saved. The 
 story ends with a psalm of thanksgiving, wherein Judith celebrates the 
 deliverance which God has wrought by her hand. 
 
 This romance founded on the history of the past was evidently 
 written to inspire the patriotism or stimulate the courage of the Israelite 
 people, when they were passing through some great crisis. Critics have 
 
 ^ The reference of 7rp6s avTov (i. 6) is Lipsius ib. 1859, p. 49. Thus Volkmar 
 
 evidently to Nebuchadnezzar, not to Ar- transfers these nations to the side of the 
 
 phaxad, as Volkmar takes it ; see Hilgen- enemy, 
 feld Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1858 p. 273,
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 355 
 
 generally supposed that it was suggested by the trouble which over- 
 whelmed them under Antiochus Epiphanes. At all events it has usually 
 been ascribed to some date long before the Christian era. Volkmar 
 however, following in the footsteps of Hitzig', gives an entirely different 
 account of its origin. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar is Trajan the monarch of the world. His capital 
 ' the great city Nineveh ' is none other than the. great city Rome, or (as 
 on second thoughts he considers preferable) the great city Antioch, 
 which the Roman emperor made his head-quarters during his expedi- 
 tions in the East. Arphaxad is the Parthian king, who was defeated by 
 Trajan. But who are the counterparts of the two principal figures in 
 the story, Olophernes and Judith ? 
 
 The history of Trajan's campaigns in the East I have had occasion 
 to discuss, though not in full, when treating of the Acts of Martyrdom 
 of Ignatius". In his 17th year Trajan starts for the East, and winters 
 at Antioch. This is the winter a.d. 113, 114. The campaigns in the 
 East occupy the next three years a.d. 114, 115, 116, the i8th, 19th, and 
 20th of Trajan. He overruns Armenia and deposes the Armenian 
 king ; marches into Mesopotamia ; receives the submission of Augarus 
 (Abgar) of Edessa and other petty kings ; takes Nisibis and Batn^ ; 
 crosses the Tigris ; reduces the whole of Adiabene ; advances to Baby- 
 lon, where he stays awhile ; enters Ctesiphon ; and proceeds thence to 
 the Persian Gulf Meanwhile, during this journey to the Eastern Ocean, 
 tidings reach him that the reduced provinces have revolted behind his 
 back. Accordingly he sends his generals to quell the revolt. Among 
 these the most famous name is Lusius Quietus, who recovers Nisibis 
 and sets fire to Edessa. Trajan now gives a king to the Parthians, as 
 the easiest solution of the difficulty. Not long after this his health 
 begins to fail. Meanwhile there is an uprising of the Jews in Cyrene, 
 Egypt, and Cyprus. Lusius is despatched to the scenes of the revolt, 
 and puts down the insurrection. Owing to his increasing malady, 
 Trajan now sets out on his return to Italy, leaving Hadrian in com- 
 mand of the army in Syria ; but he dies on the way at Selinus in Cilicia. 
 The date of his death is August 11, a.d. 117, in the 20th year of his 
 reign. Hadrian is proclaimed emperor by the army and succeeds him. 
 Soon after Hadrian's accession, Lusius Quietus is recalled from Maure- 
 tania, where he is residing at the time, as governor of the province, and 
 is put to death on his way home by order of the Senate. Hadrian in 
 his autobiography stated that Lusius, as well as other generals who were 
 
 1 See Uebcr Johannes Marcus etc. ji. ^ Ign. and Polyc. 11. p. 390 sq, ed. i 
 
 165, 1843. (p. 391 sq, ed. 2). 
 
 23—2
 
 -) 
 
 56 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 put to death about the same time, was not executed with his consent. 
 But the odium which his supposed participation in these murders 
 brought upon him, obliged him to return to Rome to dispel the sus- 
 picions'. 
 
 This then is Volkmar's solution. Olophernes, Nebuchadnezzar's 
 chief-captain, is none other than Lusius Quietus, Trajan's general, who 
 thus paid the penalty of death for his persecution of the Jews. Judith 
 represents the Jewish people who are the instruments of his punishment. 
 The war which is represented in the Book of Judith is none other than 
 the Polemos-shel-Quitos (D1l2'p h'\^ D'^JdSis) or 'War against Quietus,' of 
 which we read in rabbinical writers. Volkmar goes beyond this ; he 
 can tell us the exact year and day of the publication of the book. It 
 was written soon after Trajan's death, on the first celebration of the 
 'Day of Trajan' (oimiD DV), the 12th of Adar a.d. 118, which day 
 the Jews kept annually in commemoration of their deliverance from 
 Irajan . 
 
 I shall not attempt to dissect this theory in detail, for it would be 
 mere waste of time to do so. Those who wish to see it torn into shreds 
 have only to consult the criticisms of Hilgenfeld {Zeitschr.f. Wiss. Theol. 
 1858, p. 270 sq; comp. ib. 1861, p. 338 sq) and of Lipsius {Zeitschr.f. 
 Wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 39 sq), who have shown that neither the dates nor 
 the localities nor the incidents will admit it. I would only remark that no 
 Jew could be expected to interpret an enigma so studiously veiled. On 
 the main point it is sufficient to say that there is no evidence that the 
 Jews in Palestine revolted against Trajan, or that Quietus conducted any 
 operations against them. Indeed the silence of history is fatal to this sup- 
 position. We may allow that there is much probability in the conjecture, 
 not unsupported ^ which substitutes 'Quietus' for 'Titus' (Din''p for 
 D1t:''D) in the rabbinical notices ; but this does not help the theory, for 
 the scene of the war is not thereby brought into Palestine. On the 
 other hand the 'Day of Trajan' is highly problematical. If the name be 
 really Trajanus and not, as some suppose, Tyrannius*, we are still as 
 
 ^ For the account of this incident see etc. (see Buxtorf s. v. DIJniD). Volkmar's 
 
 Spartian Hadr. 7 ; comp. Dion Cass. own view is developed, 1. c. p. 90 sq. 
 
 Ixix. 2. Derenbourg {Uhistoire et la geographic de 
 
 2 See Volkmar Einl. in die Apokr. la Palestine p. 408, note 2) considers that 
 
 I. i. p. 83 sq. all the different ways in which the name 
 
 ^ See Volkmar 1. c. p. 85 ; Lipsius is spelt in Hebrew, point to Trajamis 
 
 Zeitschr.f. Wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 97 sq. rather than to Tyrannus or Turnus ; but 
 
 * So Lipsius 1. c. p. 105 sq. This is he altogether repudiates the inferences of 
 
 the proconsul Rufus under Hadrian, his Volkmar as contradicted by the silence 
 
 nomen being variously written Tyrannius, of history.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 357 
 
 far as ever from finding any support for Volkmar's theory in Jewish 
 legend'. There is nothing to show even then that it has any reference 
 to the Jews in the mother country or to a war waged against them — of 
 which authentic history is profoundly silent — but the allusions would be 
 easily explained by the uprisings and conflicts either in the farther east 
 or in Cyprus and Africa, whether under Trajan himself or (by a slight 
 chronological confusion) under his successor". 
 
 And after all, what resemblance does the fate of Olophernes bear to 
 the fate of Quietus, except that both die violent deaths ? But the one 
 dies by the dagger of an enemy, the other by the hand of his country- 
 men; the one is stealthily assassinated, the other judicially murdered; 
 the one is killed while holding command under his sovereign, the other 
 after deposition from his office; the one in the camp amidst the turmoil of 
 war, the other in the progress of a homeward journey. Nor indeed 
 does the analogy hold in the most vital points. If Nebuchadnezzar is 
 Trajan, and Olophernes is Quietus, then Quietus ought to have perished 
 under Trajan; but it is quite certain that he was put to death under 
 Trajan's successor Hadrian. If our romancer's purpose had been to 
 put his Israelite fellow-countrymen on the wrong scent, and thus defeat 
 his own object, he could not have done this more effectively than by 
 traiUng this story of Olophernes across their path, when he wanted to 
 remind them of Quietus. Who would be so insane ? 
 
 Ingenuity often wears the mask of criticism, but it is not unfre- 
 quently the caricature of criticism. Ingenuity is not necessarily divina- 
 tion ; it is not wholesome self-restraint, is not the sober weighing of 
 probabilities, is not the careful consideration of evidence. Criticism is 
 all these, which are wanting to its spurious counterfeit. Yet Volkmar 
 has succeeded in carrying two or three notable writers with him. 
 ' [Volkmari] sententiam.-.Baurio placuisse semper admiratus sum,' says 
 Hilgenfeld {Clem. Rom. Ep. p. xxxviii, ed. 2). But why should he have 
 wondered? No man has shown himself more ready to adopt the wildest 
 speculations, if they fell in with his own preconceived theories, than 
 Baur, especially in his later days — speculations which in not a few cases 
 have been falsified by direct evidence since discovered. Nothing has 
 exercised a more baneful influence on criticism in the country of critics 
 than the fascination of his name. While he has struck out some lines 
 which have stimulated thought, and thus have not been unfruitful in valu- 
 
 1 On the Judith-legend in Jewish sources Zeitschr.f. ll^iss. T/u'oi.x.-p.^2'jsc[(iS6j). 
 see the researches of Jellinek in an article -See especially Derenbourg I.e. p. 
 
 of hiTpsmsyiidiscke Quellen zurjudithsage, 409 sq.
 
 358 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 able results, the glamour of his genius has on the whole exercised a fatal 
 effect on the progress of a sober and discriminating study of the early 
 records of Christianity ^ 
 
 2. TJie authors/lip. 
 
 Closely connected with the question of the date of this epistle is 
 the question of the authorship. Is it rightly ascribed to Clement, or is 
 the common designation at fault ? This is not a very momentous ques- 
 tion. The historical value of the document will remain for the most 
 part unaffected, now that we have ascertained that it was written during 
 the last decade of the first century and with the authority of the Roman 
 Church, whoever may have been the actual author. 
 
 Confessedly the letter nowhere claims to have been written by 
 Clement. Confessedly also it is sent in the name of a community, not 
 of an individual. It is the Epistle of the Romans, not of Clement. 
 Moreover the language of the three earliest writers who mention it by 
 name is not free from obscurity, when they describe the connexion of 
 Clement with it. These are Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth, and 
 Irenaeus, whose language is given in full above (pp. 153 sq, 154 sq, 156) 
 and whose testimony I have had occasion to discuss in the last section. 
 Respecting Hegesippus, who gathered his information at Rome in the 
 time of Anicetus, we are not directly informed that he named Clement 
 as the author. Eusebius indeed prefaces his quotations by stating 
 that he ' makes some remarks relating to the Epistle of Clement to the 
 Corinthians', but he does not give any words of Hegesippus himself, 
 testifying to Clement's authorship. Again, Dionysius of Corinth, the 
 next in order, who wrote to the Romans in the time of Soter (c. a.d. 
 170) the successor of Anicetus, is stated by Eusebius to make mention 
 of the letter of Clement to the Corinthians (t7]s KAt^V^i'tos ^pos Kopti/- 
 diovi i7rLaToXrj<;) ; but he fortunately proceeds to quote the very words. 
 From these it appears that Dionysius does not speak so definitely, but 
 says, 'the letter which was written to us (the Corinthians) 8ia KXyj- 
 yuevTos ' (p. 155). This is a warning to us not to assign too much weight 
 to the language of Eusebius in the former case. The assumption of 
 Clement's authorship may have been a mere inference — albeit a pro- 
 bable inference — of Eusebius in the case of Hegesippus, as it certainly 
 was in the case of Dionysius. The preposition here used, ' through ' or 
 
 1 As these sheets are being passed de Judith by the Abbe Fourriere. This 
 through the press, I hear of a recent book is out-heroding Herod. Volkmar is beaten 
 entitled Lcs Emprunts d^Homere au Livre on his own ground.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 359 
 
 'by the hands of (Sid), may mean any one of three things — either 
 the author or the amanuensis or the bearer of the letter'; and we can 
 only judge in any individual instance from the context or the proba- 
 bilities of the case, which of these three meanings it has. Again our 
 third witness, Iren^eus, who wrote under the episcopate of Eleutherus 
 (c. A.D. 175 — 190) the successor of Soter, though his information was 
 probably obtained much earher, connects the epistle with Clement's name, 
 but does not directly ascribe it to him; 'In the time of this Clement 
 the Church in Rome wrote, etc' (p. 156). 
 
 Only a few years later (c. a.d. 200) we meet with the first distinct 
 statement of its Clementine authorship. Clement of Alexandria 
 four times at least ascribes it to his namesake, 'The Apostle Clement 
 in the Epistle to the Corinthians' or some similar phrase; yet he also 
 occasionally suppresses the name of the personal author and says, 'It is 
 written in the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians', or words to 
 this effect (see above p. 158 sq). And from this time this letter is persist- 
 ently assigned to Clement as its author, as for instance by Origen and 
 Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem and Basil of C^esarea (pp. 161, 
 165, 167, 169) — not to mention later writers. 
 
 But many years before the earliest of the above-named writers 
 flourished, Clement of Rome is regarded as an author; and the language 
 used of him is only explained by the existence of such a letter commonly 
 attributed to him. In the Shepherd of Hernias which, even if we adopt 
 the latest possible date, must have been written before the middle of the 
 second century, Hermas is reminded that the duty of communicating 
 with foreign Churches appertains to Clement, and he is accordingly 
 commanded to discharge this same function in the case of the divine 
 message imparted to Hermas. But here we are met with a great dif- 
 ficulty. As Hermas is stated in an ancient tradition to have written 
 this work during the episcopate of his brother Pius (c. a.d. 140 — 155), it 
 is urged that the Clement here mentioned cannot have been the same 
 with the illustrious bishop of Rome^ Thus the notice in the Shepherd 
 gives us another Roman Clement, who flourished about half a century 
 
 ^ See /g/i. and Poly c. ii. p. 233, 11. tempore Ilermae Pastor scriptus sit, i^-]2, 
 
 pp. 933, 982 ed. I (ill. pp. 349, 398, p. 15 sq) quoted in Harnack, and by 
 
 ed. 1). .Skworzow [Patrol. Untcrs. p. 54 sq) : see 
 
 ^ Harnack Prol. p. Ixxiv, Z. f. K. i. p. also Donaldson Apostolical Fathers^. 330, 
 
 363 sq. See also his remarks in the TV^t'o/c'^''. ed. 2. Wieseler {ziir Gcsch. d. Neutest. 
 
 Literaturz. Feb. 3, 1877, p. 55 sq. The Schrift. p. 166, 1880), if I understand 
 
 distinction of this Clement, mentioned by him rightly, supposes the name to be a 
 
 Hermas, from the famous Roman bishop pseudonym for bishop Pius himself who 
 
 is maintained also by G. Heyne {Quo was Clement's successor.
 
 ;6o 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 later than his more famous namesake, and to this second Clement some 
 have ascribed the so-called Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Yet 
 notwithstanding the chronological difficulty, it is not easy to resist the 
 conviction that the famous bishop of Rome himself was intended by the 
 author of the Shepherd. The function assigned to him of communi- 
 cating with foreign cities is especially appropriate to one who was 
 known as the author and transmitter of the epistle written in the name 
 of the Roman Church to the Corinthians. Nor, if we remember the 
 obscurity which shrouds the authorship and date of the Shepherd, is 
 the chronological difficulty serious. The Shepherd indeed is stated by 
 our earliest authority, the Muratorian Fragmentist, to have been written 
 during \\\t episcopate of Pius'. But, considering that we only possess 
 this testimony in a very blundering Latin translation, it may reasonably 
 be questioned whether the Greek original stated as much definitely. 
 Again, it is quite possible that, though the book may have been 
 published as late as a.d. 140, yet the epoch of the supposed revelation 
 was placed at a much earlier period in the writer's life, while the 
 Roman bishop was still living. For, though the latest date mentioned 
 by any authority for the death of the Roman bishop is a.d. 100 or loi, 
 yet no overwhelming weight can be attached to any testimony which we 
 possess on this point, and we might suppose Clement to have lived 
 several years after the close of the century, if independent facts had 
 seemed to require it. Even if this explanation of the chronological diffi- 
 culty should fail, the possibility still remains that Hennas is a nom dc 
 plume assumed by the brother of Pius for the purposes of dramatic 
 fiction, and that the epoch of this fiction is placed by him half a century 
 or so before he wrote, and while Clement the bishop was still living. 
 In this case he may have had in his mind the Hermas mentioned by 
 S. Paul among the Roman Christians. On the whole however it seems 
 probable that, like Dante's relation to Beatrice in the Commedia, the 
 fiction of the Shepherd is founded on the actual circumstances of the 
 writer's own life. 
 
 ^ The words in the Muratorian Canon 
 are, ' Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus 
 nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit 
 sedente cathedram urbis Romae ecclesiae 
 Pio episcopo fratre ejus' (see Westcott 
 Canon pp. 519, 530, ed. 4), when some 
 obvious errors of orthography and tran- 
 scription are corrected. Considering the 
 blunders of which this translation else- 
 where is guilty, the probability is that the 
 
 translator would not carefully distinguish 
 between the absence and presence of the 
 article, e.g. between iTriKadr]ij.fPov and 
 Tov iwLKadriiievov: see Philippians p. 166 
 sq. There is no reason to suppose that 
 the notice in the Liberian Chronicle ' Sub 
 huius [Pii] episcopatu frater eius Ermes 
 librum scripsit etc' is independent of this 
 notice in the Muratorian Canon ; see 
 above, I. pp. 256, ■261, 262, 300.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 361 
 
 Moreover the general belief in the age succeeding the date of this 
 epistle is testified by another fact. Whatever theory may be held re- 
 specting the dates and mutual relations of the Clementine Homilies and 
 Recognitions, the original romance which was the basis of both cannot 
 well be placed later than the middle of the second century; for, 
 though originally written in Syria or Palestine (as its substance 
 bears evidence), it had circulated so as to influence public opinion 
 largely in the West before the time of Tertullian. Yet the position 
 assigned in this romance to Clement is inexplicable, except on the 
 supposition that he was known in the Church at large as an exi^ositor 
 of the Apostolic doctrine, whether by authorship or by preaching 
 or both. 
 
 To these considerations should be added the negative argument that 
 it is difficult to conceive anyone else as the author; and that, if this 
 letter be not ascribed to our Clement, then the m.ost important docu- 
 ment outside the Canon in the generation next succeeding the Apostles 
 must remain anonymous. 
 
 3. The genuineness and integrity. 
 
 The genuineness may be regarded as already established by the 
 investigations respecting the date and authorship. Few writings of 
 antiquity are guaranteed by so many and various testimonies. There 
 is the fact that it was read weekly in the Church of Corinth to which 
 it was addressed, and that this example was followed afterwards by 
 other Churches. There are the direct testimonies of Hegesippus and 
 Dionysius and Irenoeus. The two former of these were in a specially 
 favourable position for ascertaining the facts — the first, Hegesippus, 
 having visited Corinth and Rome in succession about half a century 
 after Clement's death, staying at the one place ' a considerable time ' 
 {tjixepas iKavas) and at the other for many years ; the second, Dionysius, 
 having heard it read Sunday by Sunday in the Church and bearing 
 witness to this fact when writing to the Romans on the receipt of a 
 later letter from them, which he promises to treat in the same way. 
 There are the numerous expressions derived from it in the Epistle of 
 Polycarp written only a few years later; and the frequent quotations 
 and references in Clement of Alexandria, who flourished at the end of 
 the century. In these two cases the quotations and allusions are taken 
 from all parts of the epistle, so that they guarantee not only the ex- 
 istence of the letter, not only its general aim and purport, but also the
 
 362 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 identity of form. There is lastly the circumstance that its genuineness 
 was never questioned by any individual critic of repute or by any Church 
 for more than seventeen centuries, from the reign of Domitian or Nerva 
 to the reign of Victoria. I pass by one or two writers of the 17th 
 century and the beginning of the iSth, whose method deprives them of 
 any weight as authorities, and whose opinions it would be waste of time 
 to discuss or even to record'. 
 
 It does not follow that those who place it so late as the reign of 
 Hadrian question its genuineness, though there is a tendency among 
 some of these critics to depreciate its value ; and indeed generally their 
 language on this point is far from explicit. The genuineness of a 
 document implies that it is what it professes to be ; but this letter 
 neither professes to have been written under Domitian nor claims 
 Clement as its author. These are, as we have seen, critical results 
 derived from an investigation of its contents, though confirmed by a 
 universal tradition. The conclusion is only the more convincing, be- 
 cause it does not depend on any direct statement in the letter itself 
 Indeed the mere fact of its reticence is a strong additional mark of 
 genuineness, where all the other features point the same way — whether 
 we adopt the earlier date or the later, whether we ascribe it to our own 
 Clement or to another. We have shown indeed that the later date (the 
 age of Hadrian) is untenable; but in neither case can it be called a 
 forgery. We may therefore consider its genuineness as practically un- 
 assailed ". 
 
 1 See Lipsius de Clem. Ep. ad Cor. the principals' (p. 320; comp. pp. 8 sq, 
 
 p. 3; Harnack p. xlix. 182 sq). The origin of these frauds is 
 
 ^ The one undoubted exception to this not earlier than the fifteenth century (p. 
 
 universal recognition of its early date, 293), and they are ultimately connected 
 
 with which I am acquainted, in recent with the person who passes under the 
 
 times is the Peregrhius Proteus of the name of Nicephorus Callistus (pp. 279, 
 
 Rev. J. M. Cotterill (Edinburgh, 1879). 287,288,293,316). Of course the forger 
 
 His theory is that the two Epistles or forgers introduced into them the pas- 
 
 of Clement to the Corinthians together sages in ancient writers where they quote 
 
 with a group of other writings (p. 298), from or refer to Clement's Epistles, those 
 
 among which are the Epistle to Diog- of his namesake Clement of Alexandria for 
 
 netus, the De Morte Peregrini ascribed to instance. But his or their knowledge or 
 
 Lucian, and the Ecclesiastical History memoiy was defective. Hence the dif- 
 
 bearing the name of Nicephorus Callistus ficulty of identifying the allusions in one 
 
 (c. A.D. 1330), were forged at the revival or two instances (see above, pp. 178, 194). 
 
 of learning by the same hand or hands. We are not told however how they got 
 
 The great French scholar, H. Estienne hold of the references which are only 
 
 or Stephanus (a.d. 1528 — 1598), was 'an known to us from Syriac extracts dis- 
 
 accessory after the fact, possibly one of covered in our own time (see above, p. 180
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 36;^ 
 
 But while the genuineness of the letter as a whole is unimpeach- 
 able, the integrity of parts has been questioned at rare intervals and on 
 different grounds, though in every case subjective and arbitrary. Soon 
 after its first appearance in print (a.d. 1633), a French advocate, 
 Hieron. Bignon, expressed his misgivings to Grotius, that in style and 
 contents there were some things unworthy of the disciple of an Apostle. 
 More especially he fastened on the story of the phoenix, as Photius 
 {Bibl. 126; see above, p. 197) had attacked it before him. As a 
 matter of fact, this is one of the best authenticated passages in Clement; 
 and indeed we may well excuse a simple Christian for a creduHty of 
 which not a few among his highly educated heathen contemporaries 
 were guilty (see the note on § 25). Again soon after, an Englishman, 
 E. Bernard, suggested that some later impostor had foisted into the text 
 of the Roman Clement some fragments of the Alexandrian who quoted 
 him. This was hardly worth refutation, but it was refuted by Wotton. 
 
 In subsequent times assaults have been made on its integrity by 
 two Church historians of note, Mosheim {De Reb. Christ, p. 156 sq, and 
 elsewhere) condemned § 40 sq and other parts, as he imagined he 
 discerned an interruption of the argument, besides their hierarchical 
 tendency; but to say nothing else quotations from these condemned 
 parts are found in ancient fathers as early as Origen. Still later 
 Neander attacked the passage, § 40 sq, on the ground of its sacerdotalism'. 
 But this attack had no other basis than the writer's own subjectivity ; 
 and notwithstanding his great name, it has fallen into merited oblivion. 
 
 sq, 182 sq). It follows from this theory Epistle of Clement has always struck me 
 
 that the existing authorities for these as one of the most serious writings with 
 
 epistles, the two Greek Mss and the which I am acquainted ; but if I have been 
 
 Syriac Version, cannot be earlier than the so utterly deceived, I despair of discrim- 
 
 15th century (p. 318 sq, p. 325 sq). They inating between what is playful and what 
 
 'must have been written by the same is serious, and a misgiving seizes me lest 
 
 man, or at least have been the offspring the criticisms of Peregrinus Proteus may 
 
 of one and the same mind' (p. 327). It be after all an elaborate joke. We live 
 
 will be time enough to discuss this theory in strange times, when we are asked to 
 
 when any jury of critics, or any single believe that Shakespeare was written by 
 
 competent critic conversant with mss, Bacon, and Tacitus by a scholar of the 
 
 can be got to declare that the Alexan- renaissance. For a parallel to these con- 
 
 drian MS is from eiglit to ten centuries temporary phenomena in earlier days, see 
 
 younger than has been hitherto supposed above, p. 75. 
 
 (see above, p. 117), to say nothing of the ^ Church History \. p. 272 note (Bohn's 
 
 other Greek MS and the Syriac version. trans.). Milman {Hist, of Christianity 
 
 It should be added that he considers that iii. p. 259) likewise says that it is ' re- 
 
 the forger was given to joking (pp. 114, jected by all judicious and impartial 
 
 153, 293, 306, 307, 311, 316). The First scholars'; see Philippians p. 250, note i.
 
 364 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Again recently Jacobi {TheoL Stud. u. Krit. 1876, iv. p. 710 sq) doubts 
 whether the liturgical portion at the close was any part of Clement's 
 original letter, and suggests that it was inserted afterwards at Corinth. 
 This theory seems to me impossible for many reasons. 
 
 (i) In the first place it is contained in both our authorities CS, 
 and obviously was contained in A, before the missing leaf disappeared, 
 as the space shows (see Harnack Theolog. Literaturz. Feb. 19, 1876). 
 The combination of these three authorities points to a very early date 
 (see above p. 145). Moreover the writer of the last two books of the 
 Apostolical Constitutions obviously borrows indifferently from this prayer 
 and from other parts of Clement's Epistle; and though he might 
 have been indebted to two different sources for his obligations, the 
 probability is that he derived them from the same. 
 
 (2) The expedient which Jacobi ascribes to the Corinthians would 
 be extremely clumsy. He supposes that the reading of the letter in 
 the Corinthian Church was followed by congregational prayer, and that, 
 as Clement states it to be the intention of the Romans, if their appeal 
 to the Corinthians should be disregarded, to betake themselves to 
 prayer on behalf of Christendom generally (§ 59), it occurred to the 
 Church at Corinth to interpolate their own form of prayer in the 
 epistle at this point. When we remember that this prayer of Clement 
 is followed immediately by special directions relating to individual 
 persons who are mentioned by name, nothing could well be more in- 
 congruous than the gratuitous insertion of a liturgical service here. 
 
 (3) Jacobi remarks on the affinity to the type of prayer in the Greek 
 Church. I have shown that the resemblances to pre-existing Jewish 
 prayers are at least as great. Indeed the language is just what we 
 might expect from a writer in the age of Clement, when the liturgy of 
 the Synagogue was developing into the liturgy of the Church. 
 
 (4) Jacobi does not conceal a difficulty which occurs to him in the 
 fact that, together with apxiepe^^'?? the very unusual title Trpoo-raTT^s, 
 'Guardian' or 'Patron', which is given to our Lord in this prayer 
 (§ 61), is found twice in other parts of the epistle, §§ 36, 64; but 
 he thinks this may have been adopted into the Corinthian form of 
 prayer from Clement. If this had been the only coincidence, his 
 explanation might possibly have been admitted. But in fact this prayer 
 is interpenetrated with the language and thoughts of Clement, so far as 
 the subject allowed and the frequent adoption of Old Testament phrases 
 left room for them. Thus in § 59 for iXirl^eiv tVi see §§ 11, 12; again 
 avot^as Tov<; 6<f>6a\ixov^ T17S KapStas ry/xwj/ has a close parallel in § 36; 
 evepyeTTjv applied to God is matched by evepyeretv, evepyca-ia, in the same
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 365 
 
 connexion §§ 19, 20, 21, 38; with the whole expression evepyir-qv irvev- 
 
 jXiXTdiv Koi ©€0i' Tvdar]^ crapKO?. ..tov eTroTTTTjv dvOpwTrivMv epjMV, compare 
 § 58 o TravTCTTOTTTiys ©COS Ktti SecTTTOTrjs Tojv TrveujU-arajv Kat Kvpios iracrijs 
 orapKos; for /3or]6o? see § 36; for KTio-rr^s, §§ 19, 62; for iKXeyeaOai, §§ 
 43, 64, and the use of c/cXcktos elsewhere in this epistle ; for ayaTrcCvras 
 o-e, § 29 ; for Sid I. X. roii ijyaTrr] fxivov TratSo? o-ou, § 59 8ia tou yjyaTrrjixevov 
 TratSos avToO I. X. in the same connexion ; for a|to{;/xei' of prayer to God, 
 §§51, 53, and with an accusative case, as here, § 55 ; for SecrTrorTys applied 
 to God, the rest of the epistle /^j"j/w. In § 60, for deVaos see § 20 ; for 
 o TTtcTTos K.T.X. comparc a very similar expression § 27 tw Trio-ro) ev rai? 
 e7ra-yyeXtai<; Koi tw St/caiw ev tois KpijxacrLv ; for uaviJ.aaTo<;, §§ 26, 35, [36], 
 43, 50 ; for eSpd^eiv of God's creative agency, § 33 ; for the repetition of 
 the article ras dvop-ias koI ras aStKias k.t.A., the rest of the epistle 
 passim, and for the connexion of the two words, § 35 ; for irapaTTTwp.ara, 
 §§ 2, 51, 56 (comp. TrapaTTTwcrts § 59) ; for 7rX.r]fjL[xeXeLa<;, § 41 ; for Karev- 
 Ovvov K.T.X. , § 48 KaT€v6vvovTe'i TTjv TTopetW auTcov ev ocTiOTrjTi KoX OLKaiocrvvrj j 
 for TTopeveaOai ev, § 3 (comp. § 4) ; for ra KaXd kol euapetrra evwTrtov (comp. 
 § 61) see § 21, where the identical phrase appears, and compare also 
 §§ 7j 35) 49 5 for the combination d/xovotav Kat. dpyvrjv (comp. § 61) 
 see §§ 20 (twice), 63, 65 ; for Ka^ws e'SwKas rots Trarpacrtv ■/yp.coj/ compare 
 § 62 KaPojs Ktti ot TrpoSeSrjXiDixivoi Trarepe? yjfjiwv k.t.X. (see the whole 
 context, and comp. § 30) ; for ocriws (omitted however in C), §§6, 21 
 (twice), 26, 40, 44, 62; for vVt/ko'ous, §§ 10, 13, 14; for iravTOKparoyp, 
 inscr., §§ 2, 32, 62 ; for Tramperos, §§ i, 2, 45, 57 ; for 77you>evoi, §§ 3, 5, 
 32, 37, 5^' 55- ^^ § ^^ for p,eyaXo7rp€7n7s (comp. fxeyaXoTrpeTreia in §60) 
 see §§ I, 9, 19, 45, 64; for dv€K8i7Jyr]TO<;, §§ 20, 49; for iVo o-ou .. 
 Sc8ofxevr]v (see also twice below), § 58 uVo tou ©eo-u SeSo/xeVa ; for So^av KOL 
 TLixrjv, § 45 (see below, and comp. § 59) ; for viroTdaaeaOai, §§ i, 2, 20, 
 34, 38, 57 i fo'" ewra^etai/, § 65 ; for aTrpoo-KOTrws, § 20 ; for (Saa-iXev twv 
 aiwvojv, see § 35 iraTrjp twi/ atwvcov, § 55 ©eos twv atcuvcoi/ ; for i;7rapT^oVTcov, 
 this epistle passim, where it occurs with more than average frequency ; 
 for Steu^weiv, §§ 20, 62, and for 8t€7r€iv...€vo-€/3(Js, § 62 6i'o-e/?ws Ktti StKaiws 
 Steu^uveiv ; for iAccds, § 2 • for €^op,oAoy eicr^ai, §§51, 52; for /xeyaXwo-uv*/, 
 §§ 16, 27, 36, 58, and more especially joined with 8d^a in doxologies, as 
 here, §§ 20, 64, comp. § 65 ; and for cts tous ato7vas twv atwvtov see the 
 conclusion of Clement's doxologies generally. 
 
 Thus the linguistic argument is as strong as it well could be against 
 Jacobi's theory.
 
 366 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 4. The ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 We have seen that the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 
 was widely known and highly esteemed from the earliest date. But a 
 wholly different question arises when we come to discuss its claims to 
 canonicity. There is no evidence that any respectable writer during 
 the early centuries ever placed it in the same category, or invested it 
 with the same authority, as the canonical books of Scripture. Thus 
 DiONYSius OF Corinth (c. a.d. 170), who first mentions its being 
 publicly read in Church, speaks of it in language which forbids us to 
 regard him as claiming for it any such character (see above, p. 154). 
 Thus again Iren^eus (p. 156) assigns to it the highest importance; 
 but this importance consists in its recording the traditional interpreta- 
 tio7i of the Apostolic teaching which prevailed in the great Church of 
 Rome from the earliest times. Li no sense does he regard it in 
 itself as a primary source of truth. His notice is unintentionally a 
 protest against any claims to canonicity, for he is obviously unaware of 
 any such claims. If he designates it ypatfirj, he uses the term in its 
 ordinary untechnical sense as ' a writing,' and he attaches to it an 
 epithet 'a most adequate' or 'sufficient writing' {iKavwraTriv ypa(l>rjv), 
 which would be inappropriate of 'Scripture' properly so-called. In 
 short he adduces it as expressing the mind of the Church of Rome, 
 the depositary of the tradition of S. Peter and S. Paul, just as he 
 adduces the Epistle of Polycarp in the same context as expressing 
 the mind of the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, the depositary of 
 the teaching of S. John, respecting the tenour of the Apostolic teaching 
 in the next age to the Apostles themselves. In the case of Polycarp's 
 Epistle also he uses precisely the same expression (co-rt 8e eVicrroA?/ 
 IXoXrKapTTOU Trpos <S>tAt7r7r7yortous ycypa/Ji/Jievr] LKavwraTr]) ' most adequate ' 
 or 'sufficient'.' In both cases he describes not the source but the 
 channel of the Apostolic tradition, though the channel at the point 
 where the stream issues from its sources. Again Clement of Alex- 
 andria, though he quotes it frequently and with great respect, nowhere 
 treats it as Scripture. He cites ' the Apostle Clement ' indeed, as he 
 cites ' the Apostle Barnabas,' one of whose interpretations he never- 
 theless criticizes and condemns with a freedom which he would not 
 have allowed himself in dealing with writings regarded by him as strictly 
 canonical'. Moreover, though he commented on several of the dis- 
 
 1 Iren. iii. 3, 4, comp. Euseb, H. E. ^ See Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 10 (pp. 220, 
 
 V. 6. 221, Potter), where he sets aside the in-
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 367 
 
 puted books of Scripture in his Hypotyposeis, he left the Epistle of 
 Clement unnoticed'. Again Origen quotes several passages from this 
 Apostolic father, and holds his testimony in honour, as his master 
 Clement had done. Yet he does not go so far as his predecessor and 
 designate him 'the Apostle Clement,' but prefers using such expressions 
 as ' Clement the disciple of Apostles ' or ' the faithful Clement to whom 
 Paul bears testimony' (see above, p. 161 sq). 
 
 We have now arrived at the age of Eusebius and found absolutely 
 no evidence that the epistle was regarded as canonical. The language 
 of Eusebius himself is highly significant and points in the same direction. 
 It is remarkable that while he calls Clement's Epistle ' great and mar- 
 vellous,' while he distinguishes it from the spurious second Clementine 
 Epistle as having the testimony of antiquity to its genuineness, while he 
 speaks of its being read publicly ' in very many churches,' yet in the 
 two passages where he discusses the Canon of Scripture {H. E. iii. 3, 
 and iii. 24, 25) and distinguishes the acknowledged from the disputed 
 and spurious books, he does not even mention it, though in the first 
 passage he refers to the Acts of Peter, the Gospel according to Peter, 
 the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as also the Acts of 
 Paul and the Shepherd of Hermas, and in the latter to the three last- 
 mentioned works again, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, the 
 Teaching of the Apostles, the Gospel according to Hebrews, the 
 Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew, of 
 John, and of ' the other Apostles,' besides the aVrtA-eyo'/xera of our present 
 Canon. Here is a large and comprehensive catalogue of apocryphal 
 or doubtful Scriptures ; and its comprehensiveness gives a special signi- 
 ficance to the omission of Clement's Epistle. Only at a later point 
 (H. E. vi. 13), having occasion to mention the wide learning dis- 
 played by the Alexandrian Clement in the Stromateis, he says that he 
 quotes not only the canonical Scriptures but also profane writers 
 ' Greek and barbarian ', and ' employs likewise the evidence which is 
 obtained from the disputed writings (rats otto toIv avriXeyo/Aevwi' ypat^tZv 
 IxapTvpiais), the Wisdom of Solomon, as it is entitled, and the Wisdom 
 of Jesus the Son of Sirach and the Epistle to the Hebrews besides those 
 of Barnabas and Clement and Jude', referring also to many and various 
 writers such as Tatian and Cassianus, Philo and Aristobulus, etc. Yet 
 in the very next chapter (vi. 14) he records that this same Clement in 
 his other great work, the Hypoiyposeis, comments on ' all the canonical 
 
 terpretation of Barnab. 10 respecting cer- mention his name. 
 
 tain animals pronounced miciean by the ' See Euseb. //. E. vi. I4. 
 
 Mosaic law, though he does not actually
 
 3^8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Scriptures (Trao-T/? ti^s ivScaOrjKov ypa(^rj<;), not even omitting the disputed 
 books (/^.r/Sc Ta? dvTiX€yofX€va<; irapeXOoiv), that is to say, Jude and the 
 rest of the Cathohc Epistles and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apo- 
 calypse which bears the name of Peter '. It is clear from these several 
 passages placed side by side, that the claims of Clement's Epistle to a 
 place among the canonical Scriptures were not seriously entertained in 
 the age of Eusebius, since he himself hardly allows it a place even 
 among the ai/TiXeyo/x.eva, and this only incidentally. 
 
 The same negative inference may be drawn from the Canon of 
 Athanasius {Epist. Fest. 39, i. p. 767) who, after giving a hst of the 
 veritable Scriptures, at the close expressly excludes the Teaching of the 
 Apostles ascribed to our Clement, and the Shepherd of Her mas, but does 
 not mention our Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 This accords likewise with' the testimony of other fathers of this and 
 succeeding ages. Thus Clement is quoted by name by Cyril of 
 Jerusalem (c. a.d. 347; see above p. 167), by Basil the Great 
 (c. A.D. 375 ; p. 169), by Epiphanius (c. a.d. 375 ; p. 169), by Jerome 
 (c. A.D. 375 — 410; p. 172 sq), by RuFiNUS (f a.d. 410; p. 174 sq), by 
 Timotheus of Alexandria (a.d. 457), by Severus of Antioch 
 (c. A.D. 513 — 518; p. 182 sq), and others, yet there is not the slightest 
 inkling in any of these that they regarded Clement's Epistle as having 
 more authority than any other very ancient patristic authority; and in 
 most cases their mode of reference is distinctly inconsistent with the 
 recognition of any claims to canonicity. 
 
 The first apparent exception to this universal testimony is found in 
 the 85th of the Apostolical Canons attached to the Apostolic Constitutions, 
 and these Canons may belong to the 6th century (see above, p. 187). 
 It is sufficient to say here that this document has no authority, even if it 
 were free from interpolations. The grave suspicions, and more than 
 suspicions, which rest on the genuineness of this particular clause will be 
 fully considered below (p. 373 sq). 
 
 About the same time, or somewhat earlier, the Two Epistles of 
 Clement appear at the end of the New Testament in the Alexandrine 
 MS (A). What may be the significance of this juxtaposition I shall 
 investigate presently (p. 370 sq). 
 
 Of the later fathers it may be said generally, that their testimony 
 concurs with the earlier. They betray no suspicion of the canonicity of 
 either or both the 'Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians.' Any one 
 who will read through the testimonies of these later writers as given 
 above (p. 188 sq) may convince himself of this. The silence of some 
 is not less eloquent than the repudiation by others.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 369 
 
 Altogether a review of these facts leads irresistibly to the conclusion 
 that the Epistle of Clement had not the same quasi-canonical place 
 which was given to the Shepherd of Hernias in the West, and to 
 the Epistle of Barnabas in Alexandria and some Eastern churches. 
 Indeed the evidence in the two cases differs in one all-important point. 
 Whereas the testimony in the case of Clement— if it deserves the name 
 of testimony — first appears many centuries after the writer's age, the 
 testimony in those of Barnabas and Hermas is' confined to the earliest 
 times, and is then sifted and put aside. 
 
 In the Latin Church indeed there could be no question of canoni- 
 city ; for the Epistle of Clement was practically unknown, except to 
 the learned few, if as there is the strongest reason for believing, it was 
 never translated into the vernacular language. Thus, if it had been 
 generally known in the West, it could hardly have failed to be included 
 in the very miscellaneous and comprehensive list of apocryphal works 
 condemned in the later forms of the so-called Gelasian decree', which 
 seems to have been republished at intervals with additions (a.d. 500 — 
 700), though issued originally without the list of apocrypha by Gelasius 
 himself (a.d. 492 — 496). 
 
 We are now in a position to trace with a high degree of probability 
 the several stages which our epistle passed, in its futile struggle to 
 attain full canonicity. 
 
 (i) The genuine Epistle of Clement was read from time to time on 
 Sundays in the Church of Corinth to which it was addressed. Our 
 information on this point relates to about a.d. 170. The practice 
 however seems to have prevailed from the date when it was first 
 received (see above, p. 154 sq). But this reading did not imply 
 canonicity. On the contrary, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, to whom 
 we are indebted for the information, tells us at the same time that his 
 church purposes doing the same thing with a second letter of the 
 Roman Church, which was written under bishop Soter his own con- 
 temporary, and which the Corinthians had just received when he wTOte^. 
 
 (2) This practice was extended from the Church of Corinth to 
 other Christian communities. Eusebius in the first half of the fourth 
 century speaks of the epistle as ' having been publicly read in very many 
 churches both formerly and in his own time' {H. E. iii. 16 ev TrXcto-Tats 
 iKK\rj(TML<; iirl tou kolvov SeSrj[jioauv[ji.evr]v TraXat re koI KaO' ij/j-ds avrovs). 
 
 ' On the Gelasian decree see Credner - For the reasons for assuming that 
 
 Zur Gcsch. d. Kanons p. 151 sq ; West- this letter was written while Soter was 
 cott Canon pp. 449, 563. still living see above pp. 72, 155. 
 
 CLEM. 24
 
 370 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Somewhat later (c. a.d. 375) Epiphanius {Haer. xxx. 15 ; see above 
 p. 170) speaks to the same effect of 'encyclical letters' written by 
 Clement, ' which are read in the holy churches (twv Iv rats aytais Ik- 
 KX-qa-iai^ oivayLvwaKO[xevo)v).' It will be sliown presently (p. 409) from his 
 language, that he was unacquainted with the genuine epistle to the 
 Corinthians, and that he is here speaking of the spurious Clementine 
 Epistles to Virgins ; but he doubtless transferred to these the statement 
 which Eusebius made respecting the genuine epistle. 
 
 Later still Jerome (a.d. 378) says in his Fir. Illiistr. 15 ; 'Scripsit 
 [Clemens] ex persona ecclesiae Romanae ad ecclesiam Corinthiorum 
 valde utilem epistulam et quae in nonnidlis locis etiam publice legitur ' 
 (see p. 173). But, as Jerome copies Eusebius almost verbatim in the 
 context, and as it is very questionable whether he had read Clement's 
 genuine epistle (see below, p. 410), we may reasonably suspect that he 
 follows the same leading here also. If so the statement of Jerome adds 
 nothing to the testimony of Eusebius on this point. It will be observed 
 however that Jerome substitutes so»/e (nonnuUis) for I'ery ma7iy {irXda- 
 rats) which stands in Eusebius. This points to a diminution of area in 
 the interval, at least so far as the knowledge of Jerome extends. 
 
 The reference of Photius quoted below (p. 375) shows that at the 
 close of the ninth century, when he wrote, this practice of reading 
 Clement's Epistle had long ceased, at least in those churches to which 
 his knowledge extended. 
 
 (3) For convenience of reading, it would be attached to mss of 
 the New Testament. But, so far as our evidence goes, this was not 
 done until two things had first happened, {a) On the one hand, the 
 Canon of the New Testament had for the most part assumed a definite 
 form in the mss, beginning with the Gospels and ending with the 
 Apocalypse, (b) On the other hand, the so-called Second Epistle of 
 Clement had become inseparably attached to the genuine letter, so 
 that the two formed one body. Hence, when we find our epistle in- 
 cluded in the same volume with the New Testament, it carries the 
 Second Epistle with it, and the two form a sort of appendix to the 
 Canon. This is the case with the Alexandrian MS in the middle of the 
 fifth century, where they stand after the Apocalypse, i. e. after the proper 
 close of the sacred volume. They thus occupy the same position which 
 in the earlier Sinaitic MS is occupied by other apocryphal matter, 
 the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, while the Second 
 Epistle is followed immediately by the spurious Psalms of Solomon; 
 whereas the proper place for an epistle of Clement, if regarded as 
 strictly canonical, would have been with the Apostolic Epistles and
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 371 
 
 before the Apocalypse. When moreover it is remembered that in this 
 MS even Christian hymns are appended to the Psalms of David in the 
 Old Testament for ecclesiastical purposes, it will be evident that no 
 canonical authority is impHed by the fact that these two epistles are 
 added to the sacred volume. 
 
 If we were disposed to speculate on the church to whose instru- 
 mentality this step in advance was mainly due we should name without 
 much hesitation Alexandria'. The MS which thus connects them as an 
 appendix to the New Testament is Alexandrian. If we should venture a 
 step further, and specify an individual as chiefly responsible in this move- 
 ment, our eyes would naturally turn to Clement, who was a great 
 traveller, whose writings are steeped through and through with the 
 influence of his Roman namesake, and who occupied a position of the 
 highest influence as master of the catechetical school in Alexandria. 
 Eusebius informs us that the public reading of Clement's genuine epistle 
 had spread from Corinth to other churches. Alexandria would from 
 its position and its thirst for knowledge be among the first to take up 
 this practice. But bound up in the same volume v;hich contained the 
 genuine Epistle of the Roman Clement was another document Hkewise 
 which had its birth in that city, addressed like the former to the 
 Corinthians — not however another letter written to Corinth by a foreign 
 church, but a sermon preached in Corinth by a native presbyter". To 
 the Corinthians it would have a special value ; at all events its juxta- 
 position with Clement's famous letter to their church would be natural 
 enough. Such a volume we may suppose was brought from Corinth to 
 Alexandria; and the introduction of Clement's Epistle for occasional 
 reading in the Alexandrian Church began. The phenomena of the 
 Alexandrian ms would follow naturally. 
 
 (4) It was an easy stage from this to include them among the 
 
 ^ Zahn, Geschichte des Neiitest. Kanons 
 I. p. 351 sq, insists with great force on 
 the influence of Alexandria in the diffusion 
 of the two Clementine Epistles (the 
 genuine letter and the homily which 
 accompanies it). But he uses some ar- 
 guments in which I am unable to follow 
 him. Thus he assigns the Syriac trans- 
 lation to Alexandria (p. 352), but the 
 facts seem to point another way (see 
 above, p. 135). Thus again he credits 
 Clement of Alexandria with a knowledge 
 of the 'Second Epistle of Clement' (p. 
 
 358). I think it highly probable that 
 this father was not unacquainted with it, 
 though he certainly did not ascribe it to 
 his namesake ; but the resemblances which 
 Zahn quotes (e.g. Qiiis div. salv. 3. 32 
 TrXeOiTOJ' with 2 Clem. 7 /caTaTrXci^crw/iei') 
 are too feeble to bear the weight of the 
 conclusion which he builds upon them. 
 
 '^ It will be shown in the introduction 
 to the 'Second Epistle' that it was a 
 homily and that Corinth was probably its 
 birthplace. 
 
 24 — 2
 
 2>1^ 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Books of the New Testament, and thus to confer upon them a patent 
 of canonicity. Uncritical transcribers and others would take this step 
 without reflexion. This is done by the scribe of A in his table of con- 
 tents (see above, p. 117 sq). 
 
 It is interesting to observe, though the fact seems to have been 
 overlooked, that the treatment in the Alexandrian MS exactly accords 
 with the language of the 85th Apostolical Canon as read in the Coptic 
 Churches. The Books of the New Testament are there given as ' The 
 
 Four Gospels the Acts of us the Apostles; the two Epistles of 
 
 Peter ; the three of John ; the Epistle of James, with that of Judas ; the 
 fourteen Epistles of Paul ; the Apocalypse of John ; the two Epistles 
 of Clement which ye shall read aloud'.' Here the several divisions 
 of the New Testament occur in the same order as in A, though 
 the Catholic Epistles are transposed among themselves^; moreover 
 
 1 The Coptic form of the Apostolical 
 Canons is preserved in both the great 
 dialects of the Egyptian language. 
 
 (i) The Thebaic is found in a MS ac- 
 quired not many years ago by the British 
 Museum, Orient. 1320. I gave a full ac- 
 count of this MS which was before unknown 
 in my Appendix (1875) to Clement, p. 
 466 sq, to which I may refer those who 
 are interested in the subject. It throws 
 another ray of light on the dark question 
 of the history of the Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions. More recently it has been printed 
 iti extenso by Lagarde Aegyptiaca p. 207 
 sq (Gottingae 1883). Its date is Ann. 
 Diocl. 72-2 = A. D. 1006. 
 
 (2) The Memphitic is published by 
 Tattam in the volume entitled ' The 
 Apostolic Constitutions or Canons of the 
 Apostles in Coptic' London 1848. It 
 was not made however directly from the 
 Greek, but is a very recent and some- 
 what barbarous translation from the pre- 
 viously existing Thebaic Version. This 
 Memphitic version is stated in a colophon 
 in the MS to have been translated from the 
 language of Upper Egypt (the Thebaic), 
 and a very recent date is given, Ann. 
 Diocl. 1 520 = A. D. 1804. 
 
 The concludingwords of the clause quoted 
 stand in the Thebaic TCitTeftemcTO- 
 
 <VHttK<VHJUHC • eTeTneoigovoifiio'iV, 
 
 which I have translated in the text; in 
 the Memphitic, as given by Tattam (p. 
 211), ■^S't nenicToAH fia.K<VHMHC 
 cTeTenoujoT gi etOiV, which he 
 renders 'the two Epistles of Clemens 
 which you read out of,' but this is surely 
 wrong. 
 
 In the Arabic Version of this canon, 
 Brit. Mus. Add. 721 1, fol. 22 b (dated 
 A.D. 1682), in like manner the 14 Epi- 
 stles of S. Paul are followed by the Re- 
 velation, and the Revelation by the ' Two 
 Epistles of Clement, and they are one 
 book.' After this comes the clause about 
 the Apostolic Constitutions, substantially 
 the same as in the Greek canon. This 
 is an Egyptian MS. In the Carshunic 
 MS, Add. 7207, fol. 27 b (A.D. 1730), 
 which is of Syrian origin, the Apocalypse 
 is omitted, so that the Epistles of Clement 
 are mentioned immediately after the 14 
 Epistles of St Paul. Here again follows 
 a clause relating to the eight books of 
 the Apostolic Constitutions. 
 
 - The order of the Catholic Epistles 
 among themselves is the same also in the 
 Greek 85th canon. It may have been 
 determined either by the relative import- 
 ance of the Apostles themselves, or by 
 the fact that the Epistles of S. James and
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 373 
 
 the Clementine Epistles are placed after the Apocalypse, as in that ms ; 
 and, as a reason for adding them, it is stated that they were to be read 
 publicly'. 
 
 (5) Their canonicity being assumed, it remained to give practical 
 effect to this view, and to place them in a position consistent with it. 
 In other words, they must be transferred from the appendix to the 
 body of the New Testament. The only known document, which has 
 actually taken this step is our Syriac version, where they are attached 
 to the Catholic Epistles. The date of this ms (a.d. 1170) throws some 
 light on the matter. 
 
 It has been observed above (p. 366 sq), that the general silence 
 about the Epistles of S. Clement in the older discussions on the Canon 
 of Scripture seems to show that their claims to canonicity were not 
 considered serious enough to demand refutation. In the 85th and 
 last of the Apostolical Canons however the case is different. If the 
 existing Greek text of this canon may be trusted, this document not 
 only admits them to a place among the Scriptures, but ranges them 
 with the Catholic Epistles. The list of the New Testament writings runs 
 
 as follows ; ' Four Gospels, ; of Paul fourteen Epistles ; of Peter two 
 
 Epistles ; of John three ; of James one ; of Jude one ; of Clement two 
 Epistles ; and the Constitutions (Starayai) addressed to you the bishops 
 through me Clement in eight books, which ought not to be published to 
 all (a? ov )(pri 8r}fxo(riev€tv cttI TrdvTwv), owing to the mystical teaching in 
 them (Sta TO. eV avrats /xvcrrtKa) ; and the Acts of us the Apostles".' Some 
 doubt however may reasonably be entertained whether the words KXyj/xev- 
 Tos cTTio-ToXai Svo are not a later interpolation. In the first place, the 
 form is somewhat suspicious. As these Clementine letters range with 
 the Catholic Epistles, we should not expect a repetition of eVio-ToXat; 
 and, as Clement is the reputed author of the Canons, we should expect 
 i/xov KA.7f/A€VTos, so that the obvious form would be ' Of me Clement 
 two^.' On this point however I should not lay any stress, if the 
 
 S. Jude were accepted as canonical, in the ^ Ueltzen Const. Apost. p. 253. 
 
 church from which the list emanated, at ^ Beveridge [Synod. II. ii. p. 40) re- 
 
 a later date than 1 Peter and i John. marks on the difference between the 
 
 ^ The clause about reading aloud seems mention of Clement in the two cases, 
 
 to refer solely to the Epistles of Clement. He argues from it that different persons 
 
 At least this restriction is suggested by are meant. 
 
 the connexion, as well as by comparison In the Syriac copy, Brit. Mus. Add. 
 
 with a somewhat similar clause relating 14,526 fob 9 a (a MS of the vii th cent., 
 
 to Ecclesiasticus, which closes the list of and probably written soon after A.D. 641 ; 
 
 the Old Testament writings. But on this see Wright's Catalogue p. 1033) it is 'of 
 
 point there must remain some uncertainty. me Clement two Epistles.' In another
 
 374 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 external evidence had been satisfactory. But the subsequent history of 
 this canon tends to increase our suspicions. The Trullan Council 
 (a.d. 692) in its 2nd canon adopts 'the 85 Canons handed down to 
 us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles,' adding however 
 this caution ; ' But seeing that in these canons it hath been com- 
 manded that we should receive the Constitutions (Stara^eis) of the 
 same holy Apostles, (written) by the hand of Clement, in which certain 
 spurious matter that is alien to godliness hath been interpolated long 
 ago by the heterodox to the injury of the Church, thus obscuring for us 
 the goodly beauty of the divine ordinances, we have suitably rejected 
 such Constitutions, having regard to the edification and safety of the 
 most Christian flock, etc' ' Here no mention is made of the Epistles 
 of Clement ; and therefore, if the Trullan fathers found them in their 
 copy of the 85th ApostoUcal Canon, they deliberately adopted them as 
 part of the canonical Scriptures. The Canons of this Trullan Council 
 were signed by the four great patriarchs of the East. The Council 
 itself was and is regarded by the Eastern Church as a General Council". 
 From this time forward therefore the Epistles of Clement would be- 
 come an authoritative part of the New Testament for the Christians 
 of the East How comes it then, that not a single MS of the Greek 
 Testament among many hundreds written after this date includes them 
 in the sacred volume ? But this is not all. About the middle of the 
 eighth century John of Damascus gives a list of the New Testament 
 Scriptures {de Fid. Orthod. iv. 17, Op. i. p. 284, Lequien). It ends: 
 ' Of Paul the Apostle fourteen Epistles ; the Apocalypse of John the 
 Evangelist ; the Canons of the Holy Apostles by the hand of Clement ' 
 
 Syriac copy, Add. i^, 155, fol. 205 b Lagarde has published his text (^^/.'yMn 
 (apparently of the viii th cent.; ib. pp. Eccl. Ant. Syr. 1856 p. ȣD) the form 
 921, 949) the scribe has first written 'of exactly follows the Greek, 'Of Clement 
 me Clement,' and has corrected it 'of two Epistles.' 
 him Clement' (..j^^ altered into (Jl^k)- 1 Bevereg. Synod, i. p. 158. 
 This seems to be a different translation ^ -y\\q Trullan or Quinisextine Council 
 from the former. The canon in question was commonly called the ' Sixth ' Coun- 
 is the Si St in the former, the 79th in the cil by the Greeks, being regarded as a 
 latter. A third Syriac MS Add. 14,527 supplement to that Council ; Hefele Cow- 
 (about the xi th cent.; ib. p. 1036) ciliengeschichte\\\.^.i^(). The 7th Gene- 
 follows the last as corrected and reads 'of ral Council (the Second of Nicsea, A.D. 
 him Clement.' 1 owe these facts to the 787) adopted both the Apostolical Canons 
 kindness of Prof. Wright, who also in- themselves and the Canons of the Trullan 
 vestigated the readings of the ^thiopic, Council as a whole (see Hefele ib. p. 443); 
 Carshunic, and Arabic MSS for me, as and thus they were doubly confirmed as 
 given elsewhere in my notes, pp. 372, the law of the Greek Church. 
 576. In the Syriac ms from which
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 375 
 
 (KavoVes Twi/ dytuiv ctTrooToAwv 8ta KAT^/x.ei'Tos). Here is no mention of 
 Clement's Epistles. But one MS, Reg. 2428, which exhibits inter- 
 polations elsewhere, inserts a mention of them, reading the last 
 sentence KavoVe9 tc3v aytcuv ctTrocrroA-oji/ Koi lin(TTo\a\ 8vo 8ia YLXrj- 
 fji€VTo<;, where the very form of the expression betrays the insertion. 
 This interpolation is significant ; for it shows that there was a dis- 
 position in some quarters to introduce these epistles into the Canon, 
 and that ancient documents were tampered with accordingly'. Again, 
 in the Stichometria attached to the Chrotiographia of Nicephorus 
 patriarch of Constantinople (tA.D. 828), though itself perhaps of an 
 older date, the Epistles of Clement are not placed among the un- 
 doubted Scriptures, nor even among the disputed books of the Canon, 
 among which the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of the Hebrews 
 have a place, but are thrown into the Apocrypha". Again, a little 
 later we have the testimony of another patriarch of Constantinople, 
 the great Photius, who died towards the close of the ninth century. 
 In his edition of the Noniocanon^ (Tit. iii. cap. ii. Op. iv. p. 1049 sq, 
 ed. Migne) he mentions the 85th Apostolical Canon as an authority 
 on the subject of which it treats. Yet elsewhere he not only betrays 
 no suspicion that these Clementine Epistles are canonical, but speaks 
 in a manner quite inexplicable on this hypothesis. In one passage 
 of his Bibliotheca (Cod. 113) he incidentally repeats the statement of 
 Eusebius (without however mentioning his name), that the First 
 Epistle was at one time ' considered worthy of acceptance among 
 many, so as even to be read in public ' (-n-apa ttoXXois aTroSoxvs 
 rjitwOr] ws Koi ^rjjxoa-ia dvayivwa-KecrOai), whereas ' the so-called Second 
 Epistle is rejected as spurious ' (ojs v66o? aTroSoKt/Aa^cTat). In another 
 (Cod. 126) he records reading the two epistles, apparently for the 
 first time ; he treats them exactly in the same way as the other books 
 of which he gives an account ; he criticizes them freely ; he censures 
 the First, not only for its faulty cosmography, but also for its defective 
 statements respecting the Person of Christ ; he complains of the 
 Second, that the thoughts are tumbled together without any continuity; 
 and he blames bodi in different degrees for quoting apocryphal sayings 
 
 ^ Harnack {Praef. xli, ed. 2) seems be considered doubtful, 
 
 disposed to accept /cat einaToXal dvo as - Westcotl Canon p. 552 sq (ed. 4), 
 
 part of the genuine text, tliougli he speaks Credner Z/tr Gcsch. dcs Kaiions p. 97 sq. 
 
 hesitatingly. But seeing that tliis MS •^ On the relation of the Notnocanon of 
 
 stands alone and that it is, as Lequien Photius to earlier works of the same 
 
 says, 'interpolatus varie' in other parts, name, see Hergenrother Photius in. p. 
 
 the spuriousness of these words can hardly 92 sq.
 
 76 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ' as if from the Divine Scripture.' Moreover, his copy of these Clemen- 
 tine Epistles was not attached to the New Testament, but (as he him- 
 self tells us), was bound up in a little volume with the Epistle of 
 Polycarp '. 
 
 For these reasons it may be questioned whether the Clementine 
 Epistles were included in the Greek catalogue of the 85th Apostolic 
 Canon, as ratified by the Trullan Council^, though they are found in 
 
 ' It is true that the procedure of the 
 Trullan Council in this respect was very 
 loose. It confirmed at the same time 
 the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea 
 and Carthage, though the Canons of 
 Carthage contained a list of the Canonical 
 books not identical with the list in the 
 Apostolical Canons, and this may also 
 have been the case with the Laodicean 
 Canons (see Westcott Cmion p. 434, ed. 
 4). But these Canons were confirmed 
 en bloc along with those of other Coun- 
 cils and individual fathers; and no in- 
 dication is given that their catalogues of 
 Scriptural books came under review. On 
 the other hand not only are the Aposto- 
 lical Canons placed in the forefront and 
 stamped with a very emphatic approval, 
 but their list of Scriptural books is made 
 the subject of a special comment, so that 
 its contents could not have been over- 
 looked. The difficulty however is not so 
 much that the Trullan Council should 
 have adopted these Clementine Epistles 
 into their Canon carelessly, as that (if 
 they had done this) the fact should have 
 been ignored for several centuries. 
 
 ^ This inference will seem the more 
 probable, when it is remembered that 
 the list of the New Testament writings in 
 the 85th Apostolical Canon occurs in 
 several other forms, in which the Clemen- 
 tine Epistles are differently dealt with. 
 
 (i) The Egyptian form has been given 
 already (p. 372). Here the Apocalypse is 
 inserted, and the two Clementine Epistles 
 are thrown to the end. No mention is 
 made of the Apostolic Constitutions. 
 
 (ii) Harnack (praef. p. xlii, ed. 2) has 
 given another form of this Creek list 
 
 which was copied by Gebhardt from a 
 Moscow MS of the 15th century, Bibl. 
 S. Synod, cxlix, fol. 160 b, where the New 
 Testament writings are enumerated as 
 follows ; Trt% bh Kaiv^s dcadriKrjs ^i^Xia S'. 
 eTTLffToXal nirpov )3'. 'Iwdwovrpets. 'laKii- 
 ^ov 'lovSa /j.ia. K\rj/ji.evTos a. llaiyXou 
 iiriaToXal i5' . The context shows de- 
 cisively that this Moscow list is taken from 
 the 85th Apostolical Canon. The word 
 evayyeXia seems to have been left out 
 after ^i^Xla by homoeoteleuton ; and 
 Acts is perhaps omitted from carelessness 
 owing to its position at the end of the 
 list in the Canon itself. The omission of 
 the Second Clementine Epistle is the 
 remarkable feature here. 
 
 (iii) The three Aithiopic MSS, Brit. 
 Mus. Orient. 481 (xvii th cent.). Orient. 
 796 (about A.D. 1740), Orient. 793 (about 
 the same date as the last), after the 
 Apocalypse, name the eight books of 
 the Ordinances of Clement (i.e. the 
 Apostolic Constitutions) and do not men- 
 tion the Epistles of Clement at all. On 
 the other hand the ^Ethiopic text of the 
 Canons as printed by \V. Fell (Catiojies 
 Apostolorum ^thiopice p. 46) Lips. 1871) 
 repeats the list as it stands in the Coptic 
 (see above, p. 372), ending 'Abukalamsis, 
 i.e. visio loannis, duae Epistolae de- 
 mentis'; and the yEthiopic MS Brit. Mus. 
 Orient. 794 (xv th cent.) ends similarly, 
 though the number of Clement's Epistles 
 is not mentioned. Again the independent 
 list in the MS Add. 16,205, (described 
 by Dillmann Catal. Cod. Mthiop. Brit. 
 Mils. p. 40), has them, but in a different 
 position, ending '...Epistola ludae, de- 
 mentis Epistolae 2, Apocalypsis, Pauli
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 377 
 
 Syriac copies of an earlier date. But in the 12th century the case is 
 different. At this date, and afterwards, the Greek canonists no longer 
 pass them over in silence. Alexius Aristenus, oeconomus of the Great 
 Church at Constantinople (c. a. d. 1160), repeats this list of the 85th 
 Canon, expressly naming * the two Epistles of Clement,' and mention- 
 ing the rejection of the Constitutions by the TruUan Council {Bevereg. 
 Synod, i. p. 53) ; and more than a century and a half later, Matthjeus 
 Blastaris (c. a. d. 1335, Syntagma b. ii) interprets the second Trullan 
 Canon as including the Clementine Epistles in the same condemnation 
 with the Constitutions'. This is certainly not the case; but it shows 
 to what straits a writer was driven, when he felt obliged to account for 
 the conflict between the current text of the 85th Apostolical Canon and 
 the universal practice of his church. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the only author who distinctly accepts 
 the two Clementine Epistles as canonical is Alexius Aristenus. His 
 work was written within a few years of the date of our MS (a.d. 1170), 
 and its authority stood very high. It would perhaps be over bold to 
 assume that the influence of Aristenus was felt in a Syrian monastery 
 at Edessa ; but at all events the coincidence of date is striking, and 
 seems to show a tendency to the undue exaltation of these Clementine 
 Epistles in the latter half of the twelfth century. There is no reason 
 however for thinking that our MS represents more than the practice 
 of a very restricted locality, or perhaps of a single monastery. Several 
 other Syriac mss, either of the Gospels or of Evangelistaries, are in 
 existence, dating not many years before or after this, and written (in 
 some instances) on this same Mountain of Edessa^; and on examina- 
 
 14.' In other independent lists, Add. ^ Bevereg. Synod. 11. ii. p. 56 as 5^ 
 
 16,188 (described by Dillmann I.e. p. 4) irpoaTldrici bta. tou KXrjfxevros Svo iiriffTo- 
 
 and Orient. 829, the Epistles of Clement Xds Kal rds yrovrjdeiaas rovT(i! diard^eis 
 
 are omitted. On the /Etliiopic recen- twv aTroaToXwv varepop 6 ttjs avvooov 5ei/- 
 
 sions of the Apostolic Canons, and on Tepos kuvuv di€ypa->p€v, ws wo\v to vodov 
 
 different .^Ethiopic lists of the Biblical irphs ti}v aipeTiKiji/ kuI irapiyypaivTov 5efa- 
 
 books, .see Dillmann in Ewald's Jahr- ixha%. 
 
 biicher, 1852, p. 144 sq. • The Paris MS described by Adler 
 
 An account of Arabic and Carshunic [Nov. Test. Vers. Syr. p. 58), of which 
 
 MSS is given above, p. 372. the date is a.d. i 192 (not 121 2, as wrongly 
 
 Generally it may be said that this given by Adler), and the place 'Coeno- 
 
 canon is altered freely so as to adapt it bium Deiparae, cui cognomen est Hos- 
 
 to the usage of particular churches. pitium, in monte sancto Edessae,' was 
 
 Still the normal Greek form is the best written at the same monastery a little 
 
 supported, as being confirmed by the more than twenty years after; see Cata- 
 
 Syriac MSS, which are the most ancient loguc des Alamiscrits Orientaiix de la 
 
 of all. Rihliothlquc Iinperiale (I^onds Syriaque)
 
 37^ EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 tion of these it may possibly be found that a comparison of the tables 
 of lessons throws some light on the position ascribed by our manuscript 
 to the Clementine Epistles. 
 
 5. T/ie purport mid contents. 
 
 Mention has been made already of the circumstances under which 
 the letter was written (p. 82 sq). Its character and contents are de- 
 termined by the nature of the feuds in the Corinthian Church which 
 called it forth. What these dissensions were — so far as our information 
 goes — I have briefly stated (see above, p. 82). It does not seem to me 
 that anything is gained by going behind our information, and speculating 
 in detail on the supposed heresy which lurks under these party-strifes. 
 We have first to answer the question whether there was any such heresy. 
 Beyond the revived scepticism about the resurrection, which prevailed 
 in S. Paul's days (p. 82), I fail to discover any traces of heretical doc- 
 trine at Corinth refuted in Clement's Epistle. Indeed very few of those 
 who have made a special study of the epistle declare themselves able 
 to discern more than this. 
 
 The following is an analysis of the letter : 
 
 ' The Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth. Greeting 
 in Christ Jesus.' 
 
 ' We regret that domestic troubles have prevented our writing be- 
 fore : we deplore the feuds which have gained ground among you ; for 
 your present unhappy state reminds us by contrast of the past, when 
 such breaches of brotherly love were unknown among you, and your 
 exemplary concord and charity were known far and wide (§§ i, 2). 
 Now all is changed. Like Jeshurun of old, you have waxed fat and 
 kicked. Envy is your ruling passion (§ 3). Envy, which led Cain to 
 slay his brother ; which sent Jacob into exile ; v/hich persecuted Joseph ; 
 which compelled Moses to flee; which drove Aaron and Miriam out 
 of the camp; which threw Dathan and Abiram alive into the pit; 
 which incited Saul against David (§ 4) ; which in these latest days, 
 after inflicting countless sufferings on the Apostles Peter and Paul, 
 brought them to a martyr's death (§ 5) ; which has caused numberless 
 woes to women and girls, has separated wives from their husbands, has 
 destroyed whole cities and nations (§ 6). We and you alike need this 
 warning. Let us therefore repent, as men repented at the preaching 
 
 p. 20, no. 54. See also this same cata- the same ' Holy Mountain of Edessa' a 
 logne p. 19, no. 52, for a somewhat similar few years earlier (a.d. i 165). 
 MS written at a neighbouring monastery on
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 379 
 
 of Noah, at the preaching of Jonah (§ 7). The Holy Spirit, speaking 
 by the prophets, again and again calls to repentance (§ 8). Let us 
 not turn a deaf ear to the summons ; let us supplicate God's mercy ; 
 let us follow the example of Enoch who was translated, of Noah who 
 was saved from the flood (§ 9), of Abraham whose faith was rewarded 
 by repeated blessings and by the gift of a son (§ 10). Call to mind 
 the example of Lot whose hospitality saved him from the fate of Sodom, 
 when even his wife perished (§11); of Rahab whose faith and pro- 
 tection of the spies rescued her from the general destruction (§ 12). 
 Pride and passion must be laid aside ; mercy and gentleness cherished ; 
 for the promises in the Scriptures are reserved for the merciful and 
 gentle (§§ 13, 14). We must not call down denunciations upon our 
 heads, like the Israelites of old (§ 15) : but rather take for our pattern the 
 lowliness of Christ as portrayed by the Evangelical Prophet and by the 
 Psalmist (§ 16); and copy also the humility of the ancient worthies, 
 Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, and Job ; of Moses the most highly 
 favoured and yet the meekest of men (§ 17) ; of David the man 
 after God's heart, who nevertheless humbled himself in the dust (§ 18). 
 Nay, let us have before our eyes the long-suffering of God Himself, the 
 Lord of the Universe, whose mind can be read in His works (§ 19). 
 Harmony prevails in heaven and earth and ocean ; day and night suc- 
 ceed each other in regular order ; the seasons follow in due course ; all 
 created things perform their functions peacefully (§ 20). Let us there- 
 fore act as becom.es servants of this beneficent Master. He is near at 
 hand, and will punish all unruliness and self-seeking. In all relations 
 of life behave soberly. Instruct your wives in gentleness, and your 
 children in humihty (§ 21). For the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures com- 
 mends the humble and simple-hearted, but condemns the stubborn and 
 double-tongued. The Lord will come quickly (§§ 22, 23).' 
 
 ' All nature bears witness to the resurrection ; the dawn of day ; the 
 growth of the seedling (§ 24); above all the wonderful bird of Arabia 
 (§ 25). So too God Himself declares in the Scriptures (§ 26). He has 
 sworn, and He can and will bring it to pass (§ 27).' 
 
 ' Let us therefore cleanse our lives, since before Him is no conceal- 
 ment (§ 28). Let us approach Him in purity, and make our election 
 sure (§ 29). As His children, we must avoid all lust, contention, self- 
 will, and pride (§ 30). Look at the example of the patriarchs, Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob (§ 31). See how the promise was granted to 
 their faith, that in them all the nations of the earth should be blessed 
 1 (§ 32)^1 To their /aU/i; but we must not therefore be slack in works. 
 The Creator Himself rejoices in His works, and we are created in His
 
 380 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 image. All righteous men have been rich in good works (§ 33). If 
 we would win the reward, we must not be slothful but ever diligent, as 
 the angels in heaven are diligent (§ 34). And how glorious is the 
 hope held out to us ! Well may we strive earnestly to attain this 
 bright promise : well may we school ourselves to lay aside all bitterness 
 and strife, which, as the Scriptures teach us, are hateful in God's sight 
 (§ 35)- Nor shall we be unaided in the struggle. Christ our High- 
 Priest is mightier than the angels, and by Him we are ushered into the 
 presence of God (§ 36).' 
 
 'Subordination of rank and distinction of office are the necessary 
 conditions of life. Look at the manifold gradations of order in an 
 army, at the diverse functions of the members in the human body 
 (§ 37)- ^Ve likewise are one body in Christ, and members in particular 
 (§ 3^)- They are fools and mad, who thirst for power ; men whom the 
 Scriptures condemn in no measured terms (§ 39). Are not the ordi- 
 nances of the Mosaic law — where the places, the seasons, the persons, 
 are all prescribed — a sign that God will have all things done decently 
 and in order (§g 40, 41)? The Apostles were sent by Jesus Christ, as 
 Jesus Christ was sent by the Father. They appointed presbyters in all 
 churches, as the prophet had foretold (§ 42). Herein they followed the 
 precedent of Moses. You will remember how the murmuring against 
 Aaron was quelled by the budding of Aaron's rod (§ 43). In like 
 manner the Apostles, to avoid dissension, made provision for the regular 
 succession of the ministry. Ye did wrongly therefore to thrust out 
 presbyters who had been duly appointed according to this Apostolic 
 order, and had discharged their office faithfully (§ 44). It is an untold 
 thing, that God's servants should thus cast out God's messengers. It 
 was by the enemies of God that Daniel and the three children were 
 persecuted of old (§ 45). There is one body and one Spirit. Whence then 
 these dissensions (§ 46)? Did not the Apostle himself rebuke you for 
 this same fault? And yet you had the excuse then, which you have 
 not now, that they whom you constituted your leaders — Cephas and 
 Paul and Apollos — were Apostles and Apostolic men (§ 47). Away 
 with these feuds. Reconcile yourselves to God by humility and right- 
 eousness in Christ (§ 48). Love is all-powerful, love is beyond praise, 
 love is acceptable to God. Seek love before all things, and ye shall be 
 blessed indeed ; for so the Scriptures declare (§§ 49, 50). Ask pardon 
 for your offences, and do not harden your hearts like Pharaoh. Else, 
 like Pharaoh, ye will also perish (§ 51). God asks nothing from us, 
 but contrition and prayer and praise (§ 52). Moses spent forty days 
 and nights in prayer, entreating God that he himself might be blotted
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 38 1 
 
 out and the people spared (§ 53). Let the same spirit be in you. Let 
 those who are the causes of dissension sacrifice themselves and retire, 
 that strife may cease (§ 54). Nay, have not heathen kings and rulers 
 been ready to offer themselves up for the common weal ? Even women 
 have perilled their lives, like men, for the public good. So did Judith ; 
 so also did Esther (§ 55). Let us intercede for one another; let 
 us admonish one another (§ 56). And you especially, who were the 
 first to stir up this feud, be the first to repent.' Remember the stern 
 threats, which the Scriptures pronounce against the stubborn and im- 
 penitent (§ 57).' 
 
 ' Let us therefore render obedience that we may escape His threatened 
 punishment. They that fulfil His commandments shall most assuredly 
 be saved among the elect (§ 58). We have warned the guilty and thus 
 we have absolved ourselves from blame. We will pray to God therefore 
 that He will keep His elect intact. 
 
 * Open our eyes, O Lord, that we may know Thee and feel Thine 
 omnipresence. Help all those who need help. Teach the nations the 
 knowledge of Thy Son Jesus Christ (§ 59). O Lord, our Creator, pity 
 and forgive us ; purify and enlighten us ; give peace to us and to all 
 men (§ 60). Thou hast given authority to our earthly rulers, that we 
 may submit to them as holding their office from Thee. Give them 
 health and peace and security ; direct their counsels that they rule 
 religiously and peacefully. Through Jesus Christ, our High-Priest, we 
 pour out our hearts to Thee (§ 61).' 
 
 * Enough has been said by us concerning a godly and virtuous life. 
 We have spoken of faith and repentance ; we have exhorted you to 
 love and peace ; and we have done this the more gladly, as speaking to 
 faithful men who have studied the oracles of God (§ 62). We are 
 bound to follow the great examples of the past, and to render obedience 
 to our spiritual leaders. Ye will give us great joy therefore, if ye listen 
 to our words and cease from your strife. Along with this letter we 
 have, as a token of our care for you, sent faithful and wise men to be 
 witnesses between you and us (§ 63).' 
 
 ' Finally, may He grant all graces and blessings to them that call 
 upon His name, through Jesus Christ our High-Priest (>$ 64).' 
 
 ' Ephebus and Bito and Fortunatus are the bearers of this letter.' 
 
 'Despatch them speedily, that they may return with the glad tidings 
 of your peace and concord.' 
 
 ' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men 
 (§ 65)-'
 
 382 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 o 
 
 6. The liturgical ending. 
 
 When the closing chapters, which had disappeared with the loss of a 
 leaf in the Alexandrian manuscript, were again brought to light by the 
 discovery of fresh documents, we could not fail to be struck by the 
 liturgical character of this newly-recovered portion. The whole epistle 
 may be said to lead up to the long prayer or litany, if we may so call it, 
 which forms a fit close to its lessons of forbearance and love. Attention 
 is directed to it at the outset in a few emphatic words : ' We will ask 
 with fervency of prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe 
 may guard intact the number of His elect that is numbered throughout 
 the whole world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ' (§ 59). The 
 prayer itself extends to a great length, occupying some seventy lines 
 of an ordinary octavo page. IMoreover it bears all the marks of a 
 careful composition. Not only are the balance and rhythm of the 
 clauses carefully studied, but almost every other expression is selected 
 and adapted from different parts of the Old Testament. 
 
 This prayer or litany begins with an elaborate invocation of God 
 arranged for the most part in antithetical sentences. Then comes a 
 special intercession for the afflicted, the lowly, the fallen, the needy, 
 the wanderers, the hungry, the prisoners, and so forth. After this 
 follows a general confession of sins and prayer for forgiveness and 
 help. This last opens with an address, evincing the same deep sense 
 of the glories of Creation which is one of the most striking character- 
 istics in the earlier part of the epistle : ' Thou through Thine operations 
 didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world, etc' (§ 60). 
 It closes, as the occasion suggests, with a prayer for unity : ' Give con- 
 cord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth, as Thou gavest 
 to our fathers, etc' After this stands the intercession for rulers, to 
 which I desire to direct special attention. The whole closes with a 
 doxology. 
 
 One striking feature in this litany, and indeed throughout the 
 whole epistle, especially arrests our attention — the attitude maintained 
 towards the Roman government. The close connexion, not only of 
 Christianity, but (as it would appear) of the bearers and the writer of the 
 letter, with the imperial household has been dwelt upon already at length 
 (pp. 27 sq, 60 sq), and seems to explain the singular reserve maintained 
 throughout this epistle. The persecuted and the persecutor met face 
 to face, as it were ; they mixed together in the common affairs of life ; 
 they even lived under the same roof I'hus the utmost caution was
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 383 
 
 needed, that collisions might not be provoked. We can well understand 
 therefore with what feelings one who thus carried his life in his hand would 
 pen the opening words of the letter, where he excuses the tardiness of 
 the Roman Church in writing to their Corinthian brethren by a 
 reference to ' the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses ' under 
 which they had suffered (§ i). Not a word is said about the nature of 
 these calamities ; not a word here or elsewhere about their authors. 
 There is no indication that the fears of the Roman Christians had 
 ceased. On the contrary, after referring to the victims of the Neronian 
 persecution, it is said significantly, ' We are in the same lists, and the 
 same struggle awaits us ' (§ 7). The death of the tyrant may have 
 brought a respite and a hope, but the future was still uncertain. At all 
 events the letter can hardly have been penned before the two most 
 illustrious members of the Church, the patron and patroness of the 
 writer (if my hypothesis be correct), had paid the one by his death, 
 the other by her banishment, the penalty of their adherence to the 
 faith of Christ ; for these seem to have been among the earliest victims 
 of the emperor's wrath. Not long after the execution of Flavins 
 Clemens and the banishment of Domitilla the tyrant was slain. The 
 chief assassin is agreed on all hands to have been Stephanas, the 
 steward of Domitilla '. Thus the household of this earliest of Christian 
 princes must have contained within its walls strange diversities of 
 character. No greater contrast can be conceived to the ferocity and 
 passion of these bloody scenes which accompanied the death of 
 Domitian, than the singular gentleness and forbearance which dis- 
 tinguishes this letter throughout. The fierceness of a Stephanus is the 
 dark background which throws into relief the self-restraint of a Clement. 
 In no respect is the eVtetKeta, to which beyond anything else it owes its 
 lofty moral elevation^, more conspicuous than in the attitude of these 
 Roman Christians towards their secular rulers, whom at this time they 
 had little cause to love. In the prayer for princes and governors, which 
 appears in the liturgical ending, this sentiment finds its noblest ex- 
 pression : ' Guide our steps to walk in holiness and righteousness and 
 singleness of heart, and to do such things as are good and well-pleasing 
 in Thy sight, and in the sight of our rulers.' ' Give concord and peace 
 to us and to all that dwell on the earth... tliat we may be saved, while 
 we render obedience to Thine almighty and most excellent Name, 
 and to our rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, O Lord 
 and Master, hast given them the power of sovereignty through Thine 
 
 ^ See above, p. 40. - See above, p. 97.
 
 384 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 excellent and unspeakable might, that we, knowing the glory and honour 
 which Thou hast given them, may submit ourselves unto them, in 
 nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, 
 health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the govern- 
 ment which Thou hast given them without failure. For Thou, O 
 heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men glory 
 and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do 
 Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and 
 well-pleasing in Thy sight, that, administering in peace and gentleness, 
 with godliness, the power which Thou hast given them, they may 
 obtain Thy favour' (§§ 60, 61). When we remember that this prayer 
 issued from the fiery furnace of persecution after the recent experience 
 of a cruel and capricious tyrant like Domitian, it will appear truly sub- 
 lime — sublime in its utterances, and still more sublime in its silence. 
 Who would have grudged the Church of Rome her primacy, if she had 
 always spoken thus ? 
 
 Christianity is adverse to political tyranny, as it is to all breaches of 
 the law of love. But it was no purpose of the Gospel to crush the evil 
 by violence and rebellion. Just in the same way, though slavery is 
 abhorrent to its inherent principles, we nowhere find that it encourages 
 any rising of slaves against their masters. On the contrary, it inculcates 
 obedience as a service rendered not to human masters but to God Him- 
 self (Ephes. vi. 5 sq. Col. iv. 22 sq). Its business was not to overthrow 
 social and political institutions directly ; but it provided a solvent which 
 in the one case, as in the other, did the work slowly but surely. A 
 loyal submission to the sovereign powers is enforced in the strongest 
 terms as a religious duty by the Apostles S. Paul and S. Peter, 
 when the supreme earthly ruler was none other than the arch-tyrant 
 Nero himself (Rom. xiii. i sq, i Pet. ii. 13 sq) — Nero, whose savagery 
 was soon to cost them both their lives. So here again, the noble prayer 
 for temporal sovereigns is heard from a scholar of the two Apostles at 
 the second great crisis of the Church when the Christians are just 
 emerging from the ruthless assaults of a ' second Nero,' more capricious 
 but hardly less inhuman than the first. 
 
 It is impossible not to be struck with the resemblances in this passage 
 to portions of the earliest known liturgies'. Not only is there a general 
 
 1 A very convenient collection of these large works of Assemani, Martene, Goar, 
 
 services is Hammond's Liturgies Eastern Renaudot, Mabillon, Muratori, and others. 
 
 and Western Oxford 1878, and to this The foundations of a more thorough and 
 
 work I shall generally refer, thus saving critical study of the liturgies (in their 
 
 my readers the trouble of turning to the earlier and later forms) are laid in Swain-
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 385 
 
 coincidence in the objects of the several petitions, but it has also in- 
 dividual phrases, and in one instance a whole cluster of petitions \ 
 in common with one or other of these. Moreover, this litany 
 in S. Clement's Epistle begins with the declaration, ' We will ask 
 with fervency of prayer and supplication (iKTevrj T17V Seycriv koI 
 lK£(TLav TroiovjxivoL) ' ; and the expression reminds us that this very 
 word, 77 €KTevy]<s, was the designation given to a corresponding portion 
 in the Greek ritual, owing to its peculiar fervency". We remember 
 also that the name of S. Clement is especially connected with 
 a liturgy incorporated in the closing books of the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, and the circumstance may point to some true tradition 
 of his handiwork in the ritual of the Church. Moreover, this liturgy 
 in the Constitutions, together with the occasional services which ac- 
 company it, has so many phrases in common with the prayer in 
 S. Clement's Epistle, that the resemblances cannot be accidental. 
 But no stress can be laid on this last fact, seeing that the writers alike 
 of the earlier and later books of the Apostolic Constitutions obviously 
 had Clement's Epistle in their hands. 
 
 What then shall we say of this litany? Has S. Clement here in- 
 troduced into his epistle a portion of a fixed form of words then in 
 use in the Roman Church ? Have the extant liturgies borrowed 
 directly from this epistle, or do they owe this resemblance to some 
 common type of liturgy, founded (as we may suppose) on the prayers 
 of the Synagogue, and so anterior even to Clement's Epistle itself? The 
 origin of the earliest extant liturgies is a question of high importance ; 
 and with the increased interest which the subject has aroused in England 
 of late years, it may be hoped that a solution of the problems connected 
 with it will be seriously undertaken ; but no satisfactory result will be 
 attained, unless it is approached in a thoroughly critical spirit and 
 without the design of supporting foregone conclusions. Leaving this 
 question to others for discussion, I can only state the inference which 
 this prayer of S. Clement, considered in the light of probabilities, 
 suggests to my own mind. There was at this time no authoritative 
 
 son's Greek Liturgies, Cambridge, 1884, Marc. p. 185 (Hammond ; see also 
 
 an invaluable work for the history of the Swainson, p. 48) in the note on § 59 
 
 growth of the text. But only a beginning tovs iv d\L\j/ei. k.t.X. 
 
 has thus been made; as the libraries of " Stee.g.A/osLConsi.vn.6 — 10, where 
 
 the East doubtless contain unsuspected the deacon invites the congregation again 
 
 treasures in this department of ecclesi- and again to pray eKrevcDs, Uti iKrevQs, 
 
 astical literature. en eKTeviarepov ; but it is common in the 
 
 1 See the parallel from Liturg. D. liturgies generally. 
 
 CLEM. 25
 
 386 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 written liturgy in use in the Church of Rome, but the prayers were 
 modified at the discretion of the officiating minister. Under the 
 dictation of habit and experience however these prayers were gradually 
 assuming a fixed form. A more or less definite order in the petitions, 
 a greater or less constancy in the individual expressions, was already 
 perceptible. As the chief pastor of the Roman Church would be the 
 main instrument in thus moulding the liturgy, the prayers, without 
 actually being written down, would assume in his mind a fixity as 
 time went on. When therefore at the close of his epistle he asks 
 his readers to fall on their knees and lay down their jealousies and 
 disputes at the footstool of grace, his language naturally runs into those 
 antithetical forms and measured cadences which his ministrations in 
 the Church had rendered habitual with him when dealing with such a 
 subject. This explanation seems to suit the facts. The prayer is not 
 given as a quotation from an acknowledged document, but as an 
 immediate outpouring of the heart ; and yet it has all the appearance 
 of a fixed form. This solution accords moreover with the notices 
 which we find elsewhere respecting the liturgy of the early Church, 
 which seem to point to forms of prayer more or less fluctuating, even 
 at a later date than this'. 
 
 Nor is it alone in the concluding prayer that the Hturgical character 
 of Clement's language asserts itself The litany at the close is only the 
 climax of the epistle, which may be regarded as one long psalm of 
 praise and thanksgiving on the glories of nature and of grace. Before 
 the discovery of the lost ending, discerning critics had pointed out the 
 resemblances of language and of thought to the early liturgies even in 
 
 ^ Justin Apol. i. 67 (p. 98) koX 6 its context here, it certainly suggests that 
 
 Tpoeardis euxas 6/j.olws Kal evxo-picTTias, the language and thoughts of the prayers 
 
 6aTj dvvafiLs avr^, avairiixwei. We were dependent on the person himself; 
 
 cannot indeed be certain from the ex- as e.g. in Apol. i. 55 (p. 90) 5ta \6yov 
 
 pression 6<Tri 5vvafj.is itself that Justin is Kal axw'^Tos tou (paivofiivov, oar] 56i>afjus, 
 
 referring to unwritten forms of prayer, Trporp€\pdfj.ei'oi ufxas k.t.X. (comp. i. 13, 
 
 for it might express merely the fervency p. 60). This is forty or fifty years 
 
 and strength of enunciation ; though in after the date of Clement's letter. In 
 
 the passage quoted by Bingham ( Christ. illustration of oay\ d^va/XLS Otto refers to 
 
 Ani. xiii. 5. 5) from Greg. Naz. Orai. iv, Tertullian's phrase {Apo/. 39), 'Ut quis- 
 
 § 12 (i. p. 83) (f)€p€, oat) SvvafjiLS, ayvLffd- que. . .dc'J»-o/>r/o ingenio potest, provocatui 
 
 IJ.6V01 Kal awixara /cat i/'i'X«5 Kal fiiav in medium Deo canere,' quoting it how- 
 
 dvaXa^ovres (puvr^v k.t.X., the oar] dvva- ever incorrectly. The force of oarj 56- 
 
 yuis has a much wider reference than to va^is may be estimated from its occur- 
 
 the actual singing of the Song of Moses, rences in Orig. c. Ccls. v. i, 51, 53, 58, 
 
 as he takes it. But in connexion with viii. 35.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 387 
 
 the then extant portions of the epistle '. At an early stage, before he 
 enters upon the main subject of the letter — the feuds in the Corinthian 
 Church — the writer places himself and his readers in an attitude of 
 prayer, as the fittest appeal to their hearts and consciences. He invites 
 his correspondents (§ 29) to ' approach God in holiness of soul, raising 
 pure and undefiled hands to Him.' He reminds them that they are an 
 elect and holy people. As the special inheritance of a Holy One 
 (§ 30 'Aytov ovv fxepU vTrdpxovTi^), they are bound to do the things 
 pertaining to holiness (TrotT/o-w/xev to, tov dytacrfjiov). This mode of 
 expression is essentially liturgical". Again, they are bidden to attach 
 themselves to the blessing of God (§31 koXXyjOmix^v ttj eiXoyta avrov) and 
 to recognize the magnificence of the gifts given by Him (§32 jueyaXeta 
 Tojv VTT avTov SiSo/xevoiv Swpewj/). The greatness of God's gifts reminds 
 him of their proper counterpart — our ministrations due to Him by the 
 law of reciprocity. These were rendered under the Old Covenant by 
 the levitical hierarchy : they culminate under the New in Jesus Christ 
 (§32)- We must be prompt to render with fervency (cKTcveta?) and zeal 
 every good service. We are made in God's own likeness, and are 
 consequently the heirs of His blessing (§ 33). Our ministrations on 
 earth are the copy and counterpart of the angelic ministrations in 
 heaven. Only the eye and ear of faith are needed (§ 34 KaTavor/o-w/xev 
 TO irdv TrXyj6o<; twv dyyiXwv avrov) to recall the sight and sound of these 
 celestial choirs — the ten thousand times ten thousands of angels crying 
 'thrice holy' to the Lord of hosts — ^'all creation is full of His glory.' 
 Here again we are brought face to face with a leading feature of 
 ancient liturgical service, the ' ter sanctus ' as the ideal of our human 
 ministrations ^ Whether the peculiar combination of Dan. vii. 10 with 
 
 ^ See especially Probst Liturgie der 
 drei ersten Jahrhunderte p. 41 sq, the 
 section on Der Brief des Clemens u. die 
 Liturgie iiberhaupt. 
 
 ^ See Lit. D. Jacob, p. 322 (Swainson) 
 (pvXa^ov T/juas, dyadd, ev ajLafffJiip, ha d^Loi 
 yevSfievoi tov wavaylov crov TrpevpLUTOs 
 evpu/Miv jxepioa Kal K\ijpovo/J.lav fiCTa irdv- 
 Tcav ruv dyiwv k.t.X., slightly different in 
 its later forms. 
 
 ^ The first direct reference to this 
 hymn of the heavenly hosts, as forming 
 part of the eucharistic service, appears in 
 Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. 5 (p. 
 327) ixerd Tavra fj.vriiJ.ove{>Ofiev oipavov Kal 
 7'^j Kal daXdacrris, ijXiov Kal aeXrivTis, d- 
 
 (TTpuv, Kal TrctcTTjs Trjs /cr/crews XoyiKT}s re Kal 
 dXoyov, opaTTJs re Kal dopdrov ' dyyiXuv, 
 dpxo-yyi^<Jiv , dvvd/J.eu3v, KvpioTriruv, dpx'^v, 
 i^ov(n.u)i>, OpoviCf, tQv xepoii/3i/x tuv ttoXv- 
 irpoffdnru}!' * dvvdjj.ei Xiyovres t6 tov Aavid, 
 MeyaXijpare tov Kvpiov avv e/xoi' fivrjfio- 
 vevofxev 5e tGiv aepacpip., d ev irvevixari 
 dyio: iOedaaro 'llaatas TrapecTTrjKOTa KVKXq> 
 TOV Opovov TOV OeoO, Kal rais /xkv dval 
 TTTepv^i KaraKaXviTTOvTa t6 irpoawwov 
 rats 5^ bval tovs Tro'Sas Kal Tats dval 
 ireTOfieva, Kal Xeyofieva AriOC, AflOC, 
 ^riOC KYPIOC CABacoG- 5(0. TOVTO yap 
 TTf)v Trapadodelaav ijfuv deoXoyiav Tadrrjv 
 X^yofiev, oTTUS kolvwvoI t^s v/JLvu5ias raTs 
 vtrepKoa/xiois yevu/xeOa aTpariais. Thus 
 
 25 — 2
 
 88 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Is. vi. 3 in describing the praises of the heavenly hosts was borrowed 
 directly from a liturgical form familiar to Clement, I need not stop to 
 enquire, though this seems not improbable'. After thus ushering us 
 
 we can trace it back distinctly to the first 
 part of the fourth century ; but there is 
 every reason to believe that this was one 
 of the primitive elements in the liturgical 
 service, dating from the time when this 
 service took a definite shape. It appears 
 in the earliest extant forms of the Liturgy 
 of S. James, i.e. of Palestine and Syria 
 (Swainson p. 268 sq), as Cyril's account 
 would lead us to expect, and of the 
 Liturgy of S. Mark, i.e. of Alexandria 
 (Swainson p. 48 sq). It is found likewise 
 in the Clementine Liturgy of the Apost. 
 Const, viii. 12 § 13, which is probably 
 based on the oldest usage known in the 
 middle of the third century, even though 
 itself probably the compilation of a pri- 
 vate individual, rather than the authori- 
 tative document of a church. It has a 
 place not only in the Syriac Liturgy of 
 S. James (Hammond p. 69) as might 
 have been anticipated, but also in the 
 Nestorian Liturgies of Eastern Syria and 
 Persia, e.g. that of SS. Adreus and Maris 
 (Hammond p. •zys). I need scarcely 
 add that it is not wanting in the Roman 
 and Western Liturgies (Hammond p. 
 324). If therefore there be any first or 
 second century nucleus in the existing 
 liturgies, we may reasonably infer that 
 this triumphal hymn formed part of this 
 nucleus. 
 
 1 The kernel of this hymn is the ' ter 
 sanctus,' as sung by the seraphs in 
 Isaiah vi. 3 0710?, 07105, 0710? Kupios 
 2a/3ati^, but the words are introduced by 
 various descriptions of the angelic hosts 
 and followed up by various supplements. 
 
 (i) As regards the introductory preface, 
 the passage in Cyril of Jerusalem already 
 quoted furnishes a common noniial type. 
 It agrees substantially with the Liturgj' 
 of S. James and with the Clementine 
 Liturgy (Apost. Const. \\\\. 12). But this 
 
 is already a considerably developed form. 
 A simpler and very obvious preface 
 would be the adoption of the words from 
 Dan. vii. 10 'Thousands of thousands 
 stood by Him, and myriads of myriads 
 ministered unto Him.' From the pas- 
 sage of the genuine Clement (§ 34), with 
 which we are directly concerned, we may 
 infer that, when the liturgical service was 
 taking shape under his hands, this form 
 of preface prevailed; for he combines 
 Dan. vii. 10 with Is. vi. 3 under one 
 quotation X^7et 7; 7pai/>7?. There are 
 some traces of the survival of this preface 
 in the Liturgy of .S. Mark p. 185 (Ham- 
 mond), aol TrapacTTrjKovai X^^^o,i x'^"^^^^ 
 Kal fivpiaL jj.vpi.dSes ayiwv o/yyiKwv Kal 
 apxayyfKwv arpaTiai (comp. Swainson 
 p. 48 sq), where it retains its proper 
 place; and in the Liturgy of S. James 
 p. 47 (Hammond) (} TrapejTTjKacn x^'^"^' 
 XtXtaSes Kal fiijpLUi /MvpiaSes ayiuv d/yyiXuy 
 Kal apxayyeKtisv arpaTial (comp. Swainson 
 p. 304 sq), where it preserves the same 
 form but occupies a place in the Preface 
 to the Lord's Prayer. This latter is 
 probably a displacement; for in the 
 Syriac Liturgy of Adseus and Maris (p. 273 
 Hammond) it still occupies what was 
 presumably its primitive place. .See also 
 the Coptic and ^thiopic Liturgies pp. 
 218, 221, 257 (Hammond). In Apost. 
 Const, viii. 12 a 7-eminiscence of Dan. vii. 
 10 (a/xa xtX^ais xCkiacLv dpxayyeXuf Kal 
 fivplais /xvptdcnv dyyeXcof) forms part of 
 the preface to the 'ter sanctus' of Is. vi. 3. 
 (2) As regards the conclusion, it should 
 be observed that the quotation of Clement 
 preserves the original expression of Isaiah 
 wXrjpris Trdffa 17 yrj ttjs 56^rjs airov (sub- 
 stituting however ktIctis for 7'^), whereas 
 in a/t liturgies without exception (so far 
 as I have noticed) it runs ' heaven and 
 earth are full (ttXtjptjs 6 ovpavbs Kal i] y-tf)
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 389 
 
 into the immediate presence-chamber of the Almighty, he follows up 
 this eucharistic reference by a direct practical precept bearing on 
 congregational worship ; ' Let us then ' — not less than the angels — 
 'gathered together ((rvva)(OevT€<;) in concord with a lively conscience 
 (ev avvciSrjaei.) cry unto Him fervently (€kt6i/c5s) as with one mouth, that 
 we may be found partakers of His great and glorious promises,' where 
 almost every individual expression recalls the liturgical forms — the 
 o-vVa^is as the recognized designation of the congregation gathered 
 together for this purpose, the avv€t8-)]crL^ which plays so prominent a 
 part in the attitude of the worshipper^ the tKrcvojs which describes the 
 intensity of the prayers offered. Then again ; after this direct precept 
 follows another liturgical reference, hardly less characteristic than the 
 former; ' Eye hath not seen nor ear heard.' What may be the original 
 source of this quotation, either as given by S. Paul (i Cor. ii. 9) or by 
 S. Clement here (§ 34) or in the so-called Second Epistle which bears 
 Clement's name (ii. §11), we have no definite information ; but that (in 
 
 etc.,' and sometimes with other amplifica- 
 tions. A favorite addition is the '^aavva 
 iv Tois iixj/iaroh k.t.X. (from Matt. xxi. 9). 
 
 Thus the reference in Clement seems 
 in both respects to exhibit an incipient 
 form of the liturgical use of the ' ter 
 sanctus ' of Isaiah. 
 
 The caution should be added that the 
 word 'trisagion, 'as technically used, does 
 not refer to the ' thrice holy ' of Isaiah, 
 which is called ' the triumphal hymn ' 
 (ii/jLvos iinviKios), but to another form of 
 words (aytoj 6 Geo's, ay los icrxi'pos, 017105 
 dOavaros, k.t.X.) which is known to have 
 been introduced into the liturgy later. 
 The eucharistic hymns which have a 
 place in the liturgies are distinguished in 
 Hammond's glossary, p. 380 sq. For this 
 reason, though the term ' trisagion ' 
 would be most appropriate in itself and 
 indeed occurs in the liturgies themselves, 
 when referring to the seraphs' hymn of 
 Isaiah (e.g. Lit D. Marc. p. 185 Ham- 
 mond, rhv eirii>lKiop Kal rpLcdyiov vfivov ; 
 comp. Swainson p. 48 sq), yet owing to 
 its ambiguity it is better avoided, and I 
 have used the Latin term ' ter sanctus ' 
 instead, as free from any objection. 
 Probst constantly calls it ' trisagion.' 
 
 ^ For the place which ' conscience ' 
 plays in the liturgical services, comp. 
 Probst 1. c. p. 42 sq. On the necessity 
 of a pure conscience in the orientation of 
 the soul for effective prayer and praise 
 see Clem. Alex. Stro7H. vi. 14 (p. 797 
 Potter). The phrases KaOapa, Kapdia, 
 Kadapof (Tvveidos, KaOapa (or dyadri) avuel- 
 Sjyffts, and the like, are frequent in the 
 liturgies. See also especially the passage 
 in Iren. Haer. iv. 4 ' non sacrificia sancti- 
 ficant hominem, non enim indiget sacri- 
 ficio Deus ; sed conscientia eius qui offert 
 sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens' with 
 the whole context, where this father 
 speaks of the oblations of the Church and 
 uses illustrations — more especially the 
 contrast of the offerings of Cain and Abel 
 — which recall the liturgical spirit of the 
 Roman Clement. For Clement himself 
 see esp. §41 evxapicrTeirw 0£<fj eV dyaO^ 
 avveid-^ffei V7rdpx<^^, M') TrapeK^aivuv rbv 
 CopLup-ivov Trjs XeiTOV pyLas avrov Kavova, 
 and § 45 tCjv iv Kadapq. avveidrjcrei Xarpev- 
 ovTwv, compared with Ign. Trail. 7 6 
 X^pis fTTiffKOTTOv Kal TTpetT^vTepiov Kal 
 d'.aKovuv Trpd(7(Xiov ti outos ov Kadapb% ecriv 
 TTJ avyeiSrjcreL, in all which passages it has 
 a reference to the services of the Church.
 
 390 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 some form or other) it found a place in early liturgical services the 
 available evidence seems to show'. 
 
 ^ Over-sanguine liturgiologists have 
 given a ready explanation of the quota- 
 tion in S. Paul, i Cor. ii. 9 Kuduis yiypair- 
 Tttt, "A 6(pda\fJ.6i ovK ddev Kal oCs ovk 
 TjKOVffev Kal eVt KapSiav d.v0pu)wov ovk 
 dv^^Tj 6cra iiToifxacrei' 6 Qebs rots d'yairCjcnv 
 avTov. They have supposed the Apostle 
 to be quoting from some liturgical form 
 with which he was acquainted, and hence 
 they have inferred the very early origin 
 of the liturgies, at least in their nucleus — 
 a too hasty inference not warranted by 
 the facts of the case. This view, which is 
 eagerly maintained by Neale {Essays on 
 Liturgiology p. 414 sq), is properly re- 
 pudiated by Hammond Liturgies Eastern 
 and Western p. x, note). In my note on 
 § 34, where Clement quotes the same 
 words with modifications, I have stated the 
 probability that the passage is not a strict 
 quotation, but a loose reference giving 
 the substance of Is. Ixiv. 4 combined with 
 Is. Ixv. 16, 17. At all events neither 
 Origen nor Jerome was aware that S. 
 Paul derived it from any liturgical source ; 
 for the former ascribes it to the apocry- 
 phal Apocalypse of Isaiah, and the latter 
 explains the reference from the Canonical 
 Isaiah, as I have done. 
 
 The fact however remains that the 
 same quotation is found in some liturgies 
 and that Clement's context encourages us 
 to trace a liturgical connexion. What 
 then shall we say? Textual criticism 
 will help us to give a right answer, or 
 at least warn us against giving a wrong 
 answer, because it is the first which sug- 
 gests itself. The quotation occurs in two 
 forms; (i) The Pauline, of which the 
 characteristic feature is rots a.'yaTZihaiv 
 avTov, I Cor. ii. 9 : (2) The Clementine, 
 which on the contrary has rots viroii.ivov<nv 
 avTov, suggested by Is. Ixiv. 4. This is 
 the fonn also which evidently underlies 
 the same quotation in Martyr. Polyc. 2, 
 as appears from the context to. rripovneva 
 
 Toh virofidva<nv dyadd. But the writer 
 of this account of Polycarp's death was 
 certainly acquainted with and borrowed 
 elsewhere from Clement's Epistle (see 
 above, p. 153). Though two of our 
 extant authorities for Clement's text 
 (CS) conspire in substituting rots dya- 
 wuxnv in Clement's text, the oldest and 
 best of all is unquestionably right in 
 reading rots vTro/x&ovaiv, as the context of 
 Clement plainly shows (see the note on 
 the passage). 
 
 Among the extant Greek liturgies 
 which have any pretentions to be con- 
 sidered early, it occurs, so far as I have 
 observed, twice ; (a) In the Greek Liturgy 
 of S. James (Hammond, p. 41), where 
 it is part of the Great Oblation, rd ewovpd- 
 via Kal aluvid (xov dupyj/J-aTa d 6<p6a\fx.bs 
 K.T.X., but it is wanting in the correspond- 
 ing Syriac form (Hammond, p. 70) and 
 would seem therefore to be a later 
 addition ; (/') In the Liturgy of S. Mark 
 (Hammond, p. 183) ra tujv iirayyeXiuv crov 
 dyadd a 6<p9a\i.i6s K.r.X., where it appears 
 in a different place, in the Diptychs for the 
 Dead. In both these passages it has the 
 Pauline rdis dyawwaiv, not the Clementine 
 TOLS vTronivovaiv. The obvious inference 
 is that the liturgical quotation was de- 
 rived directly from S. Paul, and not 
 conversely. This is also the case appa- 
 rently with all the quotations of the 
 passage from the close of the second 
 century onward (e.g. Clem. Alex. Protr. 
 10, p. 76; Pseudoclem. de Virg. i. 9). 
 See the references gathered together in 
 Resch's Agrapha pp. 102, 281 (Gebhardt 
 u. Harnack's Texte u. Untersuchungen 
 V. Hft. 4, 1889). 
 
 Still the phenomenon in S. Clement 
 suggests that in one form or other it had 
 a place in early liturgical services, for 
 indeed its liturgical appropriateness would 
 suggest its introduction : and, considering 
 its connexion as quoted by Clement here,
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 391 
 
 After this liturgical climax, the writer not unnaturally speaks of the 
 marvellous gifts of God, more especially His moral and spiritual gifts — 
 life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, and the like (§ 35). 
 Their magnitude and beauty are beyond all human language. Of these 
 proffered bounties {rQ>v eVT^yyeX/xcVojv Scupecov) we must strain every nerve 
 to partake. Accordingly we approach God with the sacrifice of praise 
 {Ovaia atve'crews). This is the 2vay, of which the Psalmist speaks l(xlix). 
 23 — the way of salvation. Along this way we proceed, under the 
 guidance of our great High-priest who presents our offerings (§ 36). 
 Thus all human life, as truly conceived, and as interpreted by the 
 Church of Christ, is a great eucharistic service. It is not difficult to 
 see how this one idea pervades all Clement's thoughts. Indeed the 
 proper understanding of the structure of the epistle is lost, if this key 
 be mislaid. Our true relation to God is a constant interchange — God's 
 magnificent gifts realized by us, our reciprocal offerings, however un- 
 worthy, presented to and accepted by Him. The eucharistic celebration 
 of the Church is the outward embodiment and expression of this all- 
 pervading lesson. The eucharistic elements, the bread and wine — 
 and, still more comprehensively, the tithes and first fruits and other 
 offerings in kind, which in the early Church had a definite place amidst 
 the eucharistic offerings — are only a part of the great sacramental 
 system. All things spiritual and material, all things above and below, 
 the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace, fall within its 
 scope. Heaven and earth alike are full of God's glory; and shall they 
 not be full of human thanksgiving also ? This idea underlies the 
 earliest liturgical forms ; it underlies, or rather it absorbs, Clement's 
 conception. There is no narrow ritual and no cramping dogma here. 
 The conception is wide and comprehensive, as earth and sea and sky 
 are wide and comprehensive. It inspires, explains, justifies, vivifies, 
 the sacramental principle. 
 
 it is probable that he himself so used it. 
 But on the other hand I see no reason on 
 second thoughts to abandon the explana- 
 tion of the origin of the quotation in 
 S. Paul, as given in my notes (§ 34), viz. 
 that it was intended by the Apostle as a 
 reference to Isaiah (the words oaa. riroL- 
 /xacrei' 6 9e6s rots ayairoicnv avrbv being 
 his own comment or paraphrase) and that 
 S. Clement mixed up the Apostolic quota- 
 tion with the prophet's own words, sub- 
 stituting rois utroixivovinv for tois dyairu- 
 
 OLv and thus returning more closely to 
 the original. With our existing data, 
 until some fresh discovery throws more 
 light on the difficulty, we may accept this 
 explanation provisionally. I do not see 
 any force in the arguments by which 
 Resell (whose volume appeared after my 
 note on § 34 was written) strives to show 
 (p. 154 sq) that S. Paul quoted a saying 
 of Christ from some written evangelical 
 document.
 
 392 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 In this way Clement prepares the minds of his hearers for the 
 lessons and rebukes which follow (§ 37). The ordination service was 
 apparently closely connected with the eucharistic service in the early 
 Church'. The ordained ministers were set apart especially to present 
 the offerings of the people. Church order — which is the counterpart to 
 the natural order, to the political order — requires that this special work 
 shall be duly performed (§37 sq). The presbyters at Corinth had 
 fulfilled their appointed task faithfully. They had been blameless in 
 their ministrations. Not once nor twice only (§ 44) is this blamekssness 
 of conduct, which doubtless had formed part of their ordination charge", 
 emphasized by Clement (XetTOvpyTJaavTas afxifjuTrrw;, Tov<i UjU.e)U.7rTws 
 Koi ocriw? 7rpocrev€yKoi'Ta<; ra Swpa t^s iTrLcrKoiry?, Trjs dfxefXTrrws aurois 
 T€Ti/x,7//xev>7s A.€tTot)pyias). The deposition of these faithful ministers there- 
 fore was a shocking irregularity. It was a violation of the eternal order : 
 it was a blow struck at the root of first principles ; it was a confusion of 
 all things human and divine. 
 
 This analysis will show that the liturgical close of the epistle is the 
 proper sequel to what precedes. The whole letter is a great eucharistic 
 psalm which gathers about its main practical aim — the restoration of 
 order at Corinth. 
 
 Moreover the true apprehension of this idea has an important bearing 
 on the attacks made on the integrity of the epistle. The portions 
 hastily condemned as ' sacerdotal ' or ' hierarchical ' by otherwise 
 intelligent and note-worthy critics are found to be not only no late 
 irrelevant and incongruous interpolations, but belong to the very essence 
 and kernel of the original writing. To excise these by the critical 
 scalpel is to tear out its heart and drain its very life-blood. 
 
 The earliest services of the Christian Church, so far as they were 
 grafted on the worship of the Jews, would be indebted to the Synagogue 
 rather than to the Temple. Recent archseological discoveries, more 
 
 ^ See Probst Sakramente u. Sakrai?ien- 
 talien p. 398 sq. So Clem. Recogii. xvi. 
 15 'et eucharistiam frangens cum eis, 
 Maronem...constituit eis episcopum et 
 duodecim cum eo presbyteros, simulque 
 diaconos ordinat' (comp. Clem. Horn. 
 xi. 36). 
 
 " The word in S. Paul (i Tim. iii. 2; 
 comp. V. 7, vi. 14) describing this quali- 
 fication of the ministry is the synonyme 
 a.veiri\riyi.TrTos, and this word is emphasized 
 
 in the Pionian Life of Poly carp 23, which 
 throws some light on the consecration of 
 a bishop in early times. For dnefXTrros 
 see Apost. Const, viii. 4 ipiraaiv au.efj.wTOv, 
 5 d/Jie fj-TTTUS XeiTovpyovvra, a/ne^nrws aj'e7- 
 kXtjtws TrpoacpepovTa, 1 7 XeiTovpyrjffavra 
 TTiv iyxet-ptcOeiffav avrf SiaKoviav arpeTrrus 
 a/xe^uTrrws dveyKXriTUS fxel^ovos d^iudrjvai 
 [iadfioO, of qualifications for tlje ministiy; 
 comp. ii. 26.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 JV^ 
 
 especially in Galilee and in Eastern Palestine, have enlarged our ideas 
 on this subject. The number, the capacity, and even (in some cases) 
 the magnificence of the synagogues are attested by their ruins'. What 
 we find at such Jewish centres as Capernaum would certainly not be 
 wanting in the mighty cities of the world like Alexandria and Rome. 
 The ritual would bear some proportion to the buildings ; and thus the 
 early Christian congregations would find in their Jewish surroundings 
 ample precedent for any ritual developement which for some generations 
 they could desire or compass. Again as regards the substance of 
 public worship, they would naturally build upon the lines traced by their 
 Jewish predecessors ^ The common prayer, the lessons from the Law, 
 the lessons from the Prophets, the chanting of the Psalms or of hymns, 
 the exposition or homily, all were there ready for adoption. The eu- 
 charistic celebration — the commemoration of and participation in the 
 Lord's Passion — was the new and vivifying principle, the centre round 
 which these adopted elements ranged themselves, being modified as the 
 circumstances suggested. The earliest account of the Christian eu- 
 charist, as given by Justin Martyr, shows that this is no merely con- 
 jectural view of the genesis of the Christian celebration ^ 
 
 The investigation of the prayers of the Synagogue, which I have 
 suggested above, as in part a source of Clement's language, would be 
 impossible without a special knowledge which I cannot command. I 
 must therefore leave it to others. I would only offer the following, as 
 a slight contribution to the subject. 
 
 Among the prayers which are acknowledged to be the most ancient 
 is the form called either absolutely Tephillah 'The Prayer' (n?Dn) or 
 (from the number of the benedictions) Shemofieh Esreh ' The Eighteen ' 
 (mC'i; nJIDt^)- They are traditionally ascribed by the Jews to the 
 Great Synagogue \ but this tradition is of course valueless, except as 
 implying a relative antiquity. They are mentioned in the Mishna 
 Berachoth iv. 3, where certain precepts respecting them are ascribed 
 to Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Akiba; while from 
 another passage, Rosh-ha-Shanah iv. 5, it appears that they then ex- 
 isted in substantially the same form as at present. Thus their high 
 
 ^ For an excellent and succinct account give a very brief sketch of the transition 
 
 of the synagogue — the buildings and the from the Synagogue to the Church ; but 
 
 -.vorship — see Schiirer Gcschichte des Jii- his caution and moderation contrast 
 
 disckri Volkes 11. p. 369 sq (ed. 1, 1886). favourably with the reckless assumptions 
 
 - See the Abbe L. Duchesne's Origines of some writers on liturgiology. 
 dii Culte C/mtien p. 45 sq (1889). His ^ Apol. i. 65 — 67 (p. 97 — 99). 
 
 plan does not permit him to do more than
 
 194 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 antiquity seems certain ; so that the older parts (for they have grown 
 by accretion) were probably in existence in the age of our Lord and 
 the Apostles, and indeed some competent critics have assigned to 
 them a much earlier date than this. Of these eighteen benedictions 
 the first three and the last three are by common consent allowed to 
 be the oldest. On the date and prevalence of the Shemoneh Esreh., 
 see Zunz Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge p. 366 sq, Herzfeld Geschichte des 
 Volkes Jisrael 11. p. 200 sq, Ginsburg in Kitto's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. 
 (ed. Alexander) s. v. Sytiagogiie^ Schiirer Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes 
 II. pp. 377 sq, 384 sq (ed. 2, 1886). 
 
 I have selected for comparison the first two and the last two ; and 
 they are here written out in full with the parallel passages from 
 Clement opposite to them, so as to convey an adequate idea of the 
 amount of resemblance. The third is too short to afford any material 
 for comparison ; while the sixteenth, referring to the temple-service, 
 is too purely Jewish, and indeed appears to have been interpolated after 
 the destruction of the second temple. The parallels which are taken 
 from other parts of S. Clement's Epistle are put in brackets. 
 
 1. Blessed art Thou, O Lord 
 our God, and the God of our 
 fathers, the God of Abraham, the 
 God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob, the God great and power- 
 ful and terrible, God Most High, 
 who bestowest 1"hy benefits gra- 
 ciously, the Possessor of the Uni- 
 verse, who rememberest the good 
 deeds of the fathers and send est 
 a redeemer unto their sons' sons 
 for Thy Name's Sake in love. 
 Our King, our Helper and Saviour 
 and Shield, blessed art Thou, O 
 Lord, the Shield of Abraham. 
 
 2. Thou art mighty for ever, 
 O Lord ; Thou bringest the dead 
 to life. Thou art mighty to save. 
 Thou sustainest the living by Thy 
 mercy. Thou bringest the dead to 
 
 1 The word pO 'shield' is translated 
 by dcTiX^TTTo)/) in the LXX of Ps. cxix 
 
 [o TraTrjp 77/xoJi/ 'Afipaafx § 3 1.] 
 Oavfjiaaro'; iv laxyi. Kai /xeyaXoTrpe- 
 
 TTCia § 60. TOV fXOVOV Vlf/LCTTOV § 59- 
 
 fxovov evepyeTTjv k.t.X. lb. [o otKTi'p- 
 )U,(ov Kara. Tvavia. kox evepyiTLKOs TraTrjp 
 
 § 23]- 
 
 O-V, Kv/OlC, TTjV olKOVfxivYjV CKTKTaS 
 
 § 60. [SecrTTo'TT^s rwv diravTwv §§ 8, 
 20, 33, 52]. 
 
 Ktt^ws eScoKas Tois TrarpacrLV tj/xiou, 
 €TrLKaXovpev(ov (re avrwv ocrms k.t.X. 
 § 60. \KaO<Ji<s Koi ol TrpoSeSrjXcop.evoL 
 Trarepes tjfxoJv ev7)picrTr](Tav § 62]. 
 /SaaLXev tcov alwvwv § 61. 
 d^LOVjxiv ere, SeairoTa, f3or]96v yeve- 
 crOai KoX dvTiXyjTTTopa tjfjiojv § 59- 
 
 o jiAovos Suvaros irocrjaaL ravra § 61. 
 TOV Twv dir-qXTncTfJLivwv crwTrjpa § 59* 
 
 o dya66<s. ..iXirjfxov kol oIktlp/xov § 60. 
 
 (cxviii). 114, from which Clement here 
 borrows his expression.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 395 
 
 life by Thy great compassion, Thou 
 supportest them that fall, and 
 healest the sick, and loosest them 
 that are in bonds, and makest 
 good Thy faithfulness to them that 
 sleep in the dust. Who is like 
 unto Thee, O Lord of might? 
 and who can be compared unto 
 Thee, O King, who killest and 
 makest alive, and causest salvation 
 to shoot forth? And Thou art 
 faithful to bring the dead to life. 
 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who 
 bringest the dead to life. 
 
 17. We confess unto Thee 
 that Thou art He, the Lord our 
 God and the God of our fathers 
 for ever and ever, the Rock of our 
 life, the Shield of our salvation. 
 Thou art He from generation to 
 generation. We will thank Thee 
 and declare Thy praise. Blessed 
 art Thou, O Lord ; Goodness is 
 Thy Name, and to Thee it is meet 
 to give thanks. 
 
 18. Grant peace, goodness 
 and blessing, grace and mercy and 
 compassion, unto us and to all 
 Thy people Israel. Bless us, O 
 our Father, all together with the 
 light of Thy countenance. Thou 
 hast given unto us, O Lord our 
 God, the law of life, and loving- 
 kindness and righteousness and 
 blessing and compassion and life 
 and peace. And may it seem good 
 in Thy sight to bless Thy people 
 Israel at all times and at every 
 moment with Thy peace. Blessed 
 art Thou, O Lord, who blessest 
 Thy people Israel with peace. 
 
 Tov; TreTTTOJKora? eycLpov. ..tov? ace- 
 ^cis (acr^erets) lacraL. . .XvTpwcraL toi)S 
 Secryut'ous ■t^fxwv, i^ai'darrjaov t6v9 acr- 
 ^evoGvras § 59- 
 
 7rtcrT05 €V Tots TreTTOtPocnv ctti ere 
 
 e6c 
 
 60 
 
 Tov...av€K6a]yr)TOV Kparov; aov § 
 
 §61. 
 
 V c, /N 
 
 Toy airoKTeivovra kul Cjjv TrotovvTa 
 
 §59- 
 
 crot i^OfioXoyovfieOa § 6 1. 
 OTi en) et d 0eos /xoVos § 59- 
 
 ets TO (TKCTracrdyjvaL ttj x^'P' ^^^ k.t.A.. 
 
 §60. 
 
 o TTtcTTos iv 7rao"ats rats ycveais § 60. 
 
 Tu Travaperw ovojuart crov § 60, 
 
 8ds, Kvpie, vyif.iav, elprjvrjv, ofXovoLav, 
 €V(TTa$€Lav § 61. 
 
 80s o/xdvoiav Kai elprjvrjv rjixlv t€ kul 
 Tvaa-Lv Tots KaTOiKovo-LV K.T.A. § 60. 
 iTTLfjiai'ov TO 7rpo(T(i}7rov crov iip 7//xas 
 ets dyaOd iv ilpyjvr] § 60. 
 
 [Swi; TTLdTlV, <f)6(30V, elpy^VTjV, VTTOp.6- 
 
 vr]v, jJiaKpodvjXiav, iyKpaTciav, ayvct- 
 av Koi (Tiii^poavvrjv § 64]. 
 
 Kokov Ktti e.vapi(TTOV ivwTTLov arov §61. 
 
 y]ixus A.aos (Tov § 59. 
 
 [d €KAe^ap,ei'os...r/|U.as...£is Xadv ttc- 
 
 piovfXLOv § 58].
 
 39^ EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 These parallels are, I think, highly suggestive, and some others 
 might be gathered from other parts of the Shemoneh Esreh. The 
 resemblance however is perhaps greater in the general tenour of the 
 thoughts and cast of the sentences than in the individual expressions. 
 At the same time it is instructive to observe what topics are rejected 
 as too purely Jewish, and what others are introduced to give expres- 
 sion to Christian ideas. 
 
 One point we must not overlook. The resemblances between this 
 liturgical portion and the rest of the letter, as already shown (p. 386 sq), 
 are so strong that we cannot divorce this portion from Clement's handi- 
 work. To what extent his language in the rest of the epistle was 
 influenced by the prayers with which he was familiar, and to what 
 extent he himself infused his own modes of expression into liturgical 
 forms which he adapted from Jewish sources, it is vain to speculate. 
 
 7. The doctrine. 
 
 It is not my intention to discuss at length the theological opinions, 
 or to put together the doctrinal system, of Clement of Rome from the 
 notices in this epistle. Before doing so we should be obliged, to 
 enquire whether it is worth our while to pursue that which must 
 necessarily elude our search. Christianity was not a philosophy with 
 Clement ; it consisted of truths which should inspire the conscience 
 and mould the life : but we are not led by his language and sentiments 
 to believe that he put these truths in their relations to one another, and 
 viewed them as a connected whole. In short there is no dogmatic 
 system in Clement. 
 
 This, which might be regarded from one point of view as a defect 
 in our epistle, really constitutes its highest value. Irenaeus' singles out 
 Clement's letter as transmitting in its fulness the Christianity taught by 
 the Apostles, more especially by S. Peter and S. Paul. It exhibits the 
 belief of his church as to the true interpretation of the Apostolic 
 records. It draws with no faltering hand the main lines of the 
 faith, as contrasted with the aberrations of heretical, and more especially 
 dualistic, theologies. The character of all the heretical systems was 
 their one-sidedness. They severed the continuity of God's dispensation 
 by divorcing the Old Testament from the New. They saw one aspect 
 of the manifold Gospel to the exclusion of others. They grasped the 
 teaching— or a part of the teaching — of one single Apostle, and 
 neglected the rest. It was the special privilege of the early Roman 
 
 ^ Haer. iii. 3. 3, quoted above, p. 156.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 397 
 
 Church that it had felt the personal influence of both the leading 
 Apostles S. Paul and S. Peter— who approached Christianity from 
 opposite sides — the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostle of the 
 Circumcision (Gal. ii. 7). Comprehensiveness therefore was its heritage, 
 and for some three centuries or more it preserved this heritage com- 
 paratively intact. Comprehensiveness was especially impersonated in 
 Clement, its earliest and chief representative. 
 
 Of this comprehensiveness I have already spoken (p. 95 sq), and it 
 is hardly necessary to add anything here. A writer in the early days of 
 Christianity is best judged doctrinally by the Apostolic books which he 
 reads and absorbs. No one satisfies this test so well as Clement. A 
 writer who shows that he is imbued with the Epistles to the Romans, 
 Corinthians, and Ephesians, not to mention several minor letters of 
 S. Paul, with the First Epistle of S. Peter and the Epistle of S. James, 
 and (along with these) the Epistle to the Hebrews, cannot well have 
 forgotten anything which was essential to the completeness of the 
 Gospel. Attention has been called above (p. 96) more especially to 
 his co-ordination of S. Paul and S. James. Yet from a strictly dog- 
 matical point of view this co-ordination is his weakness. Though he 
 emphasizes faith with fond reiteration, he does not realize its doctrinal 
 significance according to the teaching of S. Paul, as the primary 
 condition of acceptance with God, the mainspring of the Christian life. 
 Thus for instance we cannot imagine S. Paul placing together 'faith and 
 hospitality,' as Clement does twice (§§ 9, 10, Sid ttlutlv koI (faXo^evLav). 
 ' Hospitality ' was a virtue of the highest order, when roads were 
 insecure and inns were fevv^ The members of the Christian brother- 
 hood more especially stood in need of it, for they were in a very literal 
 sense 'strangers' and 'sojourners' in the world. A place like Corinth 
 too, which stood on the great way of transit between the East and the 
 West, would be the most suitable scene for its exercise. But high as it 
 stood as a Christian virtue, it would not have been thus placed by the 
 Apostle side by side with 'faith' as a ground of favour with God. To 
 co-ordinate ' faith ' and ' hospitality ' is to co-ordinate the root of the 
 plant with one of the flowers. Nor again can we suppose that S. Paul 
 could or would have written such a sentence as § 30 epyots hKaiovfxevoi 
 Kol fxrj Xoyot?. Good words are demanded of the Christian as well as 
 good works. But neither the one nor the other 'justifies' in S. Paul's 
 sense of justification. Yet we may well forgive Clement's imperfect 
 appreciation of S. Paul's teaching of 'faith' and 'justification,' seeing 
 
 ^ We read that Melito wrote a treatise on (pCko^evla (Euseb. H. E. iv. 26).
 
 39^ EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 that it has been so commonly misunderstood and limited in later ages, 
 though in a different way, by those who cling to it most tenaciously. 
 On the other hand there are passages in Clement such as § 22 ravra 
 TToiVTa /Se/Baiol rj Iv XptcTTw Trtcms with its context, or again § 31 St/catoo-wT^v 
 K-at a.X.7]$€Lav 8ia Trto-recos TroiT^cras, which show that practically he has 
 caught the spirit of the Pauline teaching, whatever may be the defect in 
 the dogmatic statement. 
 
 Again; we are led to ask, what is the opinion of this writer respecting 
 the doctrines of the Atonement and the Mediation of Christ ? Here we 
 have a ready answer. Without going into detail we may say that one 
 who is so thoroughly imbued with the language and sentiments of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have been blind to the Apostolic 
 teaching on these points. Accordingly he speaks of Jesus Christ not 
 once nor twice only as our High-Priest, and in some passages with other 
 additions which testify to the completeness of his conceptions on this 
 point (§36 Tov dp)(L€pea twv -Trpocr^opojv i]fxwv, tov TrpoaTaT-qv kol f3or]96v 
 T7JS acr^€V€tas tjjjlwv, § 6i tov a|o;^i€pecjD? kol TrpocrraTou rwv \jjv)(<jjv t^fxiov, 
 
 § 64 TOV dp^L€p€M'; Kttt TTpOaTOLTOV T^fX-Wv), wllCrC the WOrd TTpOCTTaTT^S 
 
 ' patron ' or ' guardian ' is his own supplement to the image borrowed 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews and serves to enforce the idea more 
 strongly. So the repeated mention of 'the blood of Christ' (§§ 7, 12, 
 21, 49, 55), with the references to 'ransom,' 'deliverance,' and the like, 
 in the several contexts, tells its own tale. Again the constant recurrence 
 of the preposition Sta denoting the mediatorial channel, 'through Jesus 
 Christ' (see esp. § 36, where Std tovtov recurs five times), varied with 
 the twin expression ' in Jesus Christ,' sufficiently reveals the mind of 
 the writer. Indeed the occurrence of the expression Sid 'Irjaov Xpto-rov 
 twice within the three or four lines in the opening salutation strikes the 
 key-note of the epistle'. To Clement, as to all devout Christian s in 
 all ages, Jesus Christ is not a dead man, whose memory is reverently 
 cherished or whose precepts are carefully observed, but an ever living, 
 ever active Presence, who enters into all the vicissitudes of their being. 
 Nor again can we doubt from the manner in which he adopts the 
 language of the Epistle to the Hebrews (§ 36), that he believed in the 
 
 ^ In speaking of this subject we should rrjs /J.eyaXua^vTjs avrou k.t.X. But for the 
 
 distinguish between the Logos-doctrine reason given in the text (in which I find 
 
 and the Logos-terminology. Thus it that I have been anticipated by Dorner) 
 
 seems to me to be a mistake in Dorner we can hardly deny his recognition of the 
 
 [Fa-son Christi I. i. pp. 101, 356, Eng. r/cc/r/w, though we may see grave reasons 
 
 trans.) and others to maintain that Clement for questioning his use of the tervi. See 
 
 uses X670S in its theological sense on the the note on § 27. 
 strength of such passages as § 27 iv \h-^i^
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 399 
 
 pre-existence of Christ. This indeed is clearly implied in § 16 ovk 
 rjXdiv iv KOfXTToi K.T.X. Of His resurrection he speaks explicitly (§ 24), 
 not only as raised from the dead Himself but also (in S. Paul's lan- 
 guage) as having been made 'the first-fruit' of the general resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 From the discussion of Clement's Christology we turn naturally to 
 the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The genuineness of the words 
 (§ 58) relating to this subject and quoted by S.' Basil (see above, p. 169) 
 was questioned by many. The absence of the passage from the 
 Alexandrian ms afforded an excuse for these doubts. The hesitation 
 was due chiefly to the assumption that this very definite form of words 
 involved an anachronism ; and it was partially justified by the fact that 
 several spurious writings bearing the name of Clement were undoubtedly 
 in circulation in the fourth century when Basil wrote. Those however 
 who gave it a place in the lacuna at the close of the epistle, as I had 
 ventured to do in my first edition, have been justified by the discovery 
 of the Constantinople manuscript and of the Syriac version. It is thus 
 shown to be genuine ; and though, as S. Basil says, it is expressed 
 dpxo-'i'Kf^Tepov, i.e. 'with a more primitive simplicity,' than the doctrinal 
 statements of the fourth century, yet it is much more significant in its 
 context than the detached quotation in this father would have led us to 
 suppose. ' As God liveth,' writes Clement, ' and Jesus Christ liveth, and 
 the Holy Ghost, (who are) the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely 
 etc.,' where the three sacred Names are co-ordinated as in the baptismal 
 formula (Matt, xxviii. 19). The points to be observed here are two- 
 fold. First] for the common adjuration in the Old Testament, 'as 
 the Lord (Jehovah) liveth,' we find here substituted an expression which 
 recognizes the Holy Trinity. Seco?id/y ; this Trinity is declared to be 
 the object or the foundation of the Christian's faith and hope. With 
 this passage also may be compared the words in § 46 ' Have we not 
 one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out 
 upon us?' 
 
 On the other hand our recently discovered authorities throw con- 
 siderable doubt on the reading in an earlier passage of the epistle (§ 2), 
 where the Divinity of Christ is indirectly stated in language almost 
 patripassian, of which very early patristic writings furnish not a few 
 examples. Where Clement speaks of ' His sufferings ' (ra TraOy/xaTa 
 avTov), the two new authorities agree in substituting ' Christ ' (tov Xpia- 
 Tov), as the person to whom the pronoun refers, in the place of ' God ' 
 (tov @£ov) which stands in the Alexandrian ms. This various reading 
 will be discussed in the note on the passage, where the reasons will be
 
 400 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 given which have led me to retain tov ©eoC as on the whole the more 
 probable reading. 
 
 Those who are desirous of pursuing this subject further, may consult 
 Ekker ^(? Ckm. Rom. Prior, ad Cor. Ep. p. 75 sq (1854); Lipsius de 
 Clem. Rom. Ep. Prior. Disq. p. 16 sq (1855) ; Hilgenfeld Apost. Vdter 
 p. 85 sq (1853); Gundert Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. u. Kirche xiv. 
 p. 638 sq, XV. pp. 29 sq, 450 sq, 1854, 1855; Dorner Perso?i Christi i. i. 
 p. 96 sq (Eng. trans. 1861); Ritschl Eiitst. d, Altkathol. Kirche 
 p. 274 sq (ed. 2, 1857); Ewald Gesch. des Voikes Isr. vii. p. 266 sq 
 (1859) ; Reuss Theologie Chretietme 11, p. 318 sq (ed. 2, i860) ; Thiersch 
 Kirche im Apost. Zeitalter p. 247 sq (1850); Westcott Hist, of Canon 
 p. 24 sq (ed. 4, 1875); Uhlhorn Herzog^s Real-Encyclopddie s. v. Clemens 
 von Rom (ed. 2, 1878); Donaldson Apostolical Fathers p. 153 sq (ed. 2, 
 1874); Renan Les Evafigiks p. 318 sq (1877); Wieseler Jahrb. f. 
 Deutsch. Theol. xxii. p. 373 sq (1877); Sprinzl Theol. d. Apost. Vdter 
 pp. 57, 81, 105, 113, 127 sq, etc. (1880); Lechler ^/(?i-/. u. Nachapost. 
 Zeitalter p. 593 sq (ed. 3, 1885); Pfleiderer Pauli7iism 11. p. 135 sq 
 (Eng. trans. 1877), Urchristenthum., p. 640 sq (1887); and others. 
 
 8. The printed text atid editiotis. 
 
 The history of the printed text has been almost exhausted in the 
 account of the documents (p. 116 sq). For nearly two centuries and a 
 half from the first publication of the epistle (a.d. 1633) to the appear- 
 ance of Bryennios' edition (a.d. 1875), the only improvements which 
 were possible in the text consisted in the more careful deciphering of 
 the manuscript which is much blurred and mutilated, the more skilful 
 dealing with the lacunae, and the more judicious use of the extraneous 
 aid to be obtained from the lxx and the quotations in the fathers. 
 
 The list of editions which seemed to me to deserve notice as having 
 advanced in any appreciable degree the criticism or the exegesis of the 
 epistle by original contributions, when my own first edition appeared, 
 is here repeated. The asterisks mark those works which may be re- 
 garded as the most important. As I am dealing here solely with 
 Clement, I have not so distinguished such works as Dressel's, whose 
 additions to our knowledge — not inconsiderable in themselves — are 
 restricted to the other Apostolic Fathers. 
 
 *i633 Oxon. Cleffientis ad Corinthios Epistola Prior; Patricius 
 Junius (P. Young). The 'editio princeps.' After the ist
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 401 
 
 Epistle is added Fragtnentum Epistolae Secundae ex eodem 
 
 MS, but it is not named on the title-page. 
 1637 Oxon. A second edition of the same. 
 1654 Helmest. dementis ad Corinthios Epistola Prior; J. J. Mader : 
 
 taken from Young's edition. Some introductory matter is 
 
 prefixed, and the 2nd Epistle is added as in Young. 
 1669 Oxon. S. Patris et Martyris dementis ad Corinthios Epistola; 
 
 J. Fell (the name however is not given). The 2nd Epistle 
 
 is wanting. 
 167'^ Oxon. A 2nd edition of the same, dementis ad Corinthios 
 
 Epistola I/is added, but not named on the title page. The 
 
 name of the editor is still suppressed. 
 ^1672 Paris. SS. Patmm qiii temporibus Apostolicis floruerunt etc. 
 
 Opera etc.; J. B. Cotelerius (Cotelier). 
 
 1698 Antverp. The same : 'recensuit J. Clericus ' (Leclerc). 
 1724 Amstelaed. Another edition of Cotelier by Leclerc. The notes 
 
 of W. Burton and J. Davies are here printed with others, 
 
 some of them for the first time. 
 1687 Londini. S. dementis Epistolae duae ad Corifithios etc.; P. 
 
 CoLOMESius (Colomies). 
 1695 Londini. The same; 'editio novissima, prioribus longe auction' 
 
 1699 Lipsiae. Bibliotheca Patriim Apostolicorum Graeco-Latina; L. T. 
 
 Ittigius. 
 * 1 7 1 8 Cantabr. Sancti dementis Romani ad Corinthios Epistolae duae ; 
 
 H, WoTTON. See above, p. 118. This edition contains 
 
 notes by J. Bois, Canon of Ely, not before edited. 
 1 72 1 Paris. Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum qXc; P. Coustant. 
 1796 Gotting. The same, re-edited by C. T. G. Schoenemann. 
 1742 Basil. Epistolae Saiutorum Patrum Apostolicorum etc.; J. L. 
 
 Frey. 
 1 746 Londini. SS. Patrum Apostolicorum etc. Opera Genuina etc. ; 
 
 R. Russel. 
 1765 Venet. Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum etc. (l p. 3 sq) ; A. Gal- 
 
 LANDius. The editor has availed himself of a treatise by 
 
 A. Birr, Animadversiones in B. Clemefttis Epistolas, Basil. 
 
 1744. 
 1839 Tubing. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera; C J. Hefele. The 
 
 4th ed. appeared in 1855. 
 *i840 Oxon. S. dementis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. Poly carpi, Patrum 
 
 Apostolicorum, quae super sunt ; GuL. Jacobson. See above, 
 
 p. 118. The 4th edition appeared in 1863. 
 
 CLEM. 26
 
 402 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 1857 Lipsiae. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera; A. R. M. Dressel. 
 The so-called 2nd edition (1863) is a mere reissue, with 
 the addition of a collation of the Sinaitic text of Barnabas 
 and Hermas. 
 *i866 Lipsiae. C/enientis RomaniEpistulaeeic; A. 'Hi'LGY.^'f^iS). It 
 forms the first part of the Novum Testamentum extra Cano- 
 nem Recephwi. 
 
 Further details about editions and translations will be found in 
 Fabricius Bibl. Grccc. iv. p. 829 sq (ed. Harles), and Jacobson's Patres 
 Apostolici p. Ixiv sq. 
 
 The more recent editions, which it would be impertinent, if it were 
 possible, to separate one from another by any special marks of dis- 
 tinction, are the following, 
 
 1. Appendix Codicum Celeberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani. ^N. 
 F. Const. Tischendorf. Lipsiae 1867. 
 
 In this work the editor gives a ' facsimile ' of the Epistles of Clement. 
 It has been described already, p. 119. 
 
 2. S. Clement of Rome. The Two Epistles to the Corinthians. A 
 revised text luith Introdnction and Notes. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. 8vo. 
 London and Cambridge 1869. 
 
 The efforts made by the editor to secure a more careful collation of 
 the readings of the Alexandrian MS are described above, p. 119 sq. 
 The introduction and notes will approve or condemn tViemselves. 
 
 3. dementis Romani ad Corinthios Epistula. Insvnt et altera 
 quam ferunt dementis Epistula et Eragmenta. Ed. J. C. M. Laurent, 
 Svo. Lipsiae 1870. 
 
 The editor had already distinguished himself in this field by one or 
 two admirable conjectures, § 38 co-tco, § 45 tyypa<jiOL (Zur Kritik des 
 Clemens von Rom, in Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. u. Kirche xxiv. 
 p. 416 sq, 1863). This edition is furnished with prolegomena and 
 notes, but the text is perhaps the most important part. The editor has 
 made use of Tischendorf's earlier text and of the first photograph 
 (a.d. 1856; see above, p. 118); but he was not acquainted with my 
 edition which had then but recently appeared. 
 
 4. dementis Romani Epistulae. Ad ipsius Codicis Alexandrini 
 fidem ac modum repetitis euris, edidit Const, de Tischendorf, 4to. 
 
 Lipsiae 1873. 
 
 In his prolegomena and commentarius the editor discusses the 
 points in which he differs from myself with regard to the readings of
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 403 
 
 the Alexandrian ms. The significance of this edition has been dis- 
 cussed by me already (p. 119). 
 
 5. Barnabae Epistula Graece et Latine, Clement is Romani Epistiilae. 
 Recensiieriint atque illustraverunt, etc., Oscar de Gebhardt Esfonus, 
 Adolfus Harnack Livonus. Lipsiae, 1875. This forms the first 
 fasciculus of a new Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, which is called 
 Editio post Dresselianam alteram tertia, but is in fact a new work from 
 beginning to end. 
 
 The joint editors of this valuable edition have divided their work 
 so that the text and apparatus criticus with those portions of the 
 prolegomena which refer to this department are assigned to Gebhardt, 
 while Harnack takes the exegetical notes and the parts of the pro- 
 legomena which refer to date, authorship, reception, etc. The text 
 is constructed with sobriety and judgment ; and in other respects 
 the work is a useful and important contribution to early patristic 
 literature. 
 
 6. Toi) ev aytots Trarpo? rjfxdv KX>;/xevTos liricTKOTrov Poj/atjs at Svo 
 Trpos Koptv^tor? CTTto-ToXat k.t.X. $ia. Bpyennios. 'Ev Kcovo-ravrtvovTroXei 
 
 1875. 
 
 The title of this work is given in full above, p. 121. It marks the 
 commencement of a new era in the history of the text and literature, 
 being founded on a hitherto unknown MS which supplies all the lacunae 
 of A, thus furnishing us for the first time with the Two Epistles of 
 Clement complete. The new ms has been already described at length 
 
 (I.C.). 
 
 It will be remembered that the learned editor had not seen any 
 of the editions pubUshed in western Europe, later than Hilgenfeld's 
 (1866). He was therefore unacquainted with the most recent and 
 accurate collations of the Alexandrian ms, and not unfrequently mis- 
 states its readings accordingly; but he gives the readings of the new 
 MS with praiseworthy accuracy. Occasionally, but ver}' rarely, he has 
 allowed a variation to escape him, as the photograph of this ms, which 
 I hope to give at the end of this volume, will show. These lapses how- 
 ever are mostly corrected in his edition (1883) of the Didache py. His 
 edition of Clement is furnished with elaborate and learned pro- 
 legomena and with a continuous commentary. In the newly recovered 
 portion of the genuine epistle more especially he has collected the 
 Biblical references, which are very numerous here, with great care ; 
 and in this respect his diligence has left only gleanings for subsequent 
 editors. Altogether the execution of this work is highly creditable to 
 
 26 — 2
 
 404 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 the editor, allowance being made for the difficulties which attend an 
 editio princeps. 
 
 7. dementis Romatii Epistidae. Edidii, Coinmentario critico et 
 adtiotationibus instruxit, etc. Ad. Hilgenfeld. ed. 2. Lipsiae 1876. 
 
 In this new edition of the work described above (p. 402) Hilgenfeld 
 has availed himself of the discovery of Bryennios and revised the whole 
 work, so as to bring it down to date. 
 
 8. dementis Romani ad Corinthios quae diciintur Epistulae. Textum 
 ad fidem codicum et Alexandrini et Constantinopolitani niiper inventi re- 
 censuerunt et iUustraverunt O. de Gebhardt, Ad. Harnack. Ed. 2. 
 Lipsiae 1876. 
 
 These editors also have largely revised their earlier edition, greatly 
 improving it and making such additions and alterations as were suggested 
 by the recent discovery. 
 
 9. 6". dement of Rome. An Appendix contai?iing the newly recovered 
 portions. With introductions, notes, and translations. J. B. Lightfoot 
 
 D.D. London 1877. 
 
 This work gave to the world for the first time the readings of a 
 recently discovered Syriac version which is described above, p. 129 sq. 
 In this the editor had the invaluable assistance of Bensly. The newly 
 recovered portions were edited with textual and exegetical notes ; the 
 relations of the three documents were discussed at length; fresh in- 
 troductory matter was added ; a complete translation of the two Epistles 
 was given ; and in the Addenda the various readings exhibited by the 
 two new authorities were recorded, while a few additions were made to 
 the exegetical notes. The greater part of this Appendix is worked into 
 my present (second) edition of Clement. 
 
 10. Opera Patrnm Apostolicoriim. Textum recensuit, Adnotationibus 
 criticis, cxegeticis, historicis illustravit, Versioncm Latitiam, prolegomena, 
 indices addidit Fr. Xav. Funk. Tubingae, Vol. 1. 1878, Vol. 11. 1881. 
 
 Though this is called 'editio post Hegelianam quartam quinta,' it is 
 in fact a new work. The Two Epistles to the Corinthians are con- 
 tained in the first volume; some pseudo-Clementine Hterature in the 
 second. The editor had the advantage of writing after both the ad- 
 ditional documents (the Constantinopolitan ms and the Syriac version) 
 had been published. The introductions are satisfactory; the notes, 
 exegetical and critical, though slight, are good as far as they go ; and 
 the whole edition is marked by moderation and common sense.
 
 THE LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS. 405 
 
 The two photographic reproductions of the Codex Alexandrinus are 
 not inchided in this list, but are described above, pp. 118, 119. 
 
 The edition of Clemens Romanus in Migne's Patrologia Graeca 
 I. II, though excluded from the above list as being a mere reprint of 
 other men's labours, deserves to be mentioned as containing all the 
 Clementine works, genuine and spurious, in a convenient form for. 
 reference. 
 
 The literature connected with and illustrative of the Epistles to the 
 Corinthians is manifold and various — more especially since the dis- 
 covery of the additional documents. A list is given in Gebhardt and 
 Harnack, p. xviii sq, ed. 2, and another in Richardson's Bibliographical 
 Synopsis {Antenicene Fathers) p. i sq (1887). Completeness in such a 
 case is unattainable, but these lists approach as near to it as we have 
 any right to expect.
 
 THE LETTERS ASCRIBED TO S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Of the works falsely ascribed to Clement of Rome something has 
 been said already (p. 99 sq). With the rest of the Clementine literature 
 we are not concerned here ; but a short account of the Letters will not 
 be out of place, since the notices and references to them are some- 
 times perplexing. The extant letters, which bear the name of this 
 father, are nine in number. 
 
 1. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, a genuine work, to which 
 this introduction refers and of which the text is given in my second 
 volume. I cannot find any indications that it was ever translated into 
 Latin before the seventeenth century; and, if so, it must have been a 
 sealed book to the Western Church (see above, p. 146 sq). This sup- 
 position is consistent with the facts already brought forward ; for no 
 direct quotation from it is found in any Latin father who was un- 
 acquainted with Greek. When the Church of Rome ceased to be 
 Greek and became Latin, it was cut off perforce from its earliest 
 literature. The one genuine writing of the only illustrious representa- 
 tive of the early Roman Church was thus forgotten by his spiritual 
 descendants, and its place supplied by forgeries written in Latin or 
 translated from spurious Greek originals. In the same way the 
 genuine Epistles of Ignatius were supplanted first by spurious and 
 interpolated Greek letters, and ultimately by a wretched and trans- 
 parent Latin forgery, containing a correspondence with the Virgin, by 
 which chiefly or solely this father was known in the Western Church for 
 some generations. 
 
 2. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, a very early work, per- 
 haps written before the middle of the second century, but neither an 
 Epistle nor written by Clement. It also is printed in my second volume, 
 and its date and character will be discussed in a special introduction. 
 I need only say here that it early obtained a place after the genuine 
 Epistle, though not without being questioned, as appears from the 
 notice of Eusebius {H. E. iii. 38) and from its position in the Alex- 
 andrian MS. 
 
 These two generally went together and had the widest circulation 
 in the Greek Church to very late tunes.
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 407 
 
 3, 4. The Two Epistles on Virginity, extant only in Syriac. They 
 were first published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by J. J. 
 Wetstein (Lugd. Bat. 1752), who maintained their genuineness. They 
 have found champions also in their two latest editors, Villecourt (Paris 
 1853) whose preface and translation are reprinted with the text in 
 Migne's Patrologia i. p. 350 sq, and Beelen (Louvain 1856) whose 
 edition is in all respects the most complete : and other Roman Catholic 
 divines have in like manner held them to be genuine. A Latin trans- 
 lation, derived mainly from Beelen, is assigned a place in the 2nd 
 volume of Funk's Fatres Apostolici, but he does not defend their genuine- 
 ness. The lame arguments urged in many cases by their impugners 
 have given to their advocates almost the appearance of a victory ; but 
 weighty objections against them still remain, unanswered and un- 
 answerable. To say nothing of the style, which differs from that of the 
 true Clement, the manner and frequency of the quotations from the 
 New Testament, and the picture presented of the life and development 
 of the Church, do not accord with the genuine epistle and point to a 
 later age. For these reasons the Epistles to Virgins can hardly have 
 been written before the middle of the second century. At the same 
 time they bear the stamp of high antiquity, and in the opinion of some 
 competent writers (e.g. Westcott Canon p. 162, Hefele in Wetzer u. 
 Welte's Kirchen-Lexico7i 11. p. 586) cannot be placed much later than 
 this date. Neander {Church History i. p. 408, Bohn's transl.) places 
 them 'in the last times of the second or in the third century'. As they 
 seem to have emanated from Syria, and the Syrian Church changed less 
 rapidly than the Greek or the Western, it is safer to relax the limits of 
 the possible date to the third century. 
 
 The MS which contains them is now in the Library of the Seminary 
 of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (no. 184) and is fully described by 
 Beelen. It forms the latter part of what was once a complete copy of 
 the Syriac New Testament, but of which the early part containing the 
 Gospels is lost. It bears the date 1781 (i.e. a.d. 1470), and was 
 brought to Europe from Aleppo in the last century. 'The first 17 
 quires are lost,' says Prof Gwynn', 'with three leaves of the iSth, as 
 appears from the numbering. The extant quires are of ten leaves each ; 
 and therefore, if the lost quires were so likewise, the first 173 leaves are 
 wanting. The Gospels would fill, I calculate, little more than 130; so 
 that the lost quires must have contained other matter — capitulations, 
 
 ^ In a written memorandum, which he thus enabled me to correct the account 
 has communicated to me. Prof. Gwynn given in my fust edition, 
 has himself examined the manuscript and
 
 4o8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 no doubt, and perhaps lection-tables — possibly the Apocalypse, placed 
 after S. John's Gospel, as in Lord Crawford's Syriac MS no. 2. But 
 the subscription describes its contents as only the Gospels, the Acts, 
 and the Pauline Epistles.' It includes other books of the New Testa- 
 ment besides those which have a place in the Peshito Canon. After the 
 books comprised in this Canon, of which the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 stands last, the scribe has added a doxology and a long account of 
 himself and the circumstances under which the MS was written. Then 
 follow in the same handwriting 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, 'secundum 
 versionem Philoxenianam,' says Beelen (p. x). ' He may possibly mean 
 by these words,' writes Prof. Gwynn, 'to designate the version com- 
 monly known as the Pococke text which in the Paris and London 
 Polyglots, and in all ordinary modern printed editions, appears as 
 part of the Syriac New Testament and which many believe to be 
 the original Philoxenian version of a.d. 508. If so, he is right ; 
 for these epistles are given in that version, not in the version which 
 was printed by White and designated by him (as it has been commonly, 
 though inexactly, designated since) the Philoxenian — more correctly 
 the Harclean or Harcleo-Philoxenian, the revision published by Thomas 
 of Harkel a.d. 616. The scribe however of this MS (or of the ms 
 whence he copied these four Epistles) must have had a Harclean copy 
 at hand. For (i) alternative renderings are in the margin in four places 
 (2 Pet. iii. 5, 10; 2 Joh. 8; 3 Joh. 7), all borrowed from the Harclean; 
 and (2) in one place (Jude 7) a Harclean rendering has been substituted 
 in the text, which I believe no extant Greek ms countenances. Wetstein 
 notes this as a variant, but was not aware that it was Harclean.' 
 
 Immediately after the Epistle of S. Jude there follow in succes- 
 sion ' The First Epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the 
 Apostle^ and ' The Second Epistle of the same Clefnent.' Thus the two 
 Epistles on Virginity hold the same position in this late Syrian copy 
 which is held by the two Epistles to the Corinthians in the Alexan- 
 drian MS. This is possibly due to a mistake. A Syrian transcriber, 
 finding the ' Two Epistles of Clement ' mentioned at the end of some 
 list of canonical books, might suppose that the two letters with which 
 alone he was acquainted were meant, and thus assign to them this 
 quasi-canonical position in his ms. 
 
 Though the fact has been questioned, there can be no reasonable 
 doubt that these two epistles were known to Epiphanius and ac- 
 cepted by him as genuine. Arguing against those heretics who 
 received the Itinerary of Peter as a genuine writing of Clement 
 i^Haer. xxx. 15, p. 139), he urges that 'Clement himself refutes them
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 4^9 
 
 on all points from the encyclical letters which he wrote and which 
 are read in the holy churches (a<^' wv eypaif/ev eTrto-ToXwv eyKVK\Lwv twv 
 iv rats aytais eKxAr^crtais avaytvwCTKo/xevwv) ', for his faith and discourse 
 have a different stamp from the spurious matter fathered upon his 
 name by these persons in the Itinerary : he himself teaches virginity, 
 and they do not admit it; he himself praises Elias and David and 
 Samson and all the prophets, whom these men abominate.' This is 
 an exact description in all respects of the Epistles to Virgins ; while 
 on the other hand the letters to the Corinthians (not to mention that 
 they could not properly be called ' encyclical ') contain no special 
 praise of virginity (for the passages § 38 d ayvos k.t.A. and § 48 tJtu) 
 ayvds K.T.A. are not exceptions) but speak of the duties of married life 
 (§ I, 21), and make no mention at all of Samson. Indeed it appears 
 highly probable that Epiphanius had no acquaintance with the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians. He once alludes to the genuine letter, but not as 
 though he himself had seen it. ' Clement,' he writes {Haer. xxvii. 6, p. 
 107; see above, p. 169), 'in one of his epistles says, 'Amx^pw, aTreifxL, 
 IvaTadrjroi (1. evo-TadecTO)) 6 Xaos tov @eov, giving this advice to certain 
 persons : for I have found this noted down in certain Memoirs 
 (r]vpofJi€v yap eV Ttcriv VTro/xvT^/xaTKT/Aors toCto eyKCtjuevov).' This is doubt- 
 less meant for a passage in the genuine epistle (§ 54). But the quotation 
 is loose, and the reference vague. Moreover Epiphanius states that he 
 got it at second hand. I have already given (p. 328 sq) what seems to 
 me a highly probable explanation of these vTrofjivrjfxarLcrfxoL, which he 
 mentions as the source of his information. 
 
 To Jerome also these epistles were known. He must be referring 
 to them when he writes (adv. Jovin. i. 12, 11. p. 257), 'Ad hos (i.e. 
 eunuchos) et Clemens successor apostoli Petri, cujus Paulus apostolus 
 meminit, scribit epistolas, omnemque fere sermonem suum de virgi?iitatis 
 puritate contexit.' This reference again seems to me unquestionable. Not 
 only is the description perfectly appropriate as referring to the Epistles 
 addressed to Virgins, but it is wholly inapplicable as applied to any 
 other epistles — genuine or spurious — known to have borne the name 
 of Clement. Throughout this treatise indeed Jerome betrays a know- 
 ledge of these Clementine Epistles to Virgins, though he only refers to 
 them this once. The parallels are too close to allow any other inference, 
 unless we should suppose that both Jerome and the spurious Clement 
 borrowed from some one and the same earlier work — a solution which 
 is excluded by the one direct reference'. On the other hand it is 
 
 ^ These parallels, which had been over- eluded), are pointed out in Cotterill's 
 looked by preceding writers (myself in- Modern Criticism and dementis Epistles
 
 4IO 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 strange that in his Catalogue of Christian writers (§ 15) he mentions 
 only the two Epistles to the Corinthians. Here indeed, as in other 
 parts of this treatise, he copies Eusebius implicitly ; but as he proffers 
 his own opinion ('quae ?////// videtur ') of the resemblance between the 
 First Epistle of Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews (though even 
 this opinion exactly coincides with the statement of Eusebius), and as 
 moreover in several other passages he quotes from the genuine letter 
 (/;/ Is. lii. 13, IV. p. 612 ; ad Ephes. ii. 2, vii. p. 571 ; ad Ephes. iv. i, 
 VII. p. 606), we may give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose 
 that he had himself read it'. The quotations, if they had stood alone, 
 he might have borrowed from earlier commentators. 
 
 Epiphanius was intimately connected with Syria and Palestine, and 
 Jerome spent some time there. Both these fathers therefore would 
 have means of acquainting themselves with books circulated in these 
 churches. As regards the latter, we must suppose that he first became 
 acquainted with the Epistles to Virgins in the not very long interval 
 between the publication of the Catalogue and of the work against 
 Jovinianus ; and, as this interval was spent at Bethlehem, the sup- 
 position is reasonable". The alternative is, that in writing against 
 
 I 
 
 to Virgins p. 29 sq (Edinburgh, 1884). 
 He himself takes up the strange and un- 
 tenable position, that the author of these 
 Clementine Epistles borrows from Jerome, 
 and not conversely — notwithstanding 
 Jerome's own reference. 
 
 ^ I have no pretensions to that accurate 
 knowledge of S. Jerome's works which 
 Mr Cotterill considers it a disgrace not 
 to possess ; but I think I know enough 
 to say that — especially in his contro- 
 versial writings — he is not a writer to 
 whom I should look for strict accuracy 
 and frankness. Cotterill's main argu- 
 ment depends on Jerome's possession of 
 these two qualities in the highest de- 
 gree: yet with strange inconsistency he 
 argues (p. 25) that 'quae viilii videtur' 
 means nothing at all when Jerome says 
 of a work, which (on Mr Cotterill's own 
 showing) he had never seen, that it 'ap- 
 pears to him' to resemble the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews ' non solum sensibus sed 
 juxta verborum quoque ordinem' etc. 
 This would naturally be taken to imply 
 
 personal knowledge, more especially as 
 the position of the words suggests a con- 
 trast to the notice (in the next clause) of 
 the 'Disputatio Petri et Appionis,' of 
 which he says ' Eusebius... coarguit,' thus 
 quoting the authority of another. Never- 
 theless I feel very far from certain that 
 Jerome had himself read or seen the 
 epistle. 
 
 ^ 'We must now pass on,' writes Mr 
 Cotterill (p. 31), 'to Ep. xxii written to 
 Eustochium specially upon the subject of 
 virginity. This letter was written before 
 the Catalogue, and is referred to in it 
 § 135. If it be found that — if the epistles 
 were in existence — ^Jerome used them in 
 this letter, Dr Lightfoot's theory that he 
 had no knowledge of them until after 
 writing the Catalogue will be effectually 
 disposed of. A single passage will amply 
 suffice etc' He then quotes from § 7 sq 
 of the Second Epistle, and shows the 
 close resemblance to Jerome Epist. xxii 
 § II, 12 (p. 95), 'ad Eustochium.' Again 
 after this he sums up ; ' This theory being
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 
 
 4tl 
 
 Jovinianus he for polemical purposes assumed the genuineness of these 
 Clementine letters, which he had silently ignored a year or two before. 
 
 now effectually disposed of, the difficulty 
 which it was intended to meet comes 
 back with full force. If Jerome knew 
 the epistles at all, he knew them all 
 through his life' (p. 34). Now I believe 
 with Mr Cotterill that {the resemblances 
 being so close) the two passages cannot be 
 independent; but though I am sorry to 
 mar the exultation of his triumph, I 
 venture to submit that my theory — on 
 which however I lay no stress and which 
 I am prepared to resign if any better can 
 be found, or if it can be proved to be 
 wi'ong, though it seems to me to be the 
 most probable explanation consistent with 
 Jerome's perfect straightforwardness — is 
 not yet 'effectually disposed of.' I would 
 only make two remarks in reply : 
 
 (i) From what private source is the 
 information drawn that the Letter to 
 Eustochmm was written after the Cata- 
 logus? The Letter to Eustochium is 
 assigned by Vallarsi on excellent grounds 
 to the year a.d. 384; the Catalogiis was 
 certainly circulated some years before 
 this (the date assigned is a.d. 378; see 
 above, p. 173), and is referred to by 
 Jerome himself at an earlier date (e.g. 
 adv. Jovinian. ii. 26, II. p. 279). But the 
 last chapter (§ 135), to which Mr Cotterill 
 refers, was as certainly added to the 
 Catalogiis at some later revision or re- 
 publication, as Jerome gives the date 
 'praesentem annum, id est, Theodosii 
 principis decimum quartum' [a.d. 392], 
 in the beginning of the same chapter 
 about ten lines before the mention of the 
 Epistle to Enstochiuin. These dates 
 might have been learnt easily fi-om 
 Vallarsi's edition which (if we may judge 
 by the paging) Mr Cotterill himself used ; 
 see also Clinton Fasti Romani i. p. 527. 
 Truly an unkind but not unrighteous 
 nemesis betrayed our merciless censor at 
 the very moment when he was hurling his 
 
 severest reproaches at others into this 
 cruel pitfall which lay before his very 
 eyes. Like star-gazing Thales of old, our 
 stern mentor, falling into the well which 
 lies at his feet, may well provoke a smile 
 in us mere household drudges of criti- 
 cism (depawaLvls airoaKf^ipai. Xeyerai, <I)S to. 
 fxh iv ovpavip Trpo6v/j.olTO eldevai. to. 8e 
 ^/xwpoadev avrou /cat Trapa irddas Xavddvoi 
 avrdv). 
 
 (2) The spurious Clement, warning 
 his readers of the danger of falling away 
 from chastity, speaks of those 'qnihtmbos 
 snos volunt siiccingcre veraciter,' as the 
 passage is printed in the Latin version of 
 Beelen and Funk, followed in two places 
 by Cotterill (pp. 32, 40). In none of 
 these critics is there any indication of the 
 true source of the quotation. Beelen (p. 
 96) says distinctly that it is an allusion to 
 Luke xii. 35 (xii. 95, as he prints incor- 
 rectly) 'i(jj(j3(jav vfxui' ai 6cr<pves Trepie^ucr- 
 /xevai. Cotterill twice alludes to the 
 'succingere veraciter' (pp. 33, 35), and 
 says (I know not why) that it 'suggests 
 that he [the spurious Clement] was the 
 copyist.' The real source of the quota- 
 tion is not Luke xii. 35, but Ephes. vi. 
 14 irepi^wadfj.ei'oi ttjv oa^iiv v/jlui' ev oXt]- 
 Oeiq.. The Syriac has not veraciter, as 
 it is loosely translated by Beelen, but in 
 veritate, as it is correctly given by Wet- 
 stein, though in his edition a misprint in 
 the Syriac context entirely obliterates the 
 reference to Ephes. vi. 14. The render- 
 ing of Villecourt (Clem. Rom. I. p. 438, 
 ed. Migne) is quite wild and substitutes a 
 paraphrase 'qui immaculatos se custodire 
 volunt.' The original Greek expression 
 is happily preserved in Antiochus Horn. 
 xvii p. 1052 Tots OiXovatv ev dXTjdeta ttjv 
 6cr(pvv TrepL^wcracxdai, quoted by Cotterill 
 himself (p. 40). Jerome amplifies this 
 interpretation of 'girding the loins,' 
 dwelling especially on Job xl. 16 (xl. 11),
 
 412 
 
 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Besides the references in Epiphanius and Jerome, the * First 
 Epistle on Virginity' is quoted also by Timotheus of Alexandria 
 (a.d. 457) in his work against the Council of Chalcedon, of which 
 parts are preserved in a Syriac translation (see above, p. 181). But it 
 would- appear that these epistles were not known or not commonly 
 known westward of these regions. Even Eusebius betrays no knowledge 
 of them. The fact which Epiphanius mentions, that they were read in 
 the churches, is noteworthy, if true. In this case the reading would 
 probably be confined to a few congregations in Syria and Palestine. 
 But it is probable that he carelessly repeats a notice which he had read 
 elsewhere and which in his original authority referred not to these, but 
 to the two Epistles to the Corinthians. The existing Syriac text is 
 doubtless a translation from a Greek original, as the phenomena of 
 the letters themselves suggest (see Beelen p. Ixiii), and as the references 
 in these fathers seem to require. The quotation in Timotheus of 
 Alexandria is evidently an independent translation from the Greek. 
 
 A later writer also, Antiochus the Monk [c. a.d. 620], quotes 
 very largely from these Epistles on Virginity, though without mentioning 
 them or their supposed author by name. This is his common practice 
 in deaUng with early writers, as we find in the case of Ignatius, from 
 
 and Job xxxviii. 3. Cotterill says (p. 35) 
 that 'the line which Jerome takes as to 
 girding the loins is strictly his own,' 
 and refers to In Jerem. i. 17, [iv.] 
 p. 842, In Ephcs. vi. 14, [vii.] p. 678. 
 To these references I would add In 
 Ezech. xvi. 4 (v. p. 145). When I 
 read these words, I felt tolerably sure 
 that this interpretation, which indeed is 
 not uncommon in patristic writings, 
 would be found at all events as early as 
 Origen ; and I was not disappointed. In 
 his work In Levit. Horn, iv § 6 (11. p. 202, 
 Delarue), speaking of the dress of the 
 priest in offering the burnt offering (Lev. 
 vi. 8 sq), he writes 'Hoc est quod 
 Dominus in Evangeliis praecipit ut sint 
 lumbi vestri praecincti etc.'' (Luke xii. 35), 
 and he explains 'femoralibus utitur qui 
 luxuriam fluxae libidinis cingulo restrin- 
 xerit castitatis ; ante omnia enim sacerdos 
 (jui divinis assistit altaribus castitate debet 
 accingi.' Again in another extant work 
 of Origen, In Ezccli. Horn, vi g 4 (iii. 
 
 p. 378), we have the source whence the 
 corresponding passage in Jerome is taken. 
 In fact Jerome copies from his prede- 
 cessors not only the interpretation of 
 'girding the loins', which he would find 
 alike in the spurious Clement and in 
 Origen, but most of the illustrations like- 
 wise. But, as I cannot suppose that Mr 
 Cotterill lays down for others a more 
 stringent literary rule than he carries out 
 himself, I must believe that he read the 
 whole of Jerome's Commentary on the 
 Ephesians io which he refers, and there 
 found in the preface that Jerome ex- 
 presses frankly his obligations to Origen's 
 three books (no longer extant) on this 
 same epistle (vil. p. 543, Vallarsi) ; and 
 it is a matter of regret that he did not 
 follow in the track thus suggested to him 
 and search in this father's extant works 
 before he made the assertion which I 
 have been discussing. By this precau- 
 tion he would have saved himself from 
 this second pitfall.
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 
 
 41 
 
 whom he borrows numerous extracts without acknowledgment, while only 
 on one occasion, I believe, mentioning his name (see Ignat. afid Polyc. 
 I. p. 197 sq, ed. I p. 205 sq, ed. 2.) In the case of the spurious Clement 
 he does not in a single instance mention the source of the quotations 
 incorporated in his text, just as he borrows numerous passages from 
 Hermas without any indication of their authorship. They are so 
 numerous however in our pseudo-Clement, that we are able to restore 
 
 ^ To Cotterill (p. 37 sq) the credit is 
 due of pointing out the passages which 
 the spurious Clement has in common 
 with Antiochus, though overlooked not 
 only by outsiders like myself, but by all 
 the editors and commentators of the 
 epistles themselves from Wetstein dovi'n- 
 ward. The severe scolding which we 
 get is a small price to pay for the infor- 
 mation. It costs me the less to make 
 this acknowledgment of gratitude, be- 
 cause I feel confident that in the main 
 point of difference between us the opinion 
 of posterity will not be on his side. But 
 it is somewhat sad that so much diligence 
 and research, which might do excellent 
 service in other fields, has- been expended 
 on the maintenance of a view which plain 
 testimony, plainly interpreted, shows to 
 be impossible. Here again, as in the 
 case of the Epistles to the Corinthians 
 (see above, p. 362, note 2), he reverses the 
 true order, making Antiochus the original 
 and the author of these epistles the 
 plagiarist. Indeed to maintain his cart- 
 before-the-horse theory he uses some 
 curious arguments; e.g. he finds (p. 46) 
 in the fact that the pseudo-Clement {Ep. 
 i § 2) uses the words oboedumt illi qui 
 dixit (as it is rendered by Funk), whereas 
 Antiochus {Horn. 98) has aKovti Tov\eyov- 
 Tos, a confirmation of his view, arguing as 
 follows ; ' The point of our writer's pre- 
 fatory remark lies in the word obey. 
 Here again, as so often, a weaker word 
 aKoiei is used by Antiochus.' If from 
 Funk's translation (which follows Beelen) 
 he had turned to Wetstein's, he would 
 have found audiunt eum qui dixit, and 
 
 if from the translations he had turned 
 to the Syriac itself (Beelen, p. 7), he 
 would have discovered that the ordinary 
 Shemitic word yoti' (Hebrew, as well 
 as Syriac) for 'to hear' was used. So 
 much for the 'weaker word.' It is 
 quite pardonable not to know Syriac; 
 but I will leave my readers to form 
 their own opinion of this criticism from 
 the pen of one who lays down such 
 stringent rules for others. To most 
 minds indeed the veiy parallels which 
 Mr Cotterill gathers together between 
 the pseudo-Clement and Antiochus (p. 
 115 sq), to prove the priority of the latter, 
 will suggest a wholly different conclusion. 
 Is it not a striking fact that in five 
 several places at least (pp. 115, 116, 117, 
 123, 124), where Ignatian texts are in- 
 corporated in Antiochus in the midst of 
 matter which runs parallel with the 
 pseudo-Clement, these texts are wanting 
 in the pseudo-Clement? How could a 
 later writer, impersonating Clement, have 
 avoided all these pitfalls, adopting the 
 matter before and after from Antiochus 
 and rejecting these texts, though there 
 is no indication in Antiochus that they 
 are quotations? The same question may 
 be asked also of the quotation from 
 Dionysius the Areopagite {Cael. Hier. 
 iii. 2) in Hom. 122 (comp. Ep. ad Virg. 
 i. 13; see Cotterill pp. 73, 122). 
 
 As bearing on this question I may call 
 attention to Cotterill's remark (p. 89 sq). 
 ' In Hom. 1 1 2 Antiochus has Kal t^s a.yvda's 
 rov TToXvfjLoxdop Kal TroS-vfiLcxdov ttXovtov. 
 It seems impossible not to suppose that 
 Antiochus has in view Ignat. ad Polyc. i
 
 414 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 large fragments of the original Greek text from which the Syriac was 
 translated. These plagiarisms are most extensive in Horn. 17, 18, 21, 
 99, III, 112, 122, 130, but they occur elsewhere. 
 
 The writing or writings of Clement mentioned in Ebed-Jesu's 
 Catalogue (Assemani Bibl. Orient, iii. p. 13) may be these epistles, 
 but the allusion is more probably to the Apostolic Constitutions. 
 
 These Epistles on Virginity may have been suggested by the fame 
 of Clement as the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians ; but the 
 traces which they contain of any knowledge of this letter are few and 
 disputable. Their contents are described without exaggeration by 
 Jerome, as quoted above (p. 160), and need not occupy us here. 
 
 5. The Epistle to Jatnes the Lord^s brother, giving an account of 
 S. Clement's appointment by S. Peter as his successor in the see of 
 Rome, and containing also the Apostle's directions relating to the 
 functions of church-officers and the general administration of the 
 Church. Whether this letter was originally prefixed to the Homilies or 
 to the Recognitions or to some other work of the Petro-Clementine 
 cycle different from either, is still a moot question. Under any cir- 
 cumstances its date can hardly be earlier than the middle of the 
 second century or much later than the beginning of the third. In the 
 original Greek it is now found prefixed to the Homihes in the mss, 
 and may be read conveniently in the editions of this work (e.g. Dressel 
 
 ovov yap irXeiwv kowos ttoKv Kal to K^pSos ttoXv/jloxOos Kal 7ro\vfXLa9os of the pseudo- 
 
 [the correct text is ottou TrXeioiv kottos, Clement. 
 
 TroXu Kepoos] our writer's version of Antio- These examples must suffice. I should 
 
 chxysi'vivirginitatisquaentresestinagjiila- have much more to say on this subject, 
 
 boris,ita et magnam quoque habel mercedevi if it were not waste of time for myself 
 
 {Ep- i. 5). Our writer seems more nearly and my readers to dwell so long on a 
 
 to have approached Ignatius.' If instead subject which is only remotely connected 
 
 of trusting the translation of Beelen and with the Epistles to the Corinthians. No 
 
 Funk he had consulted the Syriac, he one would lay much stress on the coinci- 
 
 would have found that it runs 'virgi- dences between the true Clement and 
 
 nitatis cujus magnus labor et magna the Epistles on Virginity (see above, p. 
 
 merces,' the closest rendering which the 160), even though they seem to show a 
 
 genius of the Syriac language allows of knowledge of the genuine work on the 
 
 ■Ko\viiox&o% Kal Tro\vfjx(Tdos. As my notes part of the author of the spurious. Nor 
 
 on the passage of Ignatius show, and as again is it a matter of real moment for my 
 
 appears from Mr Cotterill's own illustra- purpose, whether the Epistles on Virginity 
 
 tions, the idea, which is a very obvious were written in the latter half of the first 
 
 one, was probably embodied in ' some century or the first half of the fourth — 
 
 ancient yud/j.-rj,' to use his own language. the latest date at which the direct evi- 
 
 At all events such parallels are much dence will allow us to place them, 
 nearer to the words of Ignatius than the
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 
 
 415 
 
 or Lagarde). About the end of the fourth century it was translated 
 into Latin by Rufinus. In the preface to the Recognitions, which he 
 afterwards translated, he mentions this fact, and excuses himself from 
 again reproducing it partly on this ground. Not unnaturally his trans- 
 lation of the one came to be attached to his translation of the other : 
 and the letter is often found in the mss prefixed or affixed to the 
 larger work. In one of the two earliest known mss of the Recognitions 
 ( Vercell. i. clviii), belonging to the sixth or seventh century, the letter 
 follows the main work. Notwithstanding its questionable doctrine, this 
 epistle is quoted as genuine by the synod of Vaison (see above, p. 177) 
 held A.D. 442, and is cited occasionally by popes and synods from this 
 time onward. 
 
 Besides many important questions relating to the early history of 
 Christianity which are connected with this letter, it is interesting also 
 as having been made the starting point of the most momentous and 
 gigantic of mediaeval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals. In its first 
 form, as left by Rufinus, the Latin ends ' sub eo titulo quem ipse (i. e. 
 Petrus) praecepit affigi, id est dementis Itinerarium Praedicationis Petri ' ; 
 sed et nunc jam exponere quae praecepit incipiam,' in accordance with 
 the Greek. But when incorporated in the false Decretals, where it 
 stands at the head of the pontifical letters, it is extended to more than 
 twice its original length by some additional instructions of S. Peter for 
 which the words 'exponere quae praecepit incipiam' furnish the occa- 
 sion, and ends ' regni ejus mereamur esse consortes.' In this longer 
 form it may be read conveniently in Mansi Cojicilia i. p. 91 (Flor. 1759), 
 or in Migne's Patrol. Grace, i. p. 463, where all the Decretal letters 
 bearing the name of Clement are printed, or in the Decretales Pseudo- 
 Isidorianae p. 30 sq (ed. Hinschius). 
 
 6. A Second Epistle to James, relating to the administration of the 
 eucharist, to church furniture, etc. The date of this forgery is uncer- 
 tain, but it is evidently much later than the former. It would form a 
 very obvious sequel to the earlier letter which spoke of ecclesiastical 
 
 ^ As this title is sometimes read 'de- 
 mentis Itinerarium non Praedicationis Pe- 
 tri' (so Cotelier Pair. Ap. i. p. 620), and 
 as arguments respecting the letter have 
 been built upon this fact {e.g. Uhlhorn 
 Hoiiiil. u. Recogn, p. 82, Hilgenfeld Nov. 
 Test. extr. Can. Rec. iv. p. 53), I may say 
 that of some 30 mss which I have ex- 
 amined, only one {Brussels 5220, roth 
 
 cent.) has the negative ; that it is aljsent 
 in the oldest of all ( Vercelli i. clviii) ; and 
 that it must therefore be regarded as a 
 mere interpolation, whether by accident 
 or from design. In the Brussels MS the 
 epistle occurs as one of the Decretal let- 
 ters; but even in such copies I have not 
 elsewhere found the negative.
 
 4i6 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 officers, and was doubtless suggested by it. As no Greek original is 
 known to exist, and it appears to have been written in Latin, its date 
 must at all events be after Rufinus' translation of the First Letter to 
 James, i.e. not before the beginning of the fifth century. 
 
 This letter is generally found in company with the preceding, and 
 sometimes the two are attached to copies of the Recognitions, but 
 this only occurs in comparatively late mss. Like the First Epistle to 
 James, this also was incorporated in the false Decretals, forming the 
 second in the series of pontifical letters ; and for this purpose it ap- 
 pears to have been interpolated and enlarged in a similar manner'. In 
 its shorter form it begins * Clemens Jacobo carissimo,' and ends * dam- 
 nationem accipiet ((^r acquiret)' : in its longer form the opening generally 
 runs ' Clemens Romanae ecclesiae praesul,' and the ending is ' reve- 
 rentissime frater [Amen].' The two forms will be found in Mansi Cone. 
 I. pp. 126, 158. 
 
 When attached to the Recognitions, the two letters to James have 
 almost universally the shorter form, as might be expected. Among a 
 large number of mss of the Recognitions which I have examined, I 
 have only found one exception, Ttirui D. iii. 17 (cod. cc, Passini), 
 where they are so attached in the longer form, though probably other 
 examples exist. 
 
 The MSS of these two epistles, both separate from and attached 
 to the Recognitions, are very numerous \ and in the Latin Church after 
 the age of S. Jerome, when the 'Two Epistles of Clement' are men- 
 tioned, we may generally assume that the reference is to these. Such, 
 I can hardly doubt, is the case in the ' Liber Pontificalis,' where in the 
 notice of Clement it is said in the earlier edition {a.d. 530 — 532; see 
 
 1 The sources of these false Decretals James were translated from the Greek by 
 
 are investigated by Knust de Fontibits et Rufinus. This is a mistake. In some 
 
 Ccmsilio Pscndoisid. Coll., GoiimgcniBii. Mss indeed the 2nd Epistle is stated to 
 
 For the literature of the subject generally have been translated by him, but then 
 
 see Migne's Patrol. Lat. cxxx. p. xxiv, the same statement is likewise made of 
 
 Rosshirt Zu den Kirchenr. Quellen etc. one or more of the remaining three in- 
 
 p. 39. The very thorough and excellent eluded in the false Decretals. It must 
 
 edition of the Dccrdalcs Pseudo-Isidori- therefore be regarded either as a device 
 
 anae (Lips. 1863) by P. Hinschius ap- of the forger aiming at verisimilitude, or 
 
 peared after my first edition. It contains as an error of some transcriber carrying 
 
 not only a revised text and apparahis on the statement from the ist Epistle to 
 
 critiais, but a preface in which all ques- those following. Internal probability 
 
 tions relating to date, place, authorship, and external evidence alike are unfavour- 
 
 and sources, are fully discussed. Ross- able to the supposition that Rufinus trans- 
 
 hirt (p. 47) states that the two letters to lated the second letter.
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 417 
 
 above, p. 304) 'Fecit duas epistolas' {Liber Pontificalis i. p. 53, 
 Duchesne), which in the later edition (not after a. d. 687; see above, 
 p. 307) is expanded into * Hie fecit duas epistolas quae canonicae (v. 1. 
 catholicae)' nominantur' {Lib. Pont. i. p. 123). This last expression 
 it should be added, occurs of the two Epistles of S. Peter in the Life of 
 the Apostle himself in both editions (pp. 51, ii8)^ Indeed the editor 
 of the later recension quotes the Epistle to James in the Life of Peter 
 (p. 118) and refers to it distinctly again ('in epistola quae ad Jacobum 
 scripta est qualiter ei a beato Petro commissa est ecclesia ') in the Life 
 of Clement (p. 1 23) ; and the earlier recension at all events shows a know- 
 ledge of the writings of this pseudo-Clementine cycle by describing 
 Clement as 'ex patre Faustino' (p. 53). Nor does this view present 
 any chronological difficulty. Lipsius indeed raises the objection^ that 
 'the original edition of the Liber Pontificalis was probably borrowed 
 from a more ancient source,' which he has * succeeded in discovering 
 in the Catalogus Leonitms of the year 440.' He therefore concludes 
 that my explanation of the two Epistles of Clement mentioned in the 
 Liber Pontificalis 'will scarcely bear examination.' I have already dis- 
 cussed (p. 311 sq) this Leonine Catalogue and acknowledged the great 
 service which Lipsius has rendered to the pedigree of the papal lists 
 by supplying this missing link; but I have there pointed out (p. 317) 
 that there is no reason for supposing that this Catalogue contained 
 anything more than the names and the terms of office, and no evidence 
 at all to show that it comprised short biographies. The earlier re- 
 cension of the Liber Pontificalis therefore is the first place (so far as 
 our present knowledge goes) where the notice ' fecit duas epistolas ' 
 occurs. At this late date there is no difficulty in supposing that * the 
 Second Epistle to James ' was in circulation. It is actually found in 
 
 ^ If the reading 'canonicae' be correct gives in the Life of Peter 'canonicae' in 
 
 (and it is much less likely to have been the text and 'catholicae' as a variant in 
 
 substituted for 'catholicae' than the con- the notes in the earlier recension ; 'catho- 
 
 verse) this is decisive; for the two letters licae' in the text and 'canonicae' among 
 
 to James are strictly 'canonicae' in the the variants in the Life of Peter (p. 118), 
 
 technical sense, i.e. they contain ccclesi- and 'catholicae' both in the text and as 
 
 astical canons and directions. But even a variant in the notes in the Life of 
 
 'catholicae' is more aj^propriate to these Clement (p. 123). There is obviously a 
 
 than to the Epistles to the Corinthians, misprint somewhere, but I do not know 
 
 for they are addressed to the 'bishop of how to correct it; for he comments on 
 
 bishops' and are of Church-wide applica- 'catholicae' in his exegetical notes on 
 
 tion, whereas the Corinthian letters deal Clement. 
 
 with the internal feuds of a single com- ^ In a review of my first edition 
 
 munity. Academy, July 9, 1870; repeated again 
 
 2 
 
 Duchesne in his excellent edition Jenaer Literaturzeitttng, ]z.\i. 13, 1877. 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 27
 
 4l8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 its original and shorter form in collections of Canons, belonging to the 
 seventh century'. As the 'First Epistle to James' had been in circu- 
 lation in Rufinus' translation considerably more than a century before 
 the Liber Pontificalis in its older form appeared, there was ample time 
 for the 'Second Epistle to James,' entitled de Sacramentis conser- 
 vcindts, to take its place by the side of the earlier letter and gain 
 currency with it. The alternative would be to suppose that the author 
 of this earlier recension of the Liber Pontificalis borrowed the notice 
 of the Two Epistles of Clement from Jerome's Catalogue^ without 
 attaching any meaning to it. At all events I cannot doubt that to the 
 redactor of the later recension of the Liber Pontificalis the 'Two 
 Epistles which are called canonical' (or 'catholic')^ meant the letters 
 addressed to James. Indeed this later editor not only mentions shortly 
 aftenvards Clement's letter to James relating to his appointment to 
 the Roman see, but actually quotes it in the previous Life of Peter 
 (p. 1 1 8); and there is no reason for supposing that he intended to 
 distinguish this from the two letters already mentioned (as Cotelier and 
 others think). Moreover the two letters to James are distinctly named 
 in another similar and apparently not independent notice in the Lives 
 of the Roman pontiffs ascribed to Liutprand (Migne Patrol. Lat. cxxix. 
 p. 1 1 53), ' Hie scripsit duas epistolas Jacobo Hierosolymorum episcopo, 
 quae catholicae nominantur.' Anastasius Bibliothecarius indeed {c. a.d, 
 872) refers to the genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, but he must not 
 be taken as representing the Latin Church ; for he does not speak 
 from personal knowledge, but translates, or rather mistranslates, a pas- 
 sage of Georgius Syncellus. The words of Georgius are tovtov iiriaroX-^ 
 fxia yvrjaia Koptv^iots (fteperai, ws aVo t^s 'Pw/xaiwv tKKXT^crta? ypac^fifra, 
 CTTttcrcco? iv KopLvOijo (TVfJiPdcrr]<; totc, w? fxapTvpei 'Hy/yo-tTTTros, rjTLS fai ck- 
 K\r}(TLal(.Tai {C/ironogr. T. p. 651, ed. Dind.). Anastasius writes ' Hujus 
 epistola fertur ad Corinthios missa, quam tota recipit, ut Egesippus 
 testatur, ecclesia' {Hist. Eccl. p. 17, Paris 1649), where the testimony 
 of H egesippus is transferred to the wrong point. So little was known 
 of the genuine epistle even by the ablest mediaeval writers of the 
 Latin Church, that in the thirteenth century S. Thomas Aquinas speaks 
 of some Antenicene writers having attributed the Epistle to the He- 
 
 1 See riinschius p. Ixxxi ; comp. Leon. fabiiquee vers le commencement du vi""* 
 
 Magn. Op. III. pp. 630, 674, by the bro- siecle.' 
 
 thers Ballerini. ^ Duchesne supposes that this addition 
 
 - This is Duchesne's opinion (i. p. 'quae catholicae (or 'canonicae') nomi- 
 
 i'23). Vet of this Second Epistle to nantur' is repeated 'assez mal a propos' 
 
 James he says that it 'parait avoir ete from the notice of S. Peter.
 
 LETTERS ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT. 
 
 419 
 
 brews to Clement the pope, because 'ipse scripsit Atheniensibus quasi 
 per omnia secundum stilum istum' {^prol. ad Hebr.), and the error has 
 
 misled others (see above, p. 102, note). 
 
 i 
 
 The false Decretals made their appearance in the east of France, 
 
 and the date of the forgery may be fixed within very narrow limits 
 about the middle of the ninth century'. The oldest extant mss belong 
 to this same century. The writer enlarged the two existing Latin letters 
 (S and 6) in the manner already described, and raised the whole 
 number to five by forging three additional letters. 
 
 These three Clementine forgeries of the ninth century are : 
 
 7. A letter headed, 'Clemens urbis Romae episcopus omnibus 
 coepiscopis presbyteris diaconibus ac reliquis clericis et cunctis prin- 
 cipibus majoribus minoribusve, etc' 
 
 8. Another beginning, ' Clemens Romanae urbis episcopus carissi- 
 mis fratribus Julio et Juliano ac reliquis consodalibus nostris genti- 
 busque quae circa vos sunt.' 
 
 9. A third, ' Dilectissimis fratribus et condiscipulis Hierosolymis 
 cum carissimo fratre Jacobo coepiscopo habitantibus Clemens ej^i- 
 scopus.' 
 
 These three letters require no comment. 
 
 If the above account be correct, it follows that the ' two letters of 
 Clement ' would be differently understood in different branches of the 
 Church. To the Greek they would suggest the two Epistles to the 
 Corinthians ; to the Latin the two addressed to James j and to the Syrian 
 probably the two in praise of virginity". It is stated likewise by Abul- 
 barcatus (as represented by Assemani, Bibl. Orient, in. p. 14), that the 
 Coptic Church also received two epistles of Clement. These might 
 have been either those to the Corinthians or those to Virgins. The 
 great estimation in which the former were held at Alexandria, as 
 appears from the Alexandrian ms and the quotations of the Alexandrian 
 fathers, would promote their circulation among the native Egyptian 
 
 ^ The history of the appearance and 
 reception of these false Decretals is given 
 fully by Gfrorer Gesch. der Ost- u. West- 
 friink. Carolingef I. p. 71 sq, and by 
 Ilinschius I.e. p. clxxxiii sq. See also 
 Milman'sZo/m Christianity 11. p. 303 
 sq. 
 
 - This sentence is left as it stood in 
 the first edition; but with regard to the 
 
 Syrian Church we cannot now speak 
 without some qualification. The recent 
 discovery of a Syriac translation, pro- 
 bably belonging to the age of Jacob of 
 Edessa (see above, p. 135), of the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians, shows that after that 
 time at all events the 'Two Epistles 
 might have an alternative meaning to a 
 Syrian writer.
 
 420 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Christians. On the other hand the high value which was attached to 
 celibacy in Egypt w'ould make the Epistles on Virginity very acceptable 
 to this church. It has been seen (p. i8i) that both sets of epistles were 
 known to and quoted by Timotheus patriarch of Alexandria (a.d. 457). 
 
 But the above list of nine letters probably does not comprise all 
 which at one time or other were circulated in the name of Clement. 
 At the beginning of the seventh century Maximus the Confessor, who 
 (as we have seen) quotes the genuine epistle, speaking of the omissions 
 of Eusebius, complains that he has mentioned only two epistles of this 
 apostolic father {prol. ad Dionys. Areop. ovre. YlavTaCvov tovs ttovous ave- 
 ypa\j/ev, ovre tov 'Pw/x.atov KXiy/xevTOS, TrXrjv 8vo kol jxovwv eTTiCTToXcov, i.e. 
 no other works besides his epistles, and only two of these). And about 
 the same time in the Sacr. Rer. Lib. II of Leontius and John (see 
 above, p. 189) the writers, after quoting a passage from the genuine 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians, give another quotation headed * From 
 the niiitJi Epistle of the same writer' {tov avTov ck t^s 6' iTna-ToXrjs, 
 where Hilgenfeld's conjecture of ^eta? for 0' is improbable). As not 
 more than five of the extant epistles, including the two addressed 
 to Virgins, can ever have existed in Greek, and the passage is not 
 found in any of these, we must assume several lost Clementine letters, 
 unless there be some error in the ascription to Clement (see p. 189). 
 Again Timotheus of Alexandria, who before has quoted 'the First 
 Epistle on Virginity,' immediately afterwards cites the opening of our 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians as ' Of the same Clement from the 
 beginning of the T/iird Epistle' (see above, p. 181 sq). This shows 
 that the epistles were differently arranged in different collections. The 
 Epistle of Clement, to which Dionysius Barsalibi alludes as written 
 against those who reject matrimony (so he is reported by Assemani, 
 Bib/. Orient. 11. p. 158), may have been one of these lost letters; but 
 as the First Epistle to James urges very strongly the importance of 
 early marriages (§ 7), I am disposed to think that he referred to this. 
 This opinion is confirmed by the language of Epiphanius quoted above, 
 p. 409.
 
 AN AUTOTYPE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT.
 
 IN an earlier part of this volume (p. 121 sq) a full account is given 
 of the only authority which contains the Greek text of the Two 
 Epistles of S. Clement complete. 
 
 It is there and throughout these volumes called the Constantino- 
 politan MS, because its abode at the time was the Library of the Patriarch 
 of Jerusalem in Fanar at Constantinople; but it has since been restored 
 to its proper and permanent home, the Library of the Holy Sepulchre 
 of the Patriarch at Jerusalem. 
 
 Though it was collated with praiseworthy care by the first editor, 
 Bryennios, infallible accuracy is beyond human reach; and this authority 
 for the text of the earliest Apostolic Father is unique. I thought there- 
 fore that I should be doing a service to patristic literature, if once for 
 all I gave to the public an absolute reproduction of this manuscript, by 
 which they might test the labours of others and myself 
 
 This autotype is the result. My gratitude is due to the Patriarch of 
 Jerusalem in so kindly allowing it to be taken; and also to the Very 
 Rev. C. R. Hale, Dean of Davenport, Iowa U. S., and to the American 
 Consul at Jerusalem, Mr Gillman, through whose joint services the 
 whole matter was negotiated and arranged. 
 
 This facsimile will explain itself. In accordance witTi the table of 
 contents (see above, p. 122), the first page contains the conclusion of 
 the Epistle of Barnabas, which immediately precedes the Epistles of 
 S. Clement, and the last page commences the Didache. Between the 
 two is a list of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Didache has l)een 
 published in facsimile by Prof. Rendel Harris. The autotype of the 
 Clementine Epistles occupies 50 pages or 25 leaves in all.
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 425 
 
 J' 
 6 
 
 ■.,,0 >r\ ' I .^T^'-f/ O ^^ ^16 * - ^ --^
 
 426 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 (CV >****■ ''^*^ '*'''''" "V^^f ^■^**jrr ffJ-T^rat^lCttf/tpt f trny,ly 
 >iftyjt^t4 njuJn ■'rtf'*^ **vfCy \nr!£ -HntJor -r Aj^Ap'Tw-r- <J<i- 
 
 '^ -^^7»^*^^^-^TT- <rrit ie^m JJt^^ ^iA^j Si<t/^H^ Jj 
 
 "^ C
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 427 
 
 \ -^ " r ^ "^ -^ "^ *-l y' 
 
 «rovr 7»f/«/^j.' 'f'^^' *T>' •-K'**«t'*«'*'^'=^J/fVr'*j«*^«»^o«>«^'T^ 
 
 > \ \ / ^ / ^ -J- U? /, "^ -^ " ■• v' ^ , ■" '_«_ L - 
 
 I I \ -> ^ ' \ -> V ^ ""^ <- » • _i 0^ 'T. 
 
 *' tjs 'Vj , c^, '^ ^» •' ^ ' ' A •''''f
 
 428 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 opcor^oUWvcioi J5;>y U <i^p «*VWv^o^n»w» ^;;/TJpl/»»^TO• 
 ^ o^jCttrr^bff a- dUyoyii i^r/Couc- fr-AMjoy • ^aj/ cyu <yv x«. av ' fl <Xo/< 
 
 ' \ J - ■> / W ^ ^ \ K '^ -> ■« ^ '-^^ / ' I ^ *I 
 
 \ > \ C ^ tCV ' fc_ V* '*'<*><?' -^"v^* ^-^^v '-^ 
 
 XL£0 
 
 
 IK.OK. 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 429 
 
 
 >-^^ 
 
 ytL^^-^yijr 
 
 
 
 c /■ 
 
 
 '7>7/tf-^av«7p.A«^^«l^0i rfAe«X««o- ' *x c«*i^^ o Aiari t" •P^dl^-r' "tt ■*^
 
 430 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 W«lrr\«l\'^i.>y' «</T^/o-uu-u.rfr' T--T*A<>^'r»i^ r"**? "T-**** ^ 
 
 Vf
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 43 ^ 
 
 iTfAio-'o ; «j-nro #>fini 'TTt<5 •'^^-^y 47/ojU-a//ot po*dv<^trT-K* tAtOT\ • 
 ^ «■ J '« y "^ o '/'.■' ;::^ * \\ ' ' 
 
 / /\ • — -^ ^ V »— ^^ o C\* ^ *>( '^ 7 * '• 
 
 G COC •TO 51 au. W (f ■-rrB « «« «- TB 
 
 

 
 432 EPISTLES OF S, CLEMENT. 
 
 > 
 
 t> ^yto-^*i^* 'Trap H X • ^iCrrrf^'^ 't- y^ xjTnt juvrv^i^ A/ou* tjrnwn<o 
 
 ^ / /o/ \ \\': \o -— ^ ^/ V^ iT- fl •/ -"^^
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 433 
 
 0>^rg/_'^ "^^^ '^'Vf " «r^^<*^ OVT-^i. errdO-^ tr^T*i OfU M TTU> 
 
 'T-i^ji^ <r-AA^^A,d^ j^f Hd\j^ yyir^i (rt>J^ ^^^ ^ ^ /"^^k 
 SI \ ^5i ^> ^ '^^,, - c <::-' S , '-=.^'' o . 
 
 >»
 
 434 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ^.%xr K^^Y T^X* ^"**' i' (ivr*^ ^A**\/<<*^ jVdw'ifk-Af V£ ^ d"^. — 
 
 -rt <3U*r- • VJ •?- ir^JX) ff^r" rtJjy- *r*7 a*-*"^- "p ATol^ d1 '*Ajr' o vK^Lrffy 
 
 cU 
 
 
 ,\ V / "^ ' ^ \ ft rV / ^ '^ ' "y ^^ ^
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 435 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 436 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 /<du-v«L* dL^r» [9V7TDV- OH>^^<V<^u4M>u>»«w7 flo* flt«7- • ><Afco vW <r "^n T" 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 437 
 
 * w *- V fv » -,-: .\ ^ --7^ / \ / ^ ^ ^ ^ / \
 
 438 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 \ "^ ' ^I'c^^^ ^—^ "t> \ I ~ (At * " "^ ^~^ I r\ ^ 
 
 -idlAt c^atnn.^' 
 
 
 •-per oLu-i- UjOwAtAj ««jT»WialjTtuw t* (»»7^#^4r TVA,'*"*'" '**'"'*" "
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 439 
 
 
 ' ft* ^ fi>'i -"^ 'ey^ / , Ai f ^ - o ^y'L A "? n 
 
 f ^ v^^^pi^ ooi ate' <^' Au -i ^-W"' -^/^r* 'fC V^ "* '"*^ "^ '*''^*^ 
 ^ ^ 1 \ \ ^ -^ ' ' - ' f\ V / /• '^ . ^ ^ ' / ' 
 
 ..,>- c. S/ ,- ; ^>r^^V'„ --"^'/.^ ^ ' ' 
 
 ■ >*-rj»«t- » K.4>u&^<i djTMtrj- A/«/9aar^ "ye^ >><*^««'*^T^^«Y'''***^- ** *'"'
 
 440 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 X4.<^ » A|» vrn-- U nA^Jfrp t0^frrt>fJ'T<^!irT^ t- gr» TTtu <• At CAM XX "Tl^-T* pi/' 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 44 ^ 
 
 i • C ,.^ «> A ' t, >. ^ -ri- ' \ 
 
 
 ' ''--'7 '''^'v/^/' -»»-'^" /_»f> "^ ■" ^ / 
 
 ■rn-^^- ^-f- ^ <l dujr Tt (jnao I PIT <r •T- <^ •»/ «• "^ -r ^ dLn-J -r ^ <r-^ a*/n) V oTf 
 
 '^ ' , ^ -> \ \ - ^ 1 . 'J . J 
 
 x./- „ J ^ '' o - ^ — — . * ^ /.:"' r 
 
 ^ I '^ \'' \I ^^' _^ — , ' 
 
 SS^<</rNAr«^ k.Tn -r^ An-ou A^f duor- - tttsioC;?/^© o>y o^^^tt^ 'r- aLvrt-g 
 
 <Ceo^T(jy\'Tr7> ow/ixr o (T-l(^^yjLU ^ •'■»J^ ^^if' r ^-ouur- evT-J)^•yip<Xr7Trc*j• 
 5 ^ ^ ^ ' 
 
 \
 
 442 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT 
 
 TJ-AJ^I/ 
 
 < 
 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 443 
 
 « ^ 
 
 
 
 "- -^r*ia)H»'\<^ '**rrpo Kv-6n» w^<dtrf *ndU^/<;oot4« v-<r«l^ii<r«Af« 

 
 444 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 .M^ f^vH-n-f p^«t^*>A- fOK-t^-U. »>*yV£i»-7r»Yf »«^rt46c*JO»*fc»I— 
 ^/TT»♦T■*>o.T<W'«M'^•4<X■'■»«J*/^'*^rr■K/T*W0MflrXl.'TT>•n^•»^X"^S^J•T-^f|^ . 
 
 
 
 :^»>j,7X*xfT^0 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 445 
 
 ^s?^<Uvxo< v-i^<li)>KoT-etuT-- A<|4)>fN1>, -r ;>«•♦*•«♦ -r *^ <-»r o -^ if 
 
 J /"..» \ — < «- ^1 ^' ■' ' / ^ ^ *^ — «- ^ 
 
 •**'»■ TO v^jjift-*^- aUrt-» HOoV i^^lirrw TTJi *><■ eL^o*t.rj^trT>toy tJLUttn 
 
 > — _ \1 ' f^^-O « -V CO \V 'X» > W X . r, t>'.-K> 
 
 6 7 <«.TB vr' «»^'»T*" S' ■** *or»r* (..At* "r o*uu«ft;;-6\r dLrr»vr *^o -TTTfx (*-*«/ 
 
 ''/■'^^ \\ ^ ' — ' ^ C ^ ■■' 
 
 /<-, ..-^ s" /^ • V . — ^ \ i\ ^ i" »V'o^'<<■ ' i^i\
 
 446 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT, 
 
 , , ^ .. , ^ .<* ft 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;-
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 447 
 
 > > w . • ."-A'-V ' 
 
 , >/«u ^^^(^o./j- tf o^otipo/i;o*yyai piojyM -?^^^X«A»«'•«^^**• 
 
 ' o^ ^ '' C ? Vr ^ . -3 ' /^ . S" -r^^ ^ '-'dU ' >, 

 
 448 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 K<*»w«^«r. Ai^j^i^i 'jr<,M^y^t t/ f/f^'*Jinv -IT (ni oKo'tr ^^<'^<>/' ■ ovrj^ 
 TfH •J!A4<ir«^<*li.-yc*/T«Mr»»to-r p"*Ko-»r .ia^t »A*»Vo rT^«■^£•^U^ 
 TT «Jmo A«>»T^«K-*A««ur' ^r*-f)t*jT^rff*^ aujr -Try 4n'>*«-fl«»0^'»«^ 
 
 i
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 449 

 
 450 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 CW \*,^j: \. ,v,A 
 
 '■*«^*ir» »*V?T* 
 
 />/: «- N '•"^v '* » / ''ft ^^> > € \ J -^>y *^ , A «. 
 4iM^aj^^^»ujj«l^<r^\t*jr^^(Jr ^■vr^dLMGtut HOMLMnimjr^-
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 45 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 /y**fl'r~ro6fOO^^^h<i'***- "f-*^ kXxo- ^yuj . l^/o^/rr i^M>c:<«».«4. 
 
 i" ' 1^ ' /.' T JL « ^' . -, >^ ' C# ''
 
 452 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ^ I . '» ^ A? « V '^ ^ <l '' V* " e. 
 
 ,' / \» '* ^ ^t-, VU .\^ * f * 
 
 Tter'Tntrow w •rto *i«jo <«A • iA»<!uor»A/^<f.7r • »« ^fn^ 4frS\^!^ , 
 er^Aoy. »« 'rw<rf^tA/^yo»(rn^<r»vTWjUaM\»»*7r<woakM 1/
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 45. 
 
 ^-v , „ , . , - - .-»«f>cmr4«v 
 
 J<^«i^«y^»r* •••VJUJUXoVo*! t<o-*t^A^Tfo\/^J| ^-r^XfcWTT**
 
 454 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 y« 
 
 r 
 
 t.w^-..-.'- > ' 
 
 ;;}i-. .,>->■.-
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 455 
 
 \ 
 
 €k I 
 
 

 
 456 EFISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 »^ «" 
 
 
 ^ ' ^ -f^<^ ,-^^0 V__\v7 /'?'^>' ^ X 
 J n't > . \ -> » '. ' -5^ 1 \ - - / i c^ ' -4- > 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 457 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?J^^-^V^
 
 45 8 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 Ttrt^«^<£>^ v«?]^^^^<>^ •»^t'*-«>^f aV^**** i/i* •!»«• 
 
 
 vV. 
 
 ^^ f» f '<f — • ^-^'^f^^-^-T* 0»« ^;; -^ Mhj^ 
 
 «^ /<«w.ao JU4U-MU j<«4Sr^* «r«/^M^^
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 459 
 
 
 
 f M 
 
 (VVz/OV^ou^TT/ 6-<po«>fy>o.rr»( mr- crv K e -r o« /<o '"***7' ^jC'rt'r o-ttt^^-
 
 46o EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 «»-«fc-* oun-'tuiA ^^/-rjovjfA^ ^•4«X<'«Uet/rr0-- «iVi»CK:€-^^- 
 ii -TT^o «ru/r»v T T«^">lY»U yJ-4^ «»<»«»* »okew (swxA<A^«e0x^M<£ 
 
 
 K 
 
 w
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 4^1 
 
 '^ ^"^ oiu k«Se »h K«?. 
 
 
 ••Trp a <r-^A'#^^ \.»*H»-^N -rn-ret^^AV Vt- •r\.;7r«^o .To-»r\<-^''^^ 
 -'-nvm^Hroptitr^xtA.f^ <X tf> ■•tie ••y-TriMFvta <««i m A^ •fv^rto- <f^^«/
 
 K 
 
 4^2 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 «r(jT»-»r«-#*i\"-«* <#» Mm u f<,<u,9Juut Not A:fr^^>,nt^wi/f ^C^ntltk. 
 
 ^^*iiii-cu V»^»rv»7r Tr-*<r***i 'CfV' ityioLM^rwnvk.v<rA>^ .^, 
 
 
 
 •A* 
 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 463 
 
 
 c/ . d^ '^^ N ^^ ' -r^ -^ i*^ —^ ArT <^ " J:
 
 4^4 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT, 
 
 ' ^ \ . 
 
 
 
 
 fj^&»JUj> H 'Mj^- tf o-tf4/ii:««>yc«>>K* X»*«A.i.*«- v^-■-»«"^"^«*^^• 
 ■^ ^ ,^ ^"^ *■. ^ At *. ■» \K ^ ^ i -"^ '^' "^ ' •'f\^>- ' 
 
 O CM •« «r« vtr dU^< e «A->l.cAfA\ A>A*-»- ^ • * T corO VTO «/«>-vrT- » -*«*> f* 
 
 » / I / ^ / y -i-» ^' « / ^ J '^ «- > 

 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 46; 
 
 <^ ^^ (^~, ^ ^ .'.'v'To c - \ \ *^'^I?^K->Y ^ *^o 
 
 ^ -7n«f <«-JCov ou/^o. ^ frji/-r«Ac»x/r- >^p*x»fr^'«f>«' V "^ IftyKi". 

 
 466 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT 
 
 uCyiai 1 AAuar^<*Mi h/ rV> -«*» if^-rrtT- ectr^<t^ ■Vrtj**-'-/ r^rfrlo-M. 
 
 oxo -tM.y • . - .. . ..- 
 
 ^ . I ' -o-'«l/'* i v^ . . ^ \^ >rv '^ J 
 l\9'ri'r4>*9<*fT 'Uur^'^Jo'pMrilj'ijuj^.Li^ f-f«'i> •♦<(». .tAaur 
 
 / > / ^ V ^ .\ > \ -5= .. ; < A - •« A. - L\ I «• 
 
 ^riwiO /C<X4^ ^ \ <r •TT^ aU"TI K-AA v/<: m f* "-^ou/T- • o\niuf<<*5 K 
 
 ■> / " / " li .> 1 ;^ f\ '^ -•-^ ' " ^>/ . ' ■* '* / "^ 
 
 -V y ' 4 ' 1 V . / ' \ ( — ^^ ' . -. r- '
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 467 
 
 
 J'' "^ 'xv y'^fN "^ -«• ~t ' <--<rc1- N J ,
 
 468 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 >s, oLo «r-«- <</;«*/7Tiur«^7 \t'^t'f-*J^- ^^-•T^u>-Tr»>\« -f^f^^^^tAf 
 
 t >.• -A J«* ■•7-«i*^^«]JjY<^ 
 
 ciumvUMMnX^ ^'•TlV •'•^^^^T^*^^ Vf-nt^oo-y-r^Alu 
 
 
 *> 
 
 * 
 
 1^,
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 469 
 
 ri7?rv«!<W»'*' • 

 
 470 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 ««^'W-«*-^.^«'7loyiv»T*WT- / ■^/• 
 
 577 .K ^on^AK -ftc««. • •** au o •TO irrft Aq 
 Jt . >' . V \ ^^ 
 
 /<;
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 47 1 
 
 • c_^ > -I- 
 
 
 SM^^\».«_ ^-.aVV^-r^-i VTr«j4^'T«*r7- A7rB/««>^<«-^' Vt -t-n/V^ -fw 
 
 
 t Hm irW-*'- iy T^-*'*' trot ■TT^Jr hri '^^jfJH «<jLrr«r- "TTO Wwo- OA^-A^x 
 
 I ^ ' ji ' ^ -N '■ -J ' r ' 'J "^ ' 
 
 
 M^
 
 472 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 
 *• ' •*' ^ Zl *-^ <- \ ' ' "J \ ' . V ' ( A > ^ r\ * 
 
 . ' \ \ . "^,. T \ / . , <- -' .-"TTX- '^ / -''"^ 
 
 in*J->'yV'in'n^^^' 'P'^^'*^^T^'^J^<>^- ••-n>yrn-)>^^Av-»JLt^ ''"' r* 
 
 . D * Mx ''o • -"f "^ ^ ^ ' '^'^^ > / \ '."^ 
 
 / ' '^ •- , ^ '■ ' ^ ■ -- y '^'^ ^ 'I ''tK *-) ' y.' ^^ 
 
 tf«j-o c our- -Tf-OUr" crdLfiKf •'T^/t m AJJh-p e Kf "'^ v1 ''"rBC'^' * •TtV" T' " 
 
 •"TTW 
 
 ^dl/ioo «r*/s ^ K (pf •'w <5> oo k'^o'-'^^ y^^aw/C'V' ^f^'*^ff*t ' 
 
 le.
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE MANUSCRIPT. 473 
 
 
 
 
 ^X
 
 474 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
 
 / *^ { ~ ^ J ^ ' \ \ J ^ ^„ * 
 
 . ^ > ^ ~ * '^ *^A-U -^ * * I \x n. \ 
 
 ^ ' A > ■> ^ * x«j • CV' ■^ •• ** * n '-'i^ r — V • 
 
 <Wn-^ow«vjiWt«^f tfft-^iMJit- JV^at^O-- "rpov^- 
 ^ T-SOO- -TWviooa.dVx«r«<i>T».»A- -? Ktfi-T-- 9^ (fp -rf XtK/' 
 'fw>.TWfl«/''d7f<*fC0Wf«>v.' tLrMT7x5'*^ i^•*iV^w^*«^••K• 
 V -^ "^ <*^ ' '■7^ r\ -' * j^ ft — 
 «V«JV^«»j7rp« «^H^ J\»T-«*j*i»v ».aTL|oi/.^ (^eKfX ] t'
 
 INDEX 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 28
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Abbadie publishes the ^thiopic Hennas, 
 
 12 
 
 Abraham, chronology by years of, i r 5 
 sq, ii"/ ; Gutschmid's rule, 216 
 
 Abulbarcatus, 419 
 
 Achilleus; story of his martyrdom, 42 sq ; 
 a soldier, not a chamljerlain, 3 1 ; pro- 
 bable origin of his connexion with 
 Domitilla, 5 1 ; the name in inscrip- 
 tions, 51 ; see Acts of Nereus 
 
 Acilius Glabrio; put to death l)y Donii- 
 tian, 81 sq ; not a Christian, 81 sq ; 
 Dion Cassius on, 81 sq, 104; Suetonius 
 on, 82 
 
 Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, 24 sq, 32 
 sq, 37, 38, 42 sq ; their character, 44 ; 
 on the pedigree of Clement, iii 
 
 Acts of the Apostles ; as a title including 
 the Catholic Epistles, 133; an 'apo- 
 stolic' writing, 2 ; Photius on its author- 
 ship, 102, 198 
 
 /Eschylus, manuscript authority for the 
 text of Clement and of, 145 
 
 .-Ethiopic version of Hermas, 1 2 
 
 Africanus Julius ; his chronography, 337; 
 probably in the hands of Eusebius, 334 
 sq ; perhaps based on Brattius, 338 ; 
 its date, 337; his papal chronology de- 
 rived from Hegesippus, 339 sq ; Har- 
 nack's theory, 339 
 
 Agrippinus, bishop of Alexandria, in- 
 serted among Roman bishops in the 
 Armenian Chronicon, 216 
 
 Alexander, bishop of Rome ; in Hegesip- 
 pus' list, 326 ; in Eusebius' list, 246, 
 273; in other papal lists, 208, 215, 218, 
 221, 241, 265, 267, 272; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 253 ; Irenceus on, 204 
 
 Alexander Severus, Christian leanings of, 
 
 Alexandria, Church of; influential in 
 spreading the Clementine Epistles, 371 ; 
 its episcopates coordinated with those 
 of Rome and Antioch, 334 sq 
 
 Alexandrian MS, the Clementine Epistles 
 in the; significance of their insertion 
 and juxtaposition, 368, 370 sq ; no ca- 
 
 nonicily implied, 371 ; Eusebius pro- 
 bably responsible, 371; Tischendorf's 
 
 facsimile, 119, 402 
 Alexius Aristenus ; his date and influence, 
 
 377; includes the Clementine Epistles 
 
 in his canon, 377 
 Alford on Claudia and Pudens, 77, 78 
 Ambrose; date of his Hexaemeron, 172; 
 
 shows coincidences with Clement's 
 
 Epistle, 172 
 Ampliatus, monumental slab bearing the 
 
 name of, 39, 51 
 Anacletus; history of the name, 80; its 
 
 spelling, 216, 270, 275, 332; see further 
 
 Anencletiis 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius ; reference to 
 
 Clement's Epistle in, 195, 201, 418; 
 
 derived from Georgius Syncellus, 418; 
 
 and mistranslated, 195 
 Anastasius of Sinai, does not refer to 
 
 Clement, 200 
 Anastasius the Librarian ; his date, 304 ; 
 
 not the author of the Liber Pontificalis, 
 
 3°4 
 Andronicus; his date, 324; his Canones, 
 
 322; other works attributed to, 322; 
 perhaps the author of an extant Syriac 
 pajial list, 324 
 Anencletus, bishop of Rome ; duplicated 
 out of Cletus, 80, 204 ; in the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 64, 253, 265, 267, 270, 272, 
 -73' 3'^i; •" the Eclician book, 268; 
 in the Liber Pontificalis, 321; in ps- 
 Tertullian, 176, 275 ; absence from Leo- 
 nine list, Augustine, Optatus, and in- 
 ferences, 268, 275 ; the error not due 
 to Ilippolytus, 270 sq, 282 sq; Lipsius' 
 explanation, 271, 276 sq ; Salmon's, 
 282 sq ; most probable explanation, 
 273; when the blunder first arose, 271, 
 274, 276; history of the double name, 
 80; in inscriptions, 80; the spelling, 
 216, 270, 272, 273, 332; IreuKus on, 
 63, 156, 203; Eusebius on, 164, 166, 
 238; his place in Eusebius' list, 246, 
 273; in Hegesippus' list, 326; in other 
 lists, 208, 216, 221, 241, 242, 246; his 
 
 28—2
 
 478 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 episcopate, 68, 8i; his relations to 
 Linus, 67, 174 sq, 309; see also A/ia- 
 cletus, Ch'tus 
 
 Anger publishes the Codex Lipsiensis, 12 
 
 Anicetus, bishop of Rome; in Eusebius' 
 list, 246, 273; in other papal lists, 208, 
 218, 221, 241, 266; his name omitted 
 in the parent document of the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 254, 272; the lacuna vari- 
 ously supplied, 254, 265, 267, 272; his 
 position in relation to Pius, 254, 264, 
 270, 272, 273, 274; Hippolytus not at 
 fault here, 270, 284; Lipsius' explana- 
 tion, 280; Salmon's theory affected by 
 this, 284 ; the true position and term- 
 number, 326; confusion caused by this 
 error, 272 sq; its diffusion, 274; point 
 at which it occurred, 274, 301 ; adopted 
 by the Liber Pontificalis from the Li- 
 berian Catalogue, 321; but corrected 
 in the later edition of the Liber Ponti- 
 ficalis, 321; the correct order in the 
 papal frescoes, 319; Irenceus on, 204; 
 date of his accession, decided by the 
 date of Polycarp's martyrdom, 242 ; his 
 burial-place, 310; a martyr in the later 
 edition of the Liber Pontificalis, 310 
 
 Anonymous chronographer on the early 
 Roman succession, 198 
 
 Anteros, bishop of Rome; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 287 ; his position in 
 the Liberian Catalogue, 255, 287; in 
 Eusebius' list, 246 ; in other lists, 209, 
 221, 234, 241, 244, 285, 287, 319 sq, 
 321; in the papal frescoes, 319, 320; 
 his burial-place, 287 
 
 Anthologia Latina, inscription illustrating 
 Domitilla in the, 41, 113 
 
 Antiochene bishops, chronology of; Har- 
 nack on, 201, 223 sq; Hort on, 224; 
 coordinated with Alexandrian and Ro- 
 man episcopates, 334 sq 
 
 Antiochene Chronicle in the hands of 
 Eusebius, 334 sq 
 
 Antiochus of Palestine, a supposed refer- 
 ence to Clement's Epistle in, 200 
 
 Antiochus the Monk ; incorporates extracts 
 from the Epistles to Virgins, 412 sq ; 
 and from Ignatius, 413; Cotterill on 
 this, 413 sq 
 
 Antipope ; Hippolytus not an, 262 ; im- 
 pulse given to papal lists by the rise of 
 an, 262 sq, 306, 324; see also Felix 
 II, I.anrentius 
 
 Antonius Melissa, quotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 199 
 
 Apocryphal quotations, alleged in the 
 Apostolic Fathers, 10 sq 
 
 Apologists, chronogi-aphical sketches in 
 the, 205 
 
 'Apostolic'; history of the term, 2; em- 
 ployed to designate (i) writings, 2 ; (ii) 
 
 Churches, 2 ; (iii) individuals, 2 sq ; see 
 also Apostolic Fathers 
 
 Apostolic Fathers ; a modern designation, 
 3 ; its elasticity, 3 sq ; writings so de- 
 signated, 3 sq; the case of Dionysius 
 the Areopagite, 4 ; of Hermas, 4 ; of 
 Papias, 5 ; of the Epistle to Diognetus, 
 5 ; of Barnabas, 5 ; a convenient title, 
 6 ; external form of these writings, 6 ; 
 their internal character and spirit, 7 sq ; 
 their relation to apostolic teaching, 8 
 sq ; to the canon, 9 ; neglect of these 
 writings, i, 11; especially in the West, 
 1 1 ; reasons, i t ; revival of interest in, 
 12 ; discoveries in the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, 12 ; in the nineteenth century, 12 sq 
 
 Apostolical Canons; a corollary to the 
 Constitutions, loi ; but many genera- 
 tions later, loi ; fathered on Clement, 
 10 1 ; include his works in the N. T. 
 Canon, 187, 368 ; but in an interpolated 
 passage, 373 sq; Coptic and Arabic 
 forms of the, 372 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions; contents of, 
 100; Clement the mouthiDiece in, loi ; 
 references to him in, 162 sq ; whence 
 derived, 344 ; coincidences with the 
 language of his Epistle, 163 
 
 Aquila, in the Clementine romance, 14 
 sq ; alleged parallels presented by, 24 
 
 Aquinas, ignorant of Clement's Epistle, 
 102, 418 sq 
 
 Aristus, bishop of Rome ; see Etiarestus 
 
 Armenian versions ; of Eusebius' Chroni- 
 con, 49, 210 sq, see Eusebiiis oj 
 CcEsarea ; of the Ignatian Epistles, 1 2 ; 
 in the fifth century, 213 
 
 Arrecina TertuUa; first wife of the em- 
 peror Titus, 17, 19; her parentage, 20; 
 correct form of her name, 20 
 
 Arrecinus Clemens (I), prefect of the 
 praetorium under Gaius, 20 
 
 Arrecinus Clemens (II), prefect of the 
 prsetorium under Domitian, 20 ; put to 
 death, 20 
 
 Arsenius, hymn commemorating Clement 
 by, 199, 200 
 
 Athanasius excludes Clement's Epistle 
 from the canon, 368 
 
 Atheism charged against the Christians, 
 
 34 
 
 Aucher, 212 sq 
 
 Augustine; papal succession adopted by, 
 64, 1 74 ; transposes Pius and Anicetus, 
 274; displaces Clement, 274; derives 
 these errors from Optatus, 274 ; on 
 Miltiades, 293 ; on Eusebius' Chro- 
 nicon, 21 1 
 
 Aurelian in the story of Nereus and Achil- 
 leus, 42 sq 
 
 Aureolus, the usurper; his date, 21; his 
 general Domitian, 21, 113
 
 INDEX. 
 
 479 
 
 avunculus, 44 
 
 d5eX0i5^, dde\(pi5ovs, dv£\f/i6s, e^aSA^T/, 
 €^d5e\(pos, explained and compared, 45 
 dpxcuos of a church or a disciple, 349 sq 
 
 Barberini, Cardinal, 319 
 
 Barnabas, the Apostle; called 'apostolic' 
 by Clement of Alexandria, 2, 5; his 
 position in the Clementine romance, 15 
 
 Barnabas, the Epistle of; its date, 5; its 
 claim to be reckoned among the Apo- 
 stolic Fathers, 5; its external form, 6; 
 its internal character, 8 ; its antijudaic 
 altitude, 9 ; alleged parallels to Cle- 
 ment's Epistle considered, 148 sq, 348; 
 Hilgenfeld's view, 149, 348; a passage 
 of Clement quoted as from, 159 
 
 Baronius, 294, 304 
 
 Basil of Ciesarea ; quotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 169, 399; on its authorship 
 and canonicity, 359, 368 
 
 Basnage, 259 
 
 Baur; on Clement, 52, 55; on S. Paul's 
 Epistle to the Philippians, 55 ; general 
 character of his speculations, 357 sq 
 
 Bede; mentions Clement, 192 scj; a pas- 
 sage misunderstood by Scaliger, 225 
 
 Beelen, 407, 408, 411, 412 
 
 Bellarmin, an error of, 304 
 
 Bensly, and the Syriac version of Cle- 
 ment's Epistle, 12, 130, 135 
 
 Bernard, E., 363 
 
 Bethmann, 123 
 
 Bezold, his assistance in this edition, 322 
 
 Bianchini, 201, 304, 315; on the papal 
 frescoes, 319, 320 
 
 Bignon, 363 
 
 Birth of Christ, the date in the Liberian 
 Catalogue of the, 253 
 
 Bitalis, Bito, Bitus, connexion with \'i- 
 talis, Vito, Vitus, 28 
 
 Bito; see Valerius Bito 
 
 Bradshaw, H., his assistance in this edi- 
 tion, n8 
 
 British Church, the foundation of the, 76 
 
 ^^. . 
 
 Bruttius ; biographer of Flavia Domitilla, 
 
 41 ; on the charge brought against her, 
 34; on the place of her l>anishment, 35, 
 49 sq; his chronicle, 46; cited by Eu- 
 sebius, Malalas and Chronicon Pas- 
 chale, 46; the passages quoted, 105, 
 108, 109, 110; misrepresented by 
 Malalas, 87 ; quoted by Eusebius second- 
 hand through Africanus, 48, 49, 338; 
 his date, 48, 50; probably a Clirislian, 
 47 sq ; the name, 46 ; the gens, 46 ; 
 tombs of the gens near the Cemetery 
 of Domitilla, 47 
 Bryennios ; his edition of the Clementine 
 Epistles, 12, 121 sq, 400, 403, 423; of 
 the Didache, 13, 129; see TtXso Didache 
 
 Bucherian Catalogue ; see Liberian Cata- 
 logue 
 Budge, his assistance in this edition, 242 
 
 'CtEsar's household,' 26, 29 ; see also 
 Imperial household 
 
 Calendars; bound up with the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 247, 249; Clement's day in 
 Western, 99, 192 
 
 Caligula, some dates in the history of, 
 230 
 
 Callistus, bishop of Rome; once a slave, 
 62; his history, 341 sq ; his date tested 
 by the writings of Hippolytus, 341 sq; 
 his place in Eusebius' list, 246; the 
 corruption of the Annenian version ex- 
 plained, 276; his place in other papal 
 lists, 208, 215, 218, 221, 226, 238 sq, 
 241, 265, 267, 275; the Liberian Cata- 
 logue on, 255; the cemetery of, 31, 
 249 sq, 257, 296, 310 
 
 Canon ; in the time of the Apostolic 
 P'athers, 9 sq; testimony of Clement's 
 Epistle to the, 353; and claims to be 
 included in the, 366 sq 
 
 Caracalla, the foster-mother of, 63 
 
 Caractacus; his son Llin, 78; his alleged 
 daughter Claudia, 78 
 
 Carpocrates ; Epiphanius on, 328 ; pro- 
 bably quoting liegesippus, 329 
 
 Carpophorus, a Christian officer in the 
 imperial household, 62 
 
 Cassianus, a Roman deacon, charge of 
 cowardice against, 293 
 
 Cassiodorus, on Eusebius' Chronicle, 21 1 
 
 Cemetery; of Callistus, 31, 249 sq, 257, 
 296, 310; of Priscilla, 249 sq, 294, 296, 
 297; of Domitilla, 35 sq, 47 
 
 Centumcellte, 256, 288 
 
 Cerdon, bishop of Alexandria, 166 
 
 Chersonese; the scene of Clement's le- 
 gendary banishment, 85, 87; the con- 
 fusion in the word Pontus, 87; alleged 
 translation of Clement's relitiues from, 
 88 sq ; the local tradition, 91 ; death of 
 Martin I at, 88 ; supposed visit of 
 Julius I to, 91 ; a favourite place of 
 banishment, 88 
 
 Christianity in Rome ; in the imperial 
 household, 26 sq, 61 sq; its upward 
 social tendency, 29 sq, 61 ; its aristo- 
 cratic converts, 30 srj, 33 ; its relations 
 to Judaism, 33 ; under the Flavian Em- 
 perors, 81 sq 
 
 Christology of Clement, 398 sq 
 
 chronica, 211 sq 
 
 Chronica Damasi, 304 
 
 Chronicle of the City, liound up with the 
 Liberian Catalogue in the Vienna MS, 
 248, 251, 252 
 
 Chronicle of the World, bound up with 
 the Liberian Catalogue in the Vienna
 
 48o 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 MS, 248, 251, 252; its iulimate con- 
 nexion with tlial catalogue, 252, 258; 
 not tlie work of Orosius, 258; nor of 
 Isidore, 259; but Ilippolytus' Cliro- 
 nica translated and continued, 258, 259 ; 
 the recension used by P'redegar, 258 
 
 Chronicon Paschale; on Clement, 190; 
 on the persecution of Domitian, no; 
 n(j evidence for an early recension, 246 
 
 Chronographers, early Christian, 205 sq ; 
 of A. D. 354, incorporates the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 233; of a.d. 853, papal 
 lists in the, 240 sq ; mentions Clement, 
 198 
 
 Chronographica Brevis of Nicephorus ; 
 see Nicc'p/iorus 
 
 Churches, apostolic, 2 
 
 Ciampini, 201 
 
 Ciasca, 12 
 
 Cittadini, 114 
 
 City prefects, list bound up with the Li- 
 berian Catalogue, 247, 24S 
 
 Claudia, of 2 Tim. iv. 21; not the wife 
 of Pudens, 76; nor the mother of Linus, 
 76 sq, 163 ; nor the Claudia of Martial, 
 76 sq ; perhaps of the imperial house- 
 hold, 29 
 
 Claudia, wife of Aulus Pudens; perhaps 
 Claudia Rufina, 77; not the Claudia of 
 2 Tim. iv. 21 ; 76 sq; date of her mar- 
 riage, 79 
 
 Claudia Rufina, of Martial ; a British 
 maiden, 77; perhaps the wife of Aulus 
 Pudens, 77; possibly the daughter of 
 Caractacus, 78; not the daughter of 
 Cogidubnus, 78; not the ('laudia of 
 2 Tim. iv. 21, 76 sq 
 
 Claudius, the Emperor, some dates in the 
 history of, 230 
 
 Claudius Ephebus, delegate mentioned in 
 Clement's Epistle, 27, 349, 38 1 ; his 
 probable age, 27; his relation to S. 
 Paul, 27 ; perhaps of the imperial house- 
 hold, 29; the name in inscriptions, 27 
 
 sq, 349 
 
 Clemens, T. Flavius; his pedigree, 17, 
 18,33; his education, 58; his honours, 
 33; marries Elavia Domitilla, 17, 19; 
 his sons designated as successors, 34; 
 date of his consulship, no; the charge 
 brought against him, 33 sq, 53; put to 
 death, 35, 53; his character, 35, in sq; 
 not Clement the bishop, 23, 52 sq, 57; 
 nor the bishop's father, 23; but perhai)s 
 his patron, 61, 94; confused with the 
 bishop, 53, •;6, 85, 87; character of 
 his Christianity, 57; his house perhaps 
 under the Church of S. Clemente, 94; 
 legend of his burial-place, 95 
 
 Clement of Alexandria; a descendant of 
 the household of Flavius Clemens, 62 ; 
 (juotes Clement's Epistle, 158 sq, 167 ; 
 
 ascribes a passage in it to Barnabas, 
 159; shows other coincidences, 160; 
 on its authorship and canonicity, 359, 
 368 ; not acquainted with the Second 
 Clementine Epistle, 371 ; confused with 
 Clement of Rome, 188, 194; perhaps 
 first attributed to his namesake the 
 authorship of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, 10 1, 188; calls Barnabas 'apos- 
 tolic,' 2, 5 
 Clement of Rome; his identification af- 
 fected by recent discoveries, 21 sq; not 
 the companion of S. Paul, 22; not Fla- 
 vius Clemens the consul, 23, 52 sq, 57 ; 
 nor his son, 23 ; probably a Hellenist 
 Jew, 59, 61 ; and of the household of 
 Flavius Clemens, 6\, 94; not a martyr, 
 54, 56, 84 sq; story of his martyrdom 
 in the Chersonese, 85 sq; and of the 
 translations of his reliques, 89 sq ; his 
 story in the Clementine romance, 14 sq, 
 23, 100; the story adopted in the Liber 
 Pontificalis and Roman breviary, 52, 
 309 sq; his real histoiy sketched, 72 sq ; 
 the allusion in Hermas to, 54, 71, 152, 
 348, 359 sq ; his importance, 53 ; early 
 historical evidence to, 53; the name in 
 inscriptions, 60 sq ; his order in the 
 episcopal succession, 63 sq; threefold 
 position of his name, 63 sq; explained, 
 343 sq ; its displacement in the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 253, 272 sq; point at which 
 this displacement occurred, 274, 301 ; 
 Eusebius' list restored, 246, 273; his 
 place and term-number in Hegesippus' 
 list, 326 ; duration of his episcopate, 8i, 
 343; its date, 67, 81 sq, 343; its cha- 
 racter, 63, 67 sq; the spokesman of the 
 Church of Rome, 69 ; his death, 343 ; 
 his claim to the title of Apostolic 
 Father, 4 sq; his connexion with S. 
 Peter and S. Paul, 4, 56, 73 .sq; his 
 references to them, 9 ; his special work 
 and province, 8 ; his character, 7, 95 sq, 
 102 sq, 383; confused with Clement of 
 Alexandria, 188, 194; his name borne 
 by subsequent popes, 98 ; churches de- 
 dicated to, 98 ; his basilica (see Clement 
 S., Basiliea of) ; his place in Roman 
 Sacramentaries, 98 ; his day in Western 
 Calendars, 99, 192; honours paid him in 
 the East, 99 sq ; large circulation of his 
 Epistle, 99 (see Clonent, the Epistle of )\ 
 fictitious writings ascribed to, 99 sq ; (i) 
 in the Clementine romance, 100, 414 
 sq; (ii) the Epistles to Virgins, 100, 
 407 sq; (iii) the Apostolic Constitutions 
 and Canons, 100 sq ; (iv) the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, loi, 406; 
 (v) the Epistle to the Hebrews, 95, 101 
 sq, 161 sq, etc.; (vi) in the P"alse De- 
 cretals, 102, 419 sq (see further under
 
 INDEX. 
 
 481 
 
 all these heads); (vii) other lost writ- 
 ings, 102, 420; Photius' attril)ution to 
 him of the Acts of the Apostles a mis- 
 take, 102; Irenaeus on, ■203; Eusebius 
 on, 206 
 Clement, the Epistle of; its external form, 
 6; the style, 58 sq; its author not an 
 educated Roman, 58; but a Hellenist 
 Jew, ,^9 ; circumstances of its composi- 
 tion, 6, 82 sq; (i) its date, 27, 346 sq ; 
 external evidence (Hegesippus, Irenii^us 
 etc.), 67 sq, 346 sq; internal evidence 
 (personal notices, persecutions, church 
 government, biblical quotations), 67 sq, 
 95, 348 sq; its date decides the date of 
 Clement's episcopate, 342 ; (ii) its au- 
 thorship, 50, 358 sq ; Eusebius' evidence, 
 358; does not claim to have been writ- 
 ten by Clement, 358, 362 ; a letter from 
 the Church of Rome, 69 sq ; one of a 
 scries to Corinth, 72, 83, (55, 352, 358, 
 369 ; effect of the letter, 84 ; bearers of, 
 ^7> (i'i) genuineness and integrity, 361 
 sq; (iv) canonicity, 366 sq; read in the 
 Church of Corinth, 83, 84, 15-;, 361,366, 
 369 ; and elsewhere, 369 s(] ; compared 
 wilJi other apostolic fathers, 369; fluc- 
 tuations in its ecclesiastical authority, 
 369 sq ; (v) purport and contents, 37S sq ; 
 analysis, 378 sq; its characteristics (a) 
 comprehensiveness, 95 sq ; (//>) sense of 
 order, 96 sq ; (c) moderation, 97 sq; 
 (vi) the liturgical ending, 382 sq; its 
 correspondence to the rest of the 
 Epistle, 386 sq ; its resemblance to 
 liturgical forms, 384 sq ; and synagogue 
 prayers, 393 sq; (vii) its doctrine, 396 
 sq; (viii) printed text and editions, 116, 
 118, 400 s(i ; (ix) the Mss (a) the Alex- 
 andrian MS, history and date, 117; po- 
 sition of the Clementine Epistles, title, 
 collations, facsimiles, 117 sq ; text, 120 
 sq; (/') the Constantinopolitan ms, his- 
 tory and contents, 121 sq, 423; date 
 and designation, 12, 123; text indepen- 
 dent of A, but inferior, i 24 sq ; its cha- 
 racteristic features, and importance, 1 28 
 sq ; leproduction of the Clementine 
 Epistles in, 421 sq; (c) the Syriac MS, 
 history and contents, 12, 129 sq ; date, 
 12, 132 sq; position and title of the Cle- 
 mentine Epistles, 131 sq, 133; the table 
 of lessons, 1 34 st] ; source and character 
 of this version, i 35 sq ; independent of 
 other Syriac quotations, 135, 180 scj, 
 182 sq; the underlying Greek text in- 
 dependent of our other authorities, 138 
 scj ; its value and peculiarities, 137, 139 
 sq ; our three authorities comparetl, 142 
 sq; date and corruptions in the arche- 
 type, 145 ; possibility of other Mss and 
 versions, 146 sq ; the evidence of Pho- 
 
 tius, 146, 197 ; a mixed text evidence to 
 a wide circulation, 144; the circulation 
 in the East, 99 ; the Epistle known to 
 the author of the Clementine romance, 
 56, 158; neglected in the West, ri, 98, 
 416 sq; not translated into Latin, 98, 
 146 ; nor quoted by any Latin author un- 
 acquainted with Greek, 146; source of 
 Epiphanius' quotation, 329 sq, 370, 409 
 
 Clement; commemoration in the Liberian 
 Catalogue of a, 99, 251 ; associated with 
 the Dalmatian stone-cutters, 251 
 
 Clement II; his date, 98; the first pope 
 consecrated outside Rome, 98 
 
 Clement, Acts of; story, 85 sq ; anachro- 
 nisms, 86 ; date and circulation, 86 sq ; 
 the Panegyric of Ephraim based on, 87 
 
 ^^ .... 
 
 Clement of Philippians iv. 3, 4 
 
 Clement (S.), Basilica of; S. Cyril buried 
 there, 89; his tomb discovered, 89, 92 
 sq; supposed reliques of Clement de- 
 posited there, 89; the basilica in Je- 
 rome's time, 91; Zosimus' court held 
 there, 92 ; Gregory's homilies delivered, 
 92, 187; its position beneath the pre- 
 sent church, 92; proved by recent ex- 
 cavations, 92; the frescoes, 93; when 
 abandoned, 93; date of upper church, 
 93 ; furniture and inscriptions trans- 
 ferred, 94 ; the building underneath the 
 lower basilica, 94; De Rossi's theor)', 
 94; perhaps the house of Flavins Cle- 
 mens, 94; monumental tablets in, 36, 
 
 114 . 
 
 Clementine Homilies; discovery of the 
 lost ending, 12; the Epistle to James 
 prefixed to the, 414 sq; its date, 414, 
 415, 417 sq; translated by Rufinus, 
 415; quoted at the synod of Vaison, 
 177' 41.SJ correct reading of its title, 
 415; with the Latin Epistle forms the 
 basis of the false Decretals, 415 sq; 
 the interpolated forms, 416; popularity 
 of these letters, 416, 419; ciuoted in 
 the West as the Two Epistles of Cle- 
 ment, 416 sq; see Clementine romance, 
 Decretals, pseudo-Isidorian 
 
 Clementine Recognitions; the name, 16; 
 translated by Rufinus, 11, 147; his 
 preface, 174 sq ; his translation of the 
 Epistle to James became attached to, 
 415; MSS of, 415; the second Epistle 
 to James also attached to, 416; both 
 in tlieir shorter form, 416; see Clevicn- 
 tine romance, Decretals, pseudo-Isido- 
 rian 
 
 Clementine romance; the story of Cle- 
 ment in the, 14 sq, 23 sq, 55 sq, 100; 
 its subsequent spread, 52, 309 sq, 344, 
 361, 417; a peg to hang doctrine on, 
 100; the writer an Ebionite, 56, 100;
 
 482 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ils date, i6, 55, 64, 157, 361 ; arose 
 not from Rome, -,^, 64 ; hut from the 
 East, 64, 361 ; the pedigree of Clement 
 in, 157; his consecration l^y S. Peter, 
 158,344; ecclesiastical position assigned 
 to Clement in, 64, 68 sq ; the writer 
 had in his hands Clement's Epistle, 56, 
 158; its bearing on the authorship of 
 the Epistle, 361; the papal list in the, 
 64, 66, 344 ; two forms of the story, see 
 Clementine Homilies, Clementine Re- 
 cognitions 
 
 Clementine writings, spurious; see Apo- 
 stolical Canons, Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions, Clementine Hot)iilies, Clementine 
 Recognitions, Corinthians, Second Cle- 
 mentine Epistle to the. Decretals, pseudo- 
 Isidorian, Virginity, Two Clementine 
 Epistles on 
 
 Cletus, 64, 80, 332 sq; in the Liber Pon- 
 tificalis, 64, 191 sq, 253, 309 sq; per- 
 haps due to Hegesippus, 332 sq ; the 
 name in inscriptions, 80 ; see Anacletus, 
 Ancncletns 
 
 Clinton, 246 
 
 Cogidubnus, 78 
 
 Cognomen of master taken by manumitted 
 slave, 61 
 
 Comes Officiorum; in the Acts of Clement, 
 8ii, 86; date and duties of the office, 
 86 
 
 Commemorations of Roman bishops, 
 martyrs and emperors, bound up with 
 the Liberian Catalogue, 248 sq 
 
 Commodus; date of his assassination, 342 ; 
 Christianity under, 62 
 
 Cononian abridgment of the Liber Ponti- 
 ficalis, 305 sq; see Liber Pontificalis 
 
 Cononian edition of the Liber Pontificalis, 
 305, 307 sq ; see Liber Pontijicalis 
 
 Constantine, the philosopher; see Cy7-il 
 (.S-.) 
 
 Constantinople, libraries at, 121, 123 
 
 Constantinopolitan MS, autotype of the 
 Clementine matter in the, 423 sq ; see 
 also Bryennios, Cletnent, Epistle of 
 
 Consular Fasti, 247, 248 sq, 253 sq; the 
 consuls in the Liberian Catalogue taken 
 from the, 265, 281 ; when added to the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 301 ; how added, 
 301 sq 
 
 Conybeare and Howson, 77, 78 
 
 Coptic Church, Clementine writings re- 
 ceived in the, 419 
 
 Coptic version of the Ignatian Epistles, 
 12 
 
 Corinth, Church of; factions at, 82, 96, 
 203, 328, 349; its intercourse and cor- 
 respondence with Rome, 69 sq, 71 sq, 
 83 sq, 155' 35^' 358, 369; Clement's 
 Epistle read in, 83, 84, 361, 366, 369; 
 Hegesippus at, 203 
 
 Corinth, length of journey from Rome to, 
 82 
 
 Corinthians, First Clementine Epistle to 
 the ; see Clement, Epistle of 
 
 Corinthians, Second Clementine Epistle 
 to the; an ancient homily, loi, 406; 
 its date, 10 1, 406 ; not a fictitious writ- 
 ing, loi ; attributed to Clement of 
 Rome by accident, loi ; its place in 
 MSS of Clement, 1 1 7 sq ; its canonicity, 
 366 sq; significance of its position in 
 the Alexandrian MS, 370, 371 sq ; its 
 wide circulation, 406; Eusebius on, 
 166 
 
 Cornelius, bishop of Rome; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 288; placeof his death, 
 256, 28S; his spurious Acts, 288; the 
 Liberian Catalogue on, 255, 288; his 
 place in Eusebius' list, 246; in other 
 papal lists, 209, 218, 221, 234, 241, 
 285 
 
 Cornelius, in the story of Clement's mar- 
 tyrdom, 85 
 
 Cotelier; his edition of Clement, 401; 
 responsible for the term 'Apostolic 
 Father,' 3; notices of, 168, 178 sq 
 
 Cotterill, 362 sq, 409, 410 sq, 413 sq 
 
 Coxe, 123 
 
 Cozza (Prof.), his assistance in this edi- 
 tion, 189 
 
 Crescentio, 294 
 
 Cureton, 12, 182, 183 
 
 Cyprian, important bearing on Roman 
 chronology of the letters of, 288, 289 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, quotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 167 sq 
 
 Cyril (S.), the apostle of Slavonia, 88; 
 his original name Constantine, 88; 
 authorities for his history, 88, 90; story 
 of his translation to Rome of Clement's 
 reliques, 88 sq; buried in S. Clemente, 
 89 
 
 Dalmatian stone-cutters; martyrdom of 
 the, 251; a Clement associated with 
 the, 251 
 
 Damasus, bishop of Rome ; in papal lists, 
 209, 217 ; Jerome's list ends with, 217 ; 
 extant epitaphs by, 296; Filocalus the 
 calligrapher and, 64, 249; a fictitious 
 correspondeVice with Jerome prefixed 
 to the Liber Pontificalis, 303 
 
 Decretals, pseudo-Isidorian; their date, 
 country and MSS, 419; literature on, 
 416 ; based on forged Clementine letters, 
 102, 419; no mention of Linus in, 79; 
 see Clementine Homilies, Clementine 
 Recognitions 
 
 Depositio Episcoporum etc. bound \\\t 
 with the Liberian Catalogue, 248, 249 
 sq, 263 sq^ 
 
 De Pressense, 7
 
 INDEX. 
 
 483 
 
 De Rossi; on the identification of Cle- 
 ment, 24 sq ; accepts the Plautilla le- 
 gend, 32 ; on Acilius Glabrio, 82 ; on 
 an inscription of Siricius, 87 ; on the 
 stemma Flaviorum, 114, 115; on the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 292, 296; on the 
 papal frescoes, 320 ; his discoveries in 
 the cemetery of Domitilia, 35 sq, 39, 
 51; in S. Clemente, 91 sq, 94 
 
 Didache; its publication, 13, 129; the 
 MS, 121 sq, 423; its date, 5; its claim 
 to be included among 'Apostolic Fa- 
 thers,' 5; its author and the Apostles, 
 5 ; its external form and internal cha- 
 racter, 6 sq ; its sympathy w ith Judaism, 
 9 ; see also Bryennios 
 
 Didymus of Alexandria; cpiotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 176; date of his Expositio in 
 Psalmos, 176 
 
 Diocletian, his persecution at Rome, 293 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to; two separate do- 
 cuments, 5; its claim to be included 
 among 'Apostolic Fathers,' 5; its ex- 
 ternal form and internal character, 6 sq ; 
 its antijudaic character, 9 
 
 Dion Cassius; on the place of exile of 
 Domitilia, 35, 49 sq ; on Domitian's 
 persecution, 33 sq, 81 sq; the passage 
 quoted, 104; on the death of Glabrio, 
 81 sq; the passage quoted, 104 
 
 Dionysius BarsalilM, perliaps refers to the 
 Clementine Epistle to James, 420 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Rome; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 290; the Liberian Ca- 
 talogue on, 256, 290; his place in Eu- 
 sebius' list, 246 ; in other pajial lists, 
 209, 218, 221, 234, 241, 285 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria shows a coinci- 
 dence with Clement's E])istle, 162 
 
 Dionysius of Corinth ; his letter to Soter, 
 69, 11, 83, 154 sq, 369; date, 72, 83, 
 155; passage quoted, 155; on the au- 
 thorshi]) of Clement's Epistle, 53, 155, 
 358, 361; on its ])ul)]ic reading, 84, 
 }i<h, ../j'' 366, 369 
 
 Dionysius of Telmachar; his date, 219; 
 his Chronicle, 219; editions and trans- 
 lations, 219; contains an epitome of a 
 Syriac version of Eusebius' Clininicon, 
 219; papal list in, 221 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, not an 'Apo- 
 stolic Father,' 4 
 
 discingere, 286 
 
 Drillinger; on the authorship of the Lil)e- 
 rian Catalogue, 262; makes Ilippolytus 
 an anlipope, 262 
 
 Domitia Longina, wife of tlie om))eror 
 Domitian, 17, 20 
 
 Domitian, the emperor; his ])lace in the 
 stemma Flaviorum, 1 7 ; marries Domi- 
 tia Longina, 17, 20; their family, 20; 
 
 Christianity in the time of, 27, 33 sq ; 
 his cmelty to his own relatives, 33; 
 persecutes the Jews, 33; the Christians, 
 81 sq, 350, 383; notices of his persecu- 
 tion, 104 sq; its date, 106; its character, 
 81; alluded to in Clement's Epistle, 
 350 sq, 383 ; Tertullian's mistaken esti- 
 mate of it, 41, 81, 105, 107; banishes 
 S. John to Patmos, 106, no, in; his 
 interview with the grandsons of Jude, 
 41, 107, no; consul with Flavins Cle- 
 mens, no (see Clemens, Flavins); his 
 assassination, 39 sq, 383; connected 
 with his treatment of Flavins Clemens, 
 40; his burial-place, 95; never recalled 
 the Christian exiles, 49 
 
 Domitianus, son of Flavins Clemens, 17, 
 20 sq, 24, 34, 42, 112; Quintilian his 
 tutor, 20, 24, n2; consul, 21; date, 
 24 ; fate, 42 
 
 Domitianus, the general of Aureolus, his 
 ancestry, 21, 113 
 
 Domitilia, Flavia (i); wife of the emperor 
 Vespasian, 17, 19,21; their family, 19, 
 45; not deified, 19; her title Augusta, 
 19; inscription relating to, 114 
 
 Domitilia, Flavia (2) ; daughter of the 
 emperor Vespasian, 17,19,45; deified, 
 19; her husband, 20; date, 24; inscrip- 
 tion mentioning, 114 
 
 Domitilia, Flavia (3) ; granddaughter of 
 the emperor Vespasian, 17, jg; her re- 
 lationship to Domitian, 44, 113; mar- 
 ries Flavins Clemens, 17, 19, 20, 33 sq, 
 104; their two sons, 17, 20 sq, 34, 114; 
 no evidence of a daughter, 114; her 
 wide reputation, 21 ; the charge against 
 her, 33 sq, 104; banished, 35; place 
 of her banishment, 35, 42, 49 sq, 104, 
 106 ; compelled l)y Domitian to a second 
 marriage, 40, 112, 115; her return from 
 banishment, 41 ; her Christianity esta- 
 blished by recent discoveries, 35 sq; 
 Dion Cassius on, 104; inscri])tions re- 
 lating to, 114; her house ])erhaps under 
 S. Clemente, 94 ; her nurse Tatia, 3^^ 
 n4 sq; her cemetery, 35 sq, 47 
 
 Domitilia, Flavia (4); according to Momm- 
 sen a daughter of Flavins Clemens and 
 Domitilia (3), n4; and wife of T. 
 Flavins Onesimus, 114; no evidence 
 for her existence, 1 14 
 
 Domitilia the virgin ; in the Acts of Ne- 
 reus and Achilleus, niece of Flavins 
 Clemens, 32 sq, 42 sq, in; her exist- 
 ence considered, 42, 44 sq ; explana- 
 tion suggested, 45 sq, 49; the story 
 rests on Eusebius alone, 50; her vir- 
 ginity a later addition, 50 
 
 Donatists ; charges brought against Catho- 
 lics by, 293; synod at Rome against, 
 298
 
 484 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Dorner, 39S 
 
 Dorotheus Arcliimandiita quotes Ihe Se- 
 cond Clementine Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, 190 
 
 Dressel ; his edition of Clement, 402 ; 
 discovers the lost ending of the Homi- 
 lies, 12; and the Palatine version of 
 tlie Pastor of Hernias, 12 
 
 Ducange traces to liippolytus the Libe- 
 rian Chronicle of the World, 259 
 
 Duchesne; on the Church of S. Clemente, 
 92 ; his writings on the papal succession, 
 202; on points in the Liber Pontificalis, 
 252, 294, 296, 298, 299, 417 sq; on 
 the earlier edition of the Liber Pontifi- 
 calis, 305 sq, 418; on the Cononian 
 edition, 307; on the Leonine Paschal 
 Cycle, 311 sq; on the Leonine Cata- 
 logue, 315; on the papal frescoes at 
 S. Paul's, 319, 320; his Origines du 
 Culte Chretien, 393 
 
 Duchesne, F., 88 
 
 Duobus Geminis Cons. ; the date of tlie 
 Cnicifixion in the Liberian Catalogue, 
 253; Salmon's theory respecting, 282 
 sq; found in Tertullian, 282; was it 
 the invention of liippolytus? 283 
 
 dia of a letter, 359 
 
 5ta5ox^, 154 
 
 Eastern papal catalogues, 220 sq, 240 sq, 
 322 sq; the original form of the first 
 twelve bishops in, 325 sq; relation to 
 Western Catalogues, 325 sq, 344 sq 
 
 Ebedjesu; his catalogue of the works of 
 Eusebius, 218; an argument for a Syriac 
 translation of the Morks, 218 
 
 Eckhel, 19, 20 
 
 Eldad and Modad, the book of, 11 
 
 Eleutheras, bishop of Rome ; omitted in 
 the Liberian Catalogue, 254; the la- 
 cuna supplied, 254, 265, 267, 269, 272 ; 
 hence omitted by Augustine and Op- 
 tatus, 275; his true position and term- 
 number in Hegesippus' list, 326; in 
 Eusebius' list, 246, 273; his place in 
 other lists, 208, 218, 221, 241, 266, 
 272 ; Hegesippus at Rome in his time, 
 63, 202 ; alive wlien Irenteus made his 
 list, 63, 204; not the founder of the 
 British Cluircli, 76 sq ; an error of Eu- 
 sebius explained, 326 sq 
 
 Elias of Nisibis; his chronography, 242; 
 the papal list in, 241 ; its relation to 
 other lists, 242 sq ; especially to the 
 Leonine Catalogue, 312 sq ; omits 
 Marcellus, 292 ; refers to Andronicus, 
 322 
 
 Emperors; Christian writings inculcating 
 obedience to heathen, 384; especially 
 Clement's Ejiistle, 382 sq 
 
 Ephebus ; see Claiuiiiis Ephcbiis 
 
 Ephraem Syrus, possible coincidences 
 with Clement's Epistle in, 168 
 
 Ephraim, bishop of Cherson; his pane- 
 gyric on Clement, 87 sq; perhaps a 
 fictitious person, 88 
 
 Epiphanius; his theory to reconcile the 
 earlier papal lists, 67, 169 sq, 310; fol- 
 lowed by Rufinus, 67, 174, 310; and in 
 the later edition of the Liber Pontifica- 
 lis, 309 sq ; embodies Hegesippus' list, 
 64, 328 sq; incorporates other quota- 
 tions from Hegesippus, 329 sq, 331 sq; 
 quotes Clement, 169 sq, 329 sq; but 
 derives his quotation from Ilegesippus, 
 329 sq, 370, 409; alludes to Hegesip- 
 pus' Memoirs, 330; nowhere calls Cle- 
 ment's Epistle canonical, 368 ; accepts 
 the Epistles to Virgins as genuine, 408 
 sq, 420 
 
 Episcopacy; as evidenced by Clement's 
 Epistle, at Corinth, 352; at Rome, 67 
 sq, 352; in Rome a late development, 
 ^9 ^^> 35^5 ths Tiibingen School on 
 this, 68 
 
 Epistle of Clement ; see Clement, Epistle 
 
 Epistles to \irgins; see Virginity, Tiuo 
 CleincJitine Epistles on 
 
 Erbes, 53, 113, 202, 235 sq, 271, 278, 336 
 
 Euarestus, bishop of Rome ; called Aris- 
 tus in the Liberian Catalogue, 253, 
 278 ; his place in Hegesippus' list, 64, 
 326; in Eusebius' list, 246, 273; in 
 other papal lists, 208, 215, 218, 221, 
 241, 265, 267, 272 ; L-ena;us on, 204 ; 
 Eusebius on, 166 
 
 Eucherius of Lugdunum, mentions Cle- 
 ment, 177 
 
 Euphrosyne, in the Acts of Nereus, 44 
 
 Eusebian Catalogue of Roman bishops 
 restored, 246, 273 
 
 Eusebius, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 257, 296, 297 ; date of 
 his episcopate, 285, 297, 298sq; banish- 
 ment and death, 296 ; translation of his 
 reliques to Rome, 297 ; his place in 
 papal lists, 209, 234, 236, 285 
 
 Eusebius of Cresarea; on the Apostolic 
 Fathers, 11; on Domilian's persecu- 
 tion, sources of information, 46 sq; the 
 passages quoted, 105 sc) ; on Flavia 
 Domitilla, 45, 49, 105, 106 ; testimony 
 of his versions here, and error explained, 
 49, 108, no; on her place of exile, 35, 
 49 sq ; source of his story of Domitilla 
 the virgin, 50; on Clement's date, 160, 
 164 ; on the order of his succession, 164, 
 165; on Clement's Epistle, 164 sq, 166 
 sq, 359 ; never calls it canonical, 367 sq ; 
 its addition to N. T. MSS probably due 
 to, 37 r ; his Chronicle in two parts, 
 207 ; his names for the parts, 207, 210,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 485 
 
 211 ; Jerome translates the second part, 
 210, 217; the first part preserved in 
 the Armenian, 2ios(j; the extracts in 
 Syncellus, 212 ; the three versions, 212 
 sq ; (i) the Armenian, history, date and 
 sources, 210 sq, 212 sq; quotations and 
 abridgments, 214; importance, 214; 
 Mss, 215; mutilations, 211, 215, 216; 
 its chronology gauged, 216, 227 sq, 239, 
 244 sq ; corruptions, 245 ; perhaps re- 
 vised, 245 ; (ii) the Latin version of 
 Jerome, date and mss, 2i7sq; altered 
 and continued Eusebius, 217 ; (iii) the 
 Syriac version, two abridgments extant 
 derived from one version, 219 sq; ex- 
 tant fragments of other epitomes and of 
 an unabridged version, 2 20 ; compara- 
 tive chronological accuracy of the three 
 versions, 225 sq, 232 ; two editions of 
 Eusebius' Chronicle, but not two re- 
 censions, 23 1 ; and no revision of papal 
 chronology for his History, 231, 236 ; 
 the Chronicle the chief source of later 
 papal catalogues, 243, 244 sq ; relation 
 of an extant Syriac catalogue to, 220, 
 324 sq ; the documents in his hands, 
 Lipsius' theories, 232 sq ; solution, (a) 
 a catalogue, (d) a chronicle, 333 sq; the 
 latter the Chronicle of Julius Africanus, 
 337 sq ; perhaps based on Bruttius, 
 339 sq ; his Chronology by years of 
 Abraham, 215 sq; framed on the suc- 
 cession of the emperors, 165 ; error in 
 his History respecting Eleutherus ex- 
 plained, 326 ; on the authorship of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, loi, 166 
 Euthalius on the authorship of the Epistle 
 
 to the Hebrews, 182 
 Eutropius, a martyr, 186 ♦ 
 
 Eutychianus, bishop of Rome ; date of 
 his episcopate, 291 ; the Liberian Cata- 
 logue on, 256, 291; in Eusebius' list, 
 246; in other papal lists, 209, 221, 234, 
 236, 241, 285 ; according to the later 
 edition of the Liber Pontificalis a mar- 
 
 tyi', 310 
 
 Eutychius(Said-Kbn-Balrik) ; his Annales, 
 240; his papal list, 241 ; in relation to 
 other lists, especially the Leonine, 242 
 sq, 313 sq 
 
 Ewald ; on the identification of Clement 
 of Rome, 23 sq ; on the author of Cle- 
 ment's Epistle, 60 
 
 (Ktrupwcns, I 79 
 
 iKTivrj's (ij), 385 
 
 fTTieiKeia ; in Clement's Epistle, 97 ; illus- 
 trates his character, 97, 103 
 
 iTricTKOTTos and irpeafivTepos, synonymous 
 in Clements E])islle, 69, 352 
 
 tj dv8pos (poiTav, 113 
 
 Fabianus, bishop of Rome; called Fabius 
 in the Liljerian Catalogue, 255; the Libe- 
 rian Catalogue on, 255, 287, 300 sq; in 
 Eusebius' list, 246; in other papal lists, 
 207, 209, 221, 234, 241, 285; date of 
 his episcopate, 285, 287 sq ; martyred, 
 287 
 
 Fabius ; see Fabianus 
 
 Fabricius, 210 
 
 P'alse Decretals ; see Decretals, fseitdo- 
 Isidorian 
 
 P'austinianus ; in the Homilies, brother, 
 14, 16, 56, 158; in the Recognitions, 
 father of Clement, 14, 157; Ewald 's 
 argimient from the name, 23, 158 ; see 
 Clementine romance, luiiistus 
 
 Faustinus ; in the Clementine romance, 
 brother, 14, 16, 157; in the Liber 
 Pontificalis, father of Clement, 52, j6, 
 417; argimient from the name, 23, 
 158; see Clementine romance 
 
 Faustus ; in the Homilies, father, 14, 
 15 ■'^q» b^i 157; iri the Recognitions, 
 brother of Clement, 14, 158: Ewald's 
 argument from the name, 23, 158 ; see 
 Clementine romance, Fatistinianiis 
 
 Felician Book ; see Liber Pontificalis, 
 Liberian Catalogue 
 
 Felicula, in the story of Petronilla, 43 
 
 Felix, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 256, 291 ; his place in 
 Eusebius' list, 246 ; in other papal 
 lists, 209, 221, 226, 234, 241, 285; 
 date of his episcopate, 285, 291 
 
 Felix H, antipope ; included in the papal 
 frescoes at S. Peter's, 318; at S. Paul's, 
 319; in the Leonine list, 324; in the 
 Liber Pontificalis, 321 
 
 Filocalus, Furius ; the calligrapher, 249 ; 
 illuminator of the Liberian Catalogue, 
 246 sq, 249; jjerhaps its editor, 263; 
 his inscriptions for Damasus, 64, 249 ; 
 his papal list, 64; spelling of his name, 
 249 
 
 Flaccus the Count, in the story of Petro- 
 nilla, 43 
 
 Flavian gens ; see under Clemens, T. 
 Flavins, Domitilla, Flavia, Petro, T. 
 Plavius, Sabimis, T. Flavins, Titiana, 
 Flavia, Vesfasianus, T. Flavins etc. 
 
 Fortunatus; in the Epistle of Clement, 27, 
 381; a Corinthian, 29; the name in 
 inscriptions, 29, 62 
 
 Fourriere on the book of Judith, 358 
 
 Fredegar ; his date, 258; the chronicle 
 prefixed to his work, 258 sq ; a trans- 
 lation of Hippolytus' Chronica, 258 sq 
 
 Frescoes, at Rome containing papal lists, 
 64, 315, 316, 318 sq; the order shows 
 aftmity to the Felician list, and is possi- 
 bly prior to the Liber Pontificalis, 318 
 sq ; sec Liber Pontijicalis
 
 486 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Friedliinder, 20, 31, 77 
 
 Fuller, 76 
 
 Funk, 42, 53, 57, 60, 128, 152, 404, 407, 
 
 411. 4^3 
 Furiiis, intheActsofNereusandAchilleus, 
 
 43 
 
 Furius Filocalu-s ; see Filocalus, Furiiis 
 Fuscianus, city prefect, 341 sq ; date of 
 his prefecture, 342 
 
 Gaius, bishop of Rome ; the Armenian 
 Chronicon ends with, 216 ; in Eusebius' 
 list, 246 ; his place in other papal lists, 
 209, 216, 221, 234, 241, 244, 285; the 
 Liberian Catalogue on, 256, 291 ; date 
 of his episcopate, 285, 291 ; fragment 
 of his tombstone discovered, 291 ; his 
 depositio, 249, 256, 291 
 
 Gaius, the Roman presbyter, Salmon on, 
 
 Galilean Churches, close connexion of 
 Asiatic Churches with the, 83 
 
 Gauderius, bishop of Velitrixe ; his dale, 
 90 ; his life of S. Cyril, 90 
 
 Gebhardt, 128, 403, 404 
 
 Gelasian Decree, so-called, condemning 
 apocryphal works, 369 
 
 Gennadius ; as an authority for a Latin 
 version of Clement's Epistle, 147 ; on 
 Eusebius' Chronicon, 211 
 
 Georgius Hamartolus ; on the persecution 
 of Domitian, 1 1 1 ; an alleged quotation 
 from Clement in, ro2, 190; shows 
 knowledge of the Clementine romance, 
 196 
 
 Georgius Syncellus ; on Domitian's per- 
 secution, 1 10 sq ; on the relationship of 
 Flavia Domitilla, 49, iiosq ; reference 
 to Clement in, 195 ; mistranslated by 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 418; on 
 Eusebius' Chronicon, 210, 211, 212, 
 215 ; papal list in, 24O, 241 sq ; autho- 
 rities, 244 ; errors, 276, 292 ; its rela- 
 tion to the Leonine Catalogue, 312 sq 
 
 Gillman, his assistance in this edition, 423 
 
 Grabe, 115, 350 
 
 Grapte, 71, 152 
 
 Gregory of Tours, on the martyrdom of 
 Clement, 86, 186; quotes the Felician 
 abridgment of the Liber Pontificalis, 305 
 
 Gregory the Great, in the basilica of 
 Clement, 92, 187 
 
 Grigorius, 212 
 
 Guidi, his assistance in this edition, 1S9 
 
 Guignianl, 123 
 
 Gutsclimid ; on the source of Malalas' 
 information, 48 ; on the Armenian and 
 Hieronymian versions of Eusebius' 
 Chronicon, 222, 228, 232, 239 ; on the 
 lost chronicle in the hands of Eusebius, 
 336 sq ; his rules for the Eusebian chro- 
 nology, 216, 337 sq 
 
 Gwynn, his assistance in this edition, 407 
 
 Hadrian, the emperor ; his treatment of 
 
 Lusius Quietus, 355 sq 
 Hale (Dean), his assistance in this edition, 
 
 423 
 
 Hallam, on Claudia and Pudens, 77, 79 
 
 Hammond on a dual episcopate at Rome, 
 68 
 
 Harcleo-Philoxenian version ; its dale, 
 131, 408; its Mss, 135, 407 sq; the 
 single complete MS, 131, 135; the Cle- 
 mentine Epistles, no part of the, 135 
 
 Harnack ; on Clement of Rome, 52, 53 ; 
 on Clement's Epistle, 60 ; on the mss of 
 Clement, 1 28 ; on the letter of Dionysius 
 of Corinth, 72 ; on a reading in Hege- 
 sippus, 154; on a passage in Eusebius, 
 165 ; on a passage in Clement's Epistle, 
 1 79 sq ; on a quotation from Leontius, 
 189 ; on the editions of the Liber Pon- 
 tificalis, 305 ; on the chronology of the 
 Roman and Antiochene bishops, 201, 
 223 sq, 339 ; on the Clement of the Her- 
 nias, 359 sq ; confuses two Clements, 
 200 ; his edition of the Apostolic Fathers 
 403, 404 
 
 Hasenclever, 24, 30, 32, 35, 52, n, 58, 82 
 
 Hausrath, 113 
 
 Hebrews, the Epistle to the ; assigned to 
 Clement, as author, 95, loi sq, 161 sq, 
 172, 173, 190, 418; as translator, loi, 
 166, 175, 182, 188, 194; coincidences of 
 language, 95, 101,353,397 sq; the theory 
 considered, loi sq, 353; it perhaps 
 originated with Clement of Alexandria, 
 loi, 188 
 
 Hector, a slave of Domitilla, the tomb of, 
 
 4i> 113 
 
 Hefele, 152, 401 
 
 Hegesippus ; his visit to Rome, 63, 153, 
 r-;4, 202 sq, 327, 347, 358; to Corinth, 
 63, 84, 154, 203, 328; on the disturb- 
 ances at Corinth, 154, 165, 195, 203, 
 328; his jiapal list, 63, 66, 154, 202 sq, 
 347; motives of his list, 203, 327 sq; 
 the list copied by Irenajus, 64, 204, 205, 
 
 327 ; and preserved in Epiplianius, 64, 
 
 328 sq ; the list derived from tradition, 
 not from documents, 340 ; and to be 
 tested by independent dates, 341 sq ; 
 its value, 66 ; the term-numbers his 
 work, 67 ; other jwssages of Hegesippus 
 embodied in Epiphanius, 329 sq, 331 sq ; 
 on Clement of Rome, 53, 63, 153 sq, 
 195 ; on Clement's Epistle, 53, 63, 
 154, 195, 347, 358; on the grandsons 
 of Jude, 41, loi ; Tertullian's false in- 
 ference therefrom, 41 ; on the position 
 of Anicetus in the Roman succession, 
 270 ; the form Clctus perhaps due to, 
 W^ «1
 
 INDEX. 
 
 487 
 
 Heliopolis, in the story of the phoenix, 
 
 170 ; variations, 172 
 Helius, 82 
 Herculanus, traditionally father of Linus, 
 
 77 
 
 Hermas, Shepherd of; its title to be 
 reckoned among Apostolic Fathers, 4 ; 
 the first Christian allegory, 7 ; the 
 writer's sympathy with Judaism, 9 ; 
 Mss and versions, 12; date, 359 sq ; 
 identification of the writer, 4, 359 sq ; 
 his servile origin, 61 ; reference in the 
 Liberian Catalogue to, 254, 261, 360; 
 from the pen of Hippolytus. 261, 300; 
 connected with the reference in the 
 Muratorian Canon, 262; motive, 261; 
 mention of Clement in, 54, 71, 152, 
 348, 359 sq ; resemblances to the Second 
 Clementine Epistle in, 152 ; the Roman 
 church at the time of, 71 
 
 Hieronymian Version of Eusebius' Chro- 
 nicon ; see Eusebius, ycrome 
 
 Hilgenfeld ; on the identity of Clement 
 the bishop and Clement the consul, 52, 
 53 ; on the Alexandrian MS, 117, 128; 
 on a passage in pseudo-Justin, 180 ; 
 in Leontius and John, 420 ; on a 
 supposed lacuna in the Second Cle- 
 mentine Epistle, 180; on the book of 
 Judith, 356; his editions of Clement's 
 Epistle, 402, 404 
 
 Hippolytus ; his Chronicle, 205 ; and the 
 papal list attached to it, 205, 260, 333 ; 
 a Latin version of the Chronicle at- 
 tached to the Liberian Catalogue, 65, 
 259; and his papal list embodied in the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 65 sq, 300 sq ; 
 Lipsius' theory, 270 sq, 333; what this 
 list contained, 261, 271, 300; how to 
 restore it, 264 ; the notice of him in 
 the Liberian Catalogue explained, 255, 
 261, 262 ; not responsible for blunders 
 in the extant Liberian Catalogue, 262, 
 270 sq, 279; his relations to Rome, 
 262 ; his language towards Zephyrinus 
 and Callistus, 262 ; his designation 
 'presbyter,' 262 ; his date for the Cru- 
 cifixion, 253, 263, 282 scj; perhaps 
 responsible for the twenty-five years of 
 S. Peter's episcopate, 283; Salmon on 
 these points, 282 sq; author of the 
 Little Labyrinth, 271 ; shows coinci- 
 dences with the Second Clementine 
 Epistle, 161 
 
 Hochart, 1^ 
 
 Ilormisdas, bishop of Rome; his date, 
 266, 324 ; synchronizes with the oldest 
 extant lists which represent the Leonine 
 Catalogue, 266, 311, 324; reason for 
 the mulliplication of lists at this crisis, 
 262 sq, 306 sc|, 324 
 
 Hort ; on the Roman succession, 201; 
 
 on its relation to the Antiochene suc- 
 cession, 224 sq; on the authorship of 
 the first part of the Liberian Catalogue, 
 262; on a lacuna in it, 263; on the 
 duplication of Cletus in it, 271 ; on the 
 term-numbers in it, 271 sq 
 Hiickstadt, 176 
 
 Huebner, on Claudia and Pudens, 78, 79 
 Hyginus, bishop of Rome; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 254; his place in Euse- 
 bius' list, 246, 273; in Hegesippus' list, 
 326; in other lists, 208, 218, 221, 241, 
 265, 266, 272; L-enreus on, 204 
 
 Ignatius; the term 'apostolic' first used 
 by, 2 ; his claim to the title ' Apostolic 
 Father,' 4; his character and teaching, 
 7 sq ; his evidence to episcopacy at 
 Rome, 70 sq, 149; to a primacy of the 
 Roman church, 71; coincidences with 
 and possible reference to Clement's 
 Epistle, 149 
 
 Ignatius, Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom 
 of, on Domitian's persecution, 109 
 
 Imperial annals bound up with the Li- 
 berian Catalogue, 247, 248 
 
 Imperial household ; its extent, 25 sq; the 
 evidence of inscriptions, 25; nationality 
 of officials, 26; Christianity in the, 26 sq, 
 61 sq; evidence of S. Paul's Epistles, 
 26; of Clement's Epistle, 27 sq, 60 sq, 
 382 sq; Jews in, 26, 29, 60 
 
 Imperial synchronisms in the Liberian 
 Catalogue, by whom added, 303 
 
 Irenasus; at Rome, 203, 347 ; his evidence 
 to Clement's Epistle, 157, 347, 359, 
 366; his testimony to Clement, 53, 
 63 sq, 156, 204; his use of the word 
 'apostolic,' 2; on Papias, :, ; his list 
 of papal succession, 65, 66, 203 sq, 
 347 ; embodies Hegesippus' list, 64, 
 204, 205, 327 sq; the traditional list, 
 66; the term-numbers taken from 
 Hegesippus, 67 ; the durations of the 
 episcopates a second-century tradition, 
 66; the date of Clement's episcopate 
 in, 67 
 
 Isidore; on the authorship of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, 190; not the author of 
 the Chronicle attached to the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 259; the Decretals ascribed 
 to, see Decretals, psemio-lsidorian 
 
 Ittig, 3 
 
 Jacobi on interpolations in Clement's 
 
 Epistle, 364 sq 
 Jacobson's edition of Clement, 118, 401 
 James (S.); influence of his teaching 
 on Clement, 96, 397; his position in 
 the Clementine romance, 68; spurious 
 Clementine letters to, 414 sq; see
 
 488 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ClcDUiitiiw Iloiiiilii'x, Ch-ntciitiih- Recog- 
 nitions 
 
 Jerome; mentions Clement, and quotes 
 his Epistle, 1 73 ; but probably had 
 never read it, 370, 410; nor the other 
 Apostolic Fathers, 1 1 ; knew the Epis- 
 tles to Virgins, 409 sq ; translated the 
 second part of Eusebius' Chronicon, 
 210, ■217, 223, 227; and continued it, 
 217, 223; extant Mss, 217 sq, 228; his 
 designation of Eusebius' work, 211; 
 did he readjust EuscImus' papal chrono- 
 logy? 217, 222 sq ; arguments, 222 sq; 
 the schematism theories of Ilarnack, 
 Lipsius and Hort, 223 sq; discrepan- 
 cies due to textual errors, 225 sq; re- 
 sults, 232, 234; Lipsius on Jerome's 
 chronology, 235 ; on the documents in 
 his hands, 235, 236; his treatment 
 of Euseljius' facts, 102 ; his friend 
 Paula, 41, 50, 108; on the persecution 
 of Doniilian, 108; on the place of 
 Clement in the Roman succession, 173, 
 274; the order in the Liberian Catalogue 
 unknown to, 274 ; transcriptional errors 
 in his lists, 27 sq, 288, 299, 335; his 
 self-laudation, 222 sq; date of his letter 
 to Eustochium, 411 ; of his Catalogue, 
 410, 411 
 
 Jerusalem, the bishopric of, in the Clemen- 
 tine romance, 68 
 
 Jews; in the imperial household, 26, 29, 
 60 sq; persecuted by Domitian, 33; in 
 the time of Caligula, Claudius and Nero, 
 230 
 
 John (S.); notices of his banishment 
 to Patmos, 106, no, in; supposed 
 connexion of Papias with, 5 
 
 John Damascene ; quotes Clement's Epis- 
 tle, 193; the Second Clementine Epis- 
 tle, 193 sq; indebted to Leontius and 
 John, 193, 194; an unidentified quota- 
 tion in, 194; works attributed to, 194 
 
 John the Deacon; his date, 146, 187; 
 source of his paraphrase of Clement's 
 Epistle, 146, 187; not from Paulinus of 
 Noia, 146 sq, 187 
 
 John the Presbyter, 5 
 
 John II, inscription in S. Clemente re- 
 lating to, 94 
 
 Josephus, 35 1 
 
 Judith, the book of; Volkmar's theory 
 considered, 355 sq; Fourriere on, 358 
 
 Julia, daughter of Gennanicus, 30; put 
 to death by Claudius, 30 
 
 Julia, daughter of Drusus, 30; friend of 
 Pomponia Gnx-cina, 30; put to death 
 by Claudius, 30 ; date of her death, 
 
 Julia Augusta, daughter of Titus; her 
 mother, 17, 20; married to Flavins 
 Sabinus (3), 17, 18, 20; her relations 
 
 with Domitian, 18; deified by Domitian, 
 18 
 
 Julius Africanus; his date, 205, 259; his 
 Chronography, 205 ; probably used 
 by Euselnus and Malalas, 48, 337 sq; 
 and indebted to Bruttius, 49, 339 sq; 
 his errors survive in Eusebius, 50; lists 
 of episcopal successions in, 205; not 
 the author of the Liberian Chronicle of 
 the World, 259 
 
 Julius, l)ishop of Rome; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 257, 299; a munificent 
 church builder, 257, 263 ; the notice in 
 the Liberian Catalogue explained, 263; 
 date of his episcopate, 285, 299; his 
 place in papal lists, 209, 234, 236, 
 285 ; his legendary visit to the Cher- 
 sonese, 91 
 
 Justa, in the Clementine romance, 14 
 
 Justin Martyr, perhaps acquainted with 
 Clement's Epistle, 153 
 
 Krusch, 259, 31 1 
 
 kolto. tqv 5r]\ovfj.epov, 165 
 
 Lactantius, on the persecution of Domi- 
 tian, 105 
 
 Land, 219, 220 
 
 Laurentius, antipope; his disputed suc- 
 cession with Symmachus, 262 sq, 306, 
 319; papal lists evoked by it, 262 sq, 
 306, 324; the Laurentian fragment, 
 263, 307; included in the papal fres- 
 coes at S. Paul's, 319, 320; and the 
 face a portrait, 320 
 
 Laurent's edition of Clement, 402 
 
 Leo the Great, 312, 320 
 
 Leonine Catalogue ; lost, but survives in 
 later lists, 266, 311, 315 sq; the oldest 
 extant of this type Hormisdan, 266, 
 311, 324; originally attached to the 
 Leonine Paschal Cycle, 311; Prosper 
 perhaps its author, 311; an early Greek 
 version of it, 312; its influence on 
 other Greek lists, 312 sq, 417; compa- 
 rative table, 313; main points of diver- 
 gence, 314 sq ; contents, 317; papal 
 list and term-numbers, 267, 316; had 
 Eusebius' order, 266; Lipsius on, 317, 
 417; its sources, 317; two classes of its 
 MSS, 318, 324; gave its term-numbers 
 to the Liber Pontificalis, 321; source 
 of these term-numbers, 267; the months 
 and days of episcopates in, 266 sq ; its 
 relation to an extant Syriac Catalogue, 
 324 sq ; see Z/7v;' Pontificalis 
 
 Leontius and John; quote Clement's E- 
 pistle, 188 sq; a second quotation not 
 from Clement, i89sq, 420; obligations 
 of John Damascene to, 193, 194 
 
 Lewin, 78
 
 INDEX. 
 
 489 
 
 Libellus Preciim, of Faustus and Mar- 
 ccllus, 299 
 
 Liber Calipharum, abridgment of Euse- 
 bius' Chronicon in Syriac in, 219 
 
 Liber Generationis, 258 
 
 Liber Pontificalis; the document, 303 sq; 
 to whom assigned, 304; two editions, 
 304 sq ; (i) the earlier edition or Felician 
 book, extant in two abridgments, 366 sq, 
 304, 310 sq, {a) the Fehcian, 304, its 
 date, 266, 304; M.ss, 304; prefixed to 
 a collection of canons, 305,, (i) the 
 Cononian, 305 ; the earlier edition re- 
 stored by Duchesne, 305; its date and 
 origin, 266, 305 sq; its episcopal months 
 and days, 267 sq; (ii) the later or Co- 
 nonian edition, 307 sq; two classes of 
 MSS, 307 sq; itself of earlier origin, 
 307; Duchesne's date for it, 307; the 
 name misleading, 305, 307 ; differences 
 between the two editions, 309 sq; the 
 insertions in the later edition, 309 sq; 
 anachronisms, 310; influence of the 
 Clementines etc. on, 52, 56, 191 sq, 
 309; the whole founded on the Libe- 
 rian and Leonine Catalogues, 65, 266, 
 310 sq, 417 (see Leonine Catalogue, 
 Liberian Catalogue); the bearing of the 
 order in the pai)al frescoes on, 318 sq; 
 affinity and possible priority of the 
 order in the papal frescoes, 3 1 8 sq ; the 
 names and order of bishops in the 
 Liber Pontificalis from the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 321 sq; the term-numbers 
 from the Leonine Catalogue, 32 1 ; the 
 two epistles of Clement mentioned in 
 the earlier edition, 186, 4i6sq; reading 
 of the passage, 417 ; the notice not de- 
 rived from the Leonine Catalogue, 417 
 
 Liberian Catalogue; the name, 246; one 
 of a collection of tracts extant in two 
 transcripts, 233, 247 sq; the tables of 
 contents, 247 sq; the original collection 
 restored, 249 sq; description and dates 
 of the component parts, 249 sq; edi- 
 tions, especially Mommsen '3,247 sq, 2,^2; 
 text of the Catalogue, 2,^2 sq; relation 
 of the Chronicle of the World to the 
 Catalogue, 65, 258 sq ; the Catalogue 
 embodies the list of bishops appended 
 to the Chronicle, 65,259sq; its author, 
 Hippolytus, 65, 260 sq, 300 sq; entries 
 in the Catalogue, 260; the break at 
 Pontianus explained, 260 sq ; addi- 
 tions made to Hippolytus' original list, 
 261 ; the notes in Hijipolytus' list, 261 ; 
 objections of Dollinger and Hort to 
 the IIip]iolytean authorship met, 262; 
 the list elicited by a disputed pajial 
 succession, 262; parallels to this, 263; 
 the period after Pontianus, other breaks 
 noticeable, 263; the three continuators, 
 
 264, 300 sq ; the document examined at 
 length, (i) the earlier period, S. Peter to 
 Pontianus, {a) the consulships, 264 sq; 
 {b) the imperial synchronisms, 265 sq; 
 \c\ the months and days, 266 ; their re- 
 lation to the Leonine Catalogue, 266 sq; 
 ((/) the names, 270 sq; the mistakes 
 subsequent to Hippolytus' time, 65 sq, 
 270 sq, 284, 301 sq; and due to tran- 
 scriptional errors, 272, 281, 301 sq; 
 three stages in these errors, 272 sq, 274, 
 301 sq; {e) the years bound up with 
 the order of the names, 271 sq; the 
 term-numbers in the last five episco- 
 pates, 275 ; Lipsius' theory of a revision, 
 276sq, 279sq; Salmon's theory, 282 sq; 
 result, the original list coincided with 
 the Eusebian list, 273, 275, 284; (ii) 
 the later period, Pontianus to Liberius, 
 284 sq; duration of the episcopates, 
 months and days historical, 284 sq; a 
 comparative table of Latin lists, 285; 
 investigation in the case of each liishop, 
 286 sq; conclusions as to the whole 
 document, stages in its development, 
 64 sq, 300 sq; an inaccurate copy in 
 Eusebius' hands, 233 sq, 301 sq; com- 
 parative table, 234; the opinions of 
 Lipsius and Erbes, 233, 235; the list 
 incorporated wholesale in the Liber 
 Pontificalis [sea Liber Pontijicalis), 310 
 sq; its wide influence, 64 sq; mentions 
 Clement, 253, 272 sq, 274, 301 ; Her- 
 nias, 254, 261, 360 
 
 Liberius, bishop of Rome; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 258, 299 sq; date of his 
 e]iiscopate, 288, 299 ; his place in papal 
 lists, 209, 234, 236, 285 
 
 Linus, bishop of Rome; his name, 76; 
 his social status, 76; the friend of S. 
 Paul, 76, 156; his supposed relation- 
 ship to Claudia, 76sq, 163; to Pudens, 
 76 sq; his alleged connexion with the 
 British Church disproved, 76 sq; not 
 Llin, son of Caractacus, 78; his father 
 Herculanus, 77 ; his ej^iscopate, 79 ; 
 his relations to S. Peter, 191 sq, 309; 
 to Ancncletus, 67, 174 sq, 193, 309; 
 testimony of Irenreus, Eusebius, Photius, 
 etc., 156, 163, 166, 197, 203 sq, 206, 
 237 sq ; the Liberian Catalogue on, 253, 
 283; the Liber Pontificalis on, 191 sq, 
 309; his place in Eusebius' 1131,246,273; 
 in Hegesippus' list, 326; his place in 
 other lists, 208, 215, 216, 221, 241, 
 265, 266, 270, 272; reputed autlior of 
 the Acts of Peter and Paul, 32, 79 
 
 Lipsius; on the Plautilla legend, 32; on 
 the discoveries in the cemetery of 
 Domitilla, 35; identifies Clement the 
 liislioji and Clement the consul, 32; on 
 the chronology of Clement's life, 73 sq ;
 
 490 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 an inscription accepted by, 115; on a 
 passage in Eusebius, 165; his treatises 
 on the Roman succession, 201, '202; 
 especially on the Liberian Catalogue, 
 247; on Harnack's theory of schema- 
 tism, 224; his method criticised, 226, 
 231; his theories treated at length (a) 
 his earlier view, 232 sq ; (d) his later 
 view, 237 sq, 240; on the source of 
 certain later papal lists, 243; on the 
 sources and editions of the Liberian 
 Catalogue, 276 sq; on breaks and blun- 
 ders in it, 263, 271, 292, 296, 298, 299; 
 on the Liberian Depositio, 250; on the 
 editions of the Liber Pontiticalis, 305 sq; 
 on the Leonine Catalogue, 312, 315, 
 317 sq ; on a passage in Epiphanius, 
 331; on a lost chronicle in the hands 
 of Eusebius, 333 sq, 336 sq; on the 
 book of Judith, 356; on the Acts of 
 Nereus, 33 ; minor points criticised, 295, 
 296 
 
 Little Labyrinth, Hippolytus the author 
 of the, 271 
 
 Liturgies, early Christian ; their form, 
 385 sq ; illustrated by Clement's E]")is- 
 tle, 384 sq ; his use of the Ter Sanctus, 
 387 sq; synagogue prayers in, 392 sq 
 
 Llin, son of Caractacus, 78 
 
 Logos, the doctrine in Clement, 398 
 
 Lucina; the Crypt of, 31; perhaps the 
 baptismal name of Pomponia Grte- 
 cina, 31 
 
 Lucius, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 256, 288 sq; error in the 
 Liberian Catalogue respecting, 288 sq, 
 301 ; a break after the name, 263, 264; 
 elate of his episcopate, 285, 288 sq; his 
 banishment and return, 256; his place 
 in Eusebius' list, 246 ; in other papal 
 lists, 209, 221, 234, 141, 285 
 
 Lucius, British prince, 76 
 
 Lusius Quietus, Trajan's general; his 
 campaigns and death, 355 sq ; not 
 Olophernes, 355 sq 
 
 Luxurius, in the Acts of Nereus, 44 
 
 Alvo? (accent), 163 
 
 Macarius Magnes shows coincidences with 
 Clement's Epistle, 174 
 
 Madden, 1 1 8 
 
 Mai, criticised, 189 
 
 Malalas ; on the persecution of Domitian, 
 109 ; cites Bruttius, 46, 48, 109 ; mis- 
 represents him, 87 ; probably found 
 the passage in Julius Africanus, 48 
 
 Mamertinus, the prefect, in the Acts of 
 Clement, 85 
 
 Marangoni, 319 
 
 Marceflianus ; see Marctlliiins 
 
 Marcellina, the heretic ; mentioned in 
 Epiphanius, 328 sq, 331; the notice 
 
 probably derived from Hegesippus, 
 
 331 sq 
 
 Marcellinus, bishop of Rome ; in Jerome 
 Marcellianus, 218, 236, 292; Eusebius' 
 list ends witli, 206, 207, 293 ; confused 
 with Marcellus and omitted in the Ar- 
 menian Chronicon, and some lists, 216, 
 292, 293; but distinguished in the papal 
 frescoes, 318 sq; and in the Liber Pon- 
 tificalis, 321 ; the Liberian Catalogue 
 on, 256, 291 sq ; story of his lapse, re- 
 cantation and martyrdom, 293 sq ; his 
 apostasy unknown in the East, 294 ; 
 date of his episcopate, 249 sq, 285, 295 ; 
 his lost Acts, 294 ; his burial-place, 
 249 sq, 294, 296; omission of his name 
 accidental, 294 ; his term-number in 
 the Liber Pontificalis, 291 sq, 321 ; his 
 place in the papal lists, 209, 218, 221, 
 2 34> 285 
 
 Marcellus, bishop of Rome; confused with 
 Marcellinus and omitted in some lists, 
 292 ; and in Jerome, 217, 236, 292, 294 ; 
 l)ut distinguished in the papal frescoes, 
 318 sq ; and in the Liber Pontificalis, 
 321 ; the Liberian Catalogue on, 257, 
 291 sq, 296; date of his episcopate, 
 285, 296; banishment, 296; death, 297 ; 
 depositio, 250, 297 ; Damasus' epitaph 
 extant, 296 
 
 Marcellus, in the Acts of Nereus, 43 
 
 Marcia, mistress of Commodus, a Chris- 
 tian, 62, 342 
 
 Marcia Furnilla, wife of Titus, 1 7, 20 
 
 Marcion, 2 
 
 Marcus, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 257, 299; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 299; his place in papal 
 lists, 209, 234, 236, 285 
 
 Martial, Claudia and Pudens friends of, 
 76 sq 
 
 Martin I, in the Chersonese, 88 
 
 Martyrologies, days assigned to Clement 
 in, 99, 192 
 
 Matthceus Blastaris, 377 
 
 Mattidia ; in the Clementine romance, 
 14 sq; argument of date from the name, 
 23 sq _ 
 
 Maximus, a Roman presbyter; mentioned 
 in the Liberian Catalogue, 255 sq ; for 
 a time a Novatian, 256 
 
 Maximus, the Confessor, quotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 191, 420; other Clementine 
 Epistles known to, 420 
 
 Melchiades ; see Miltiades 
 
 Melito, on the persecution of Domitian, 
 104 
 
 memoria, an oratory, 91, 94 
 
 Mesrob; literary activity of, 213; Syriac 
 MSS in the hands of, 213 
 
 Messalina, wife of Claudius, 27, 30; her 
 household, 29
 
 INDEX. 
 
 491 
 
 Methodius, the apostle of Slavonia, 88 
 sq 
 
 Michael the Great ; his date, 218; relation 
 of his chronography to Eusebius' Chro- 
 nicon, 218 
 
 Mill, 118 
 
 Milman ; on the apostasy of Marcellinus, 
 294 ; on Clement's Epistle, 363 
 
 Miltiades, bishop of Rome ; forms of the 
 name, 298 ; the Liberian Catalogue on, 
 257, 291 sq, 297 sq ; the charge made 
 by Donatists against, 293 ; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 297 sq ; his depositio, 
 249, 297 ; synod at Rome presided over 
 by, 298 ; Eusebius on, 206 ; his place 
 in papal lists, 209, 234, 236, 285 
 
 Minas, archbishop of Amida, 212 
 
 Mithraic chapel under S. Clemente, 94 
 
 Mohl, 129 
 
 Mommsen; on the Domitillas, 19, ii4sq; 
 his stemma Flaviorum, 114; on the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 201, 247 sq, 252 
 sq ; on the Chronicon Paschale, 246 ; 
 on the Liberian Uepositio, 250 ; edits 
 the Leonine Paschal Cycle, 311 
 
 Mosheim, on the integrity of Clement's 
 Epistle, 363 
 
 Moyses, a Roman presbyter ; in the Libe- 
 rian Catalogue, 25:;; his captivity, 255, 
 287, 288 
 
 Mullooly, 92 
 
 Muratori criticised, 115 
 
 Muratorian Canon ; the mention of Her- 
 mas in, 262 ; connected with the ques- 
 tion of authorship, 262 ; and date, 4, 
 
 359 sq 
 
 fiaKiipios, of living persons, 72, 155 
 
 Natales Caesanun, bound up with the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 248, 249 
 
 Neander, on the integrity of Clement's 
 Epistle, 363 
 
 nepos, neptis, 44 
 
 Nereus ; story of his martyrdom, 42 sq ; 
 a soldier, not a chamberlain, 51 ; pro- 
 bable origin of his association with 
 Domitilla, 5 1 ; the name in inscriptions, 
 51 ; see /ic/s of Ncrcns 
 
 Nero, persecution under, 74 sq, 3S0sq, 
 
 383 
 
 Ncrva ; restores the Christian exiles, 41, 
 108 ; in the Acts of Nereus a perse- 
 cutor, 44 
 
 Nicephorus of Constantinople ; his Chro- 
 nographica Brevis, 195 sq, 240; on the 
 Roman succession, 195 sq ; his papal 
 list, 241 sq ; omits Marccllus, 292; its 
 relation to the Leonine list, 312 sq; ex- 
 cludes the Clementine Epistles from his 
 canon, 375 
 
 Nicetes in the Clementine romance, 14 sq, 
 
 CLEM. 
 
 Nicholas III, papal frescoes executed by, 
 
 318 
 
 Nicolas of Lyra ; his date, 102; his error 
 as to Clement's Epistle repeated from 
 Aquinas, 102 
 
 Nicon of Rhcethus, quotes Clement's 
 Epistle, 200 
 
 Nicostratus, Roman deacon, in the Libe- 
 rian Catalogue, 255 
 
 Notitia Regionum, bound up with the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 248, 251 ; an in- 
 tegral part of the work, 252 
 
 Novatian, Novatus, mentioned in the 
 Liberian Catalogue, 255 
 
 Novatus, traditionally son of Pudens, 77 
 
 Octavia, wife of Nero ; place of her exile, 
 50 ; inscription relating to, 27 
 
 Oehler, 176 
 
 Olophernes ; in the story of Judith, 354 ; 
 not a representation of Lusius Quietus, 
 355 sq 
 
 Olympiads of Jerome, 217 
 
 Onesimus, martyred under Domitian, i r r 
 
 Onesimus, T. Flavins, not the husband 
 of Flavia Domitilla (4), 114 
 
 Optatus, influence of the Liberian Cata- 
 logue on, 64, 171, 274 
 
 Orelli, criticised, i r^ 
 
 Origen ; quotes Clement's Epistle, 161, 
 359; and shows coincidences, 162; 
 does not treat it as canonical, 367 ; on 
 Clement, 22 ; ascribes the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews to him, 161 sq 
 
 Orosius, not the author of the Liber Gene- 
 rationis, 258 
 
 Pagi, 299 
 
 Pandateria; as a place of banishment, 3,^, 
 49 sq, 104; probably not the scene of 
 Domitilla's exile, 35, 49 sq 
 
 Pantrenus, and the authorship of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, loi 
 
 Panvinio, 304 
 
 Papias ; his claim to the title of Apostolic 
 Father, 5 ; form of his Expositio, 7 sq ; 
 his sympathy with Judaism, 9 ; his 
 evidence to the Canon, 1 1 
 
 Parsons, on the origin of the British 
 Church, 76 
 
 Paschal controversy, 310 
 
 Paschal Cycle of Leo the Great, 311 ; 
 perhaps by Prosper, 311; extant frag- 
 ments, 311 ; the papal catalogue once 
 attached to it ; see Leonine Catalogue 
 
 Paschal Tables, bound up with the Libe- 
 rian Catalogue, 247, 249 
 
 Passio Pauli ; obligations of the Acts of 
 Nereus to, 32 ; author, 32, 79 
 
 Patristic quotations illustrating Clement, 
 
 148 sq 
 Paul (S.) ; at Rome, 73 ; his companions 
 
 29
 
 492 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 there, 74 ; his relations with S. Peter, 
 9 ; his connexion with Clement, 4, 74; 
 his martyrdom, 75, 351 ; Clement's 
 allusion to it, 75 ; his influence on 
 Clement's writings, 95, 397 sq ; who 
 coordinates him with S. James, 95 sq, 
 397 ; source of his quotation in i Cor. 
 ii. 9, 390 sq 
 
 Paul (S.), Church of, at Rome, papal 
 frescoes in the ancient, 315, 316, 318 sq 
 
 Paul of Samosata, and the Roman suc- 
 cession, 291 
 
 Paula, the friend of Jerome, 41, 50, 108; 
 her travels, 41, 108 
 
 Paulinas of Nola ; no evidence of a Latin 
 translation of Clement's Epistle by, 147, 
 174, 187; his designation of Eusebius' 
 Chronicon, 211 
 
 Pearson ; on the Roman succession, 201 ; 
 on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, 304 
 
 Pedanius Secundus, city prefect, 18 
 
 Peiresc, 247 
 
 Persecutions ; see under Domitian, N'cro, 
 etc. 
 
 Pertz, 307, 308 
 
 Peter (S.) ; in the Clementine romance, 
 14, 15, 158; subordinated to S.James, 
 68 ; in the story of Petronilla, 38, 43 ; 
 in the Acts of Nereus, 43 ; at Rome, 
 73; his companions, 74; Salmon on 
 his twenty-five years' episcopate, 283 ; 
 date of his martyrdom, 351 ; his con- 
 nexion with Clement, 4, 73 ; Clement on 
 his martyrdom, 75 ; coordinated with 
 S. Paul, 95 sq ; influence of his First 
 Epistle on Clement, 95 ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 253 ; his relations with 
 S. Paul, 9 
 
 Peter (S.), Church of, at Rome, papal 
 frescoes in the ancient, 318 sq 
 
 Peter of Alexandria ; coincidence with 
 Clement's Epistle in, 164 ; Arsenius' 
 hynm to him and Clement, 199 ; his 
 day identical with Clement's, 199 
 
 Petermann on the Armenian version of 
 Eusebius' Chronicon, 212 sq, 226 
 
 Petilianus, Donatist bishop, 293 sq 
 
 Petro, T. Flavins, founder of the Flavian 
 family, i6sq ; his wife Tertulla, 17, 18 
 
 Petronilla; legendary daughter of S. Peter, 
 38, 43 ; her basilica discovered, 37 ; 
 inscription on her tomb, 37 ; her cultus 
 in the Cemetery of Domitilla, 37 ; her 
 Acts, 38 ; her translation to the Vatican, 
 37; her church destroyed, 38; probably 
 of the Flavian family, 38; her date, 38 
 
 Philastrius, on the authorship of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, 172 
 
 Philip, the emperor. Christian leanings 
 of, 63 
 
 Philocalian Catalogue; •&&& Liberian Cata- 
 logue 
 
 Philocalus; see Filocalus, Fiirius 
 
 Philosophumena, 13 
 
 Philostratus; on the murder of Flavius 
 Clemens, 18, 50, 112; on the motive 
 of Stephanus, 40, 112, 115; on the re- 
 lationship of Domitilla and Domitian, 
 
 44 
 
 Phoebus, in the story of Clement's mar- 
 tyrdom, 86, 91 
 
 Phoenix; in Clement's Epistle, 97; pa- 
 tristic allusions to the story, 162, 168, 
 170, 172, 175; the story assailed, 363; 
 explained, 67 
 
 Photius ; his testimony to Clement's 
 Epistle, 197 sq, 370, 375; does not 
 consider it canonical, 375; attributes 
 the Acts of the Apostles to Clement, 
 102, 198; alludes to lost Clementine 
 Epistles, 146, 197 sq 
 
 Phyllis, Domitian's nurse, 95, 115 
 
 Pitra, 146 sq, 187, 189 
 
 Pius, bishop of Rome ; traditionally bro- 
 ther of Hernias, 4, 254, 360; Irenseus 
 on, 204 ; the Liberian Catalogue on, 
 354; his place in Eusebius' list, 246, 
 273 ; in Hegesippus' list, 326; his order 
 and that of Anicetus ; see Anicetiis 
 
 Plautia, perhaps the wife of Sabinus, the 
 city prefect, 32 
 
 Plautilla; in the Passio Pauli, 32; in the 
 Acts of Nereus, 32, in; sister of 
 Flavius Clemens and mother of Domi- 
 tilla the virgin, 32, 42, in; De Rossi 
 on, 32 
 
 Polycarp; his claim to the title of Apo- 
 stolic Father, 4; his character, 7 sq; 
 Clement's Epistle known to, 149 sq, 
 
 348 
 
 Pomponia Grsecina, wife of Plautius ; the 
 charge against her, 30, 32 ; date, 32 ; 
 proved a Christian by recent discoveries, 
 31 sq; Lucina perhaps the baptismal 
 name of, 3 1 ; perhaps of a Flavian 
 family, 32 sq 
 
 Pomponius Grcecinus, inscription in the 
 crypt of Lucina to, 31 
 
 Pontia ; the place of banishment of Flavia 
 Domitilla, 35, 49 sq, 87, in; Eusebius 
 on this, 105, 106 sq; of other notable 
 exiles, 50; its position, 50; the cell of 
 Domitilla shown at, 42, 50; in the 
 Acts of Nereus Domitilla the virgin 
 banished to, 43, 44; confused with the 
 Chersonese in the Acts of Clement, 87, 
 109 
 
 Pontianus, bishop of Rome; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 255, 286; the break in 
 the Liberian Catalogue after, 65, 260 
 sq, 264, 269, 300 (see Liberian Cata- 
 logue); date of his episcopate, 65, 285, 
 286; his deprivation and banishment, 
 2,55, 286 sq, 301, 341; Ilippolytus'
 
 INDEX. 
 
 49: 
 
 name coupled wilh, 261 sq, 287, .500; 
 day of his depositio, •287 ; his place in 
 Eusebius' list, 246 ; his position in other 
 lists explained, 287, 319, 321 ; his place 
 in the papal frescoes, 319, 320, 
 
 Prffidestinatus, makes Clement a martyr, 
 177 
 
 Prsesens, C. Bruttitis, persons bearing the 
 name, 46 sq 
 
 Praxedis, traditionally daughter of Pudens, 
 
 77 
 Primus, bishop of Corinth, 84, 203, 328 
 
 Priscilla, the cemetery of, 249 sq, 294, 
 296, 297 
 
 Priscus, in the Acts of Nereus, 43 
 
 Proculus, a Christian physician, 63 
 
 Prosper, the Chronographer, perha])s au- 
 thor of the Leonine Paschal Cycle, and 
 of the Leonine Catalogue, 311 sq 
 
 Ps- Ignatius, on Clement, 171 
 
 Ps-Justin, quotes Clement's Epistle, 178, 
 179; a passage emended in, i8o 
 
 Ps-Tertullian; on Clement, 176; dupli- 
 cates Cletus and Anacletus, 176, 275; 
 date of the adv. Marcionem, 176 
 
 Publius Tarquitianus, in the legend of 
 Clement's martyrdom, 85 sq 
 
 Pudens in 2 Tim. iv. 21; not Aulus Pu- 
 dens, 76 sq ; nor the father of Linus, 
 76 sq; nor connected with the British 
 Church, 76 sq; his father, 77; his wife 
 Claudia Rufina, 77 
 
 Pudens, Aulus ; the friend of Martial, 76 
 sq; not the Pudens of 2 Tim. iv. 21, 
 76 sq; date of his marriage, 79; his 
 wife, 77; his character, 77, 79 
 
 Pudentiana, traditionally daughter of Pu- 
 dens, 77 
 
 Pudentinus; the name on an inscrii)tion 
 associated with Cogidubnus, 78; de- 
 ductions, 78 
 
 TTpeffpvTepos, its use in Clement's Epistle, 
 
 69. 352 
 (f)7)<T'iv, in Barnabas, 10 
 
 ^iKo^evia, its position in Clement's teach- 
 ing, 96, 168, 397 
 
 Quatuor Coronati, 251 
 
 Quintilian, the rhetorician, tutor to the 
 
 sons of Flavins Clemens, 20 sq, 24, 59, 
 
 112 
 Quotations, biblical, in Clement's Epistle, 
 
 Quotations, patristic, illustrating Clement 
 and Clement's Epistle, 148 sq 
 
 Regions of the city Rome, bound up with 
 the Liberian Catalogue, 248, 251 sq ; 
 an integral part of the work, 252 
 
 Reimar, 115 
 
 Renan; on Clement, 52; on Clement's 
 Epistle, 60; criticisms on, 61, 113 
 
 Roediger, 219, no, 221 
 
 Roman Sacramentaries, the order of Ro- 
 man bishops in, 98 
 
 Roman Succession, early, 201 sq; see 
 also Eiisclniis of Casarea, Liber Ponti- 
 Jicalis, Liberian Catalogue 
 
 Rome, Church of; the title 'apostolic,' 
 2 ; visits of Apostles to, 73 ; its social 
 position in the time of the Apostles, 26 ; 
 in the time of Clement, 26 sq, 69 sq; 
 its attitude towards other churches, 69 
 sq ; its correspondence with the Church 
 of Corinth, 69 sq, 71 sq, 83 sq, 155, 
 35-. 358, 369; episcopacy a late de- 
 velopment in, 68 sq, 352; Clement's 
 position in, 63, 67 sq; the growth of 
 the power of, 70 sq 
 
 Rosshirt, 416 
 
 Rossweyde, PL, 247 
 
 Rosweyd, 147 
 
 Rufinus; his translations, 11, 147; yet 
 neglects the Apostolic Fathers, 1 1 ; 
 translates Eusebius, 154; the Clemen- 
 tine Recognitions, 147; the First Cle- 
 mentine Epistle to James, 175, 415; 
 but not the second Epistle to James, 
 416 ; adopts Epiphanius' Iheoiy of early 
 papal chronology, 67, I74sq, 309 sq ; 
 the order in the Liberian Catalogue 
 unknown to, 274; makes Clement a 
 martyr, 56 sq; on Flavia Domitilla, 
 108 
 
 Sabbathis, Sabbatis, Sabbatius, Jewish 
 names in Roman inscriptions, 29 
 
 Sabinus, T. Flavins (i), 17, 18; father of 
 Vespasian, 17, 19 
 
 Sabinus, T. Flavins (2), prefect of the 
 city, 17, 18, 75; killed by Vitellius, 18; 
 his character, 35, 75 sq; his attitude in 
 the Neronian persecution, 7-; ; his \\ife, 
 17, 32 sq; his supposed daughter Plau- 
 tilla, 32 sq 
 
 Sabinus, T. Flavins (3) ; marries Julia 
 Augusta, 17, 18, 20; killed by Domi- 
 tian, 18 
 
 Sachau, 242 
 
 Said-E])n-Batrik ; his Annales, 240; his 
 ])apal list, 240, 24 1 s(i 
 
 Salmon ; on the chronology of Hippoly- 
 tus, 201, 259, 282 sq; on the Liberian 
 C^atalogue, 201, 271, 282 sq; on the 
 Muratorian Canon, 262; on the date of 
 the Crucifixion, 263, 282 sq ; on the 
 twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter, 
 283; on Gains, 284 
 
 Samuel of Ania; the Armenian Chronicle 
 of, 214; containing an abridgment of the 
 Armenian version of Eusebius' Chroni- 
 con, 214; noticesof his work, 216, 231; 
 Latin translation of it, 214
 
 494 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 SanClementc; sec Clement (S.), Basilica 
 
 of 
 
 Satrius Silo, 115 
 
 Savile, 154 
 
 Scaliger; reconstructs Eiisebius' chrono- 
 logy, 210; on a passage in Bede, 225 
 
 Schelestrale, 201, 304 
 
 Severianus, in the Acts of Nereus, 44 
 
 Severus of Antioch; quotes the Second 
 Clementine Epistle, 182 sq; excludes 
 Clement's Epistle from the canon, 368 
 
 Sibyl; allusion in ps-Justin to, 178 sq; 
 not a quotation from Clement, 180; 
 date of the oldest Jewish Sibylline 
 Oracle, 178; patristic quotations from, 
 179; main topics of, 179 
 
 Siegfried, 219 
 
 Silvester, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 257, 299; the charge of 
 cowardice against, 293; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 299 ; his depositio, 
 249, 299 ; his place in papal lists, 209, 
 
 •234. 236, 285 
 
 Simeon of Garmai ; his date, 218; trans- 
 lates Eusebius' Chronicon, 218 
 
 Simon Magus ; in the Acts of Nereus, 44 ; 
 in the Clementine romance, 14, 15 
 
 Sinuessa, Acts of the spurious Council of, 
 the story of Marcellinus in the, 294 
 
 Siricius, bishop of Rome; honours Cle- 
 ment, 87; honours Petronilla, 37 
 
 Sisinnius, in the story of Clement's mar- 
 tyrdom, 85 
 
 Sixtus, bishop of Rome ; see Xystus I 
 
 Sophronius, 211 
 
 Soter, bishop of Rome; his correspond- 
 ence with Dionysius of Corinth, 71 sq, 
 83, 154 sq, 352. 35«. 369; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 254 ; Hegesippus in 
 Rome with, 202 ; Irenseus on, 204; his 
 place in Eusebius' list, 246, 273 ; in 
 Hegesippus' list, 326 ; in other lists, 
 208, 221, 241, 265, 266, 267, 272 ; date 
 of his episcopate, 155; his burial-place, 
 
 3io 
 
 Statius, on Domitilla, 19 
 
 Stephanus, bishop of Rome ; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 256, 289; his place in 
 Eusebius' list, 246; in other lists, 209, 
 2 1. s, 221, 234, 236, 241, 242, 285; date 
 of his e])iscopate, 285, 289 
 
 Stephanus, the assassin of Domitian; a 
 frcedman of Uomililla, 40, in, 112, 
 383; motive for his crime, 40; pos- 
 thumous honours to, 41 ; was he a Chris- 
 tian? 41 
 
 Stephanus Gobarus ; on the authorshij) of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, loi, 188; 
 confuses the two Clements, 188 
 
 Straton, Roman deacon, charge of cowar- 
 dice against, 293 
 
 Suetonius ; on Elavius Clemens, 112; on 
 
 Stephanus, 40 ; a passage explained in, 
 20 
 Sulpicius, in the Acts of Nereus, 44 
 Symmachus, bishop of Rome; his date, 
 306 ; his disputed succession, 262 sq, 
 306, 319 sq; called forth the earlier 
 edition of the Liber Pontificalis, 263, 
 306; and other documents, 263, 307, 
 
 324 
 Synagogues ; number and importance of, 
 392 sq ; their prayers embodied in 
 Christian liturgies, 393 sq; light thrown 
 by Clement's Epistle on this, 393 sq 
 Syncellus; see Georgiiis SyniccUus 
 Syriac ; abridgment of the Ignatian 
 Epistles, 12; catalogue (non-Eusebian) 
 of Roman succession, 220, 323 sq; 
 version of Clement's Epistle, 129 sq, 
 373, 377 (see Clement, Epistle of); 
 version of Eusebius' Chronicon, 21S sq 
 (see Ensebius) ; writers who quote Cle- 
 mentine Epistles, 135, 180 sq, 182 sq 
 
 Tacitus ; on Pomponia Grsecina, 30, 32 ; 
 on the Neronian persecution, 75 ; on 
 Cogidubnus, 78 
 
 Tatia, nurse of Flavia Domitilla, inscrip- 
 tion on the tomb of, 36, ii4sq 
 
 Teaching of the Apostles ; see Didachc 
 
 Telesphoras, bishop of Rome ; the Libe- 
 rian Catalogue on, 253 ; his place in 
 Eusebius' list, 246, 273; in Hegesippus' 
 list, 326; in other lists, 208, 221, 241, 
 265, 266, 267, 272 ; his martyrdom, 
 204; Irenteus on, 54, 204; Eusebius 
 on, 207 
 
 Temple worship, allusions in Clement's 
 Epistle to the, 353 
 
 Ter Sanctus ; mentioned in Clement's 
 Epistle, 387 ; its liturgical history and 
 preface, 387 sq 
 
 Tertulla, wife of T. Flavius Petro, 17, 
 18, 20 
 
 Tertulla, wife of the Emperor Titus ; see 
 Arreeina Tertulla 
 
 Tertullian ; on Domitian, 41, 8r, 105, 
 107; on Clement, 160, 344; shows 
 coincidences with Clement's Epistle, 
 160 ; a reading in, 40 ; his use of the 
 word 'apostolic,' 2; his date for the 
 Crucifixion, 282 
 
 Theodora ; in the Acts of Nereus, 44 ; in 
 the Acts of Clement, 85 
 
 Theodoret, on the persecution of Domitian, 
 109 
 
 Theodoras Sludites, narrative ascribed tu 
 Clement by, 102, 195 
 
 Theophiius of Antioch, supposed resem- 
 blances to Clement's Epistle in, 155 
 
 Tillemont, 210 
 
 Timolheus, traditionally son of Pudens, 
 
 77
 
 INDEX. 
 
 495 
 
 Timotheus of Alexandria ; Clementine 
 quotations in, i8i ; translated them 
 direct from the Greek, i8i sq, 412, 420 ; 
 excludes Clement's works from the 
 canon, 368 
 
 Tischendoif, 12, 118, 119, 402 
 
 Titiana, Flavia, 37 
 
 Titiane, in inscriptions, 36, 37 
 
 Titus, the emperor; his name and pedi- 
 gree, 17; his wives, 17, 19; Christianity 
 under, 27, 81 
 
 Tor Marancia; sjielling, 35; catacombs 
 identified with the cemetery of Domi- 
 tilla, 35 sq, 115; and situated on her 
 estate, 36 sq 
 
 Trajan ; his persecution, 350 ; his eastern 
 campaigns, 355 ; his death, 355 
 
 Trcbellius Pollio, on a namesake and de- 
 scendant of Domitian, 21, 113 
 
 Trinity, teaching of Clement on the, 399 
 
 Truilan Council; its authority, 374; its 
 canons, 374, 376 ; probably did not 
 receive the Clementine Epistles as 
 canonical, 374 sq, 376 sq 
 
 Tubingen School, 68 sq, 97, 357 sq 
 
 Victor, bishop of Rome; the Libcrian 
 Catalogue on, 254 ; in Eusebius' list, 
 246; in other lists, 208, 215, 221, 226, 
 241, 265, 267, 275 ; his letter to Corinth, 
 70, 353 ; Irenieus' letter to, 204 
 
 Victorinus Afer ; his date, 1 76 ; perhaps 
 author of the adv. Marcionem, 176 
 
 Victorinus Massiliensis ; his date, 176; 
 perhaps author of the adv. Marcionem, 
 176 
 
 Vignoli, 1 1 5 
 
 Villecourt, 407, 41 1 
 
 Virginity, Two Clementine Epistles on ; 
 date, 407, 416; MS, 407 sq ; accepted 
 by Epiphanius, 408, 410 ; known to 
 Jerome, 409 ; to Timotheus of Alex- 
 andria, 412 ; to Antiochus the Monk, 
 412 sq; area of circulation, 412, 419, 
 420; show coincidences with Clement's 
 genuine Epistle, 414 
 
 Vitalis, Vito, Vitus, fonns and inscrip- 
 tions, 28 
 
 Volkmar; on the identity of Clement, 52 ; 
 on the book of Judith, 355 sq ; on the 
 date of Clement's Epistle, 353 sq 
 
 Urbanus, bishop of Rome ; the Eiberian 
 Catalogue on, 255, 256 ; in Eusebius' 
 list, 246 ; his place in other lists, 208, 
 216, 218, 221, 241, 265, 267, 275; his 
 term-number omitted in the Armenian 
 Chronicon, 276; date of his death, 276 
 
 Vaison, Synod of, 177, 415 
 
 Valentinus, the Liberian Catalogue dedi- 
 cated to, 249 
 
 Valeria, Valerius, the name in inscriptions 
 of the imperial household, 27 sq 
 
 Valeria, nurse of Octavia, 27 
 
 Valerius Bito ; bearer of Clement's letter, 
 27, 381 ; the name in inscriptions, 28, 
 62 ; probably one of the imperial house- 
 hold, 29 ; date suggested by the name, 
 
 27. 349 
 Vallarsi, 210 
 Vansittart, his assistance in this edition, 
 
 119 
 Vespasia Polla, wife of T. P lavius Sa- 
 
 binus (i), 17, 18 
 Vespasianus, T. Flavius (the emperor 
 
 Vesj)asian) ; marries Flavia Domitilla, 
 
 17, 19; his family, 17, 19, 45, 115; 
 
 Christianity in the reign of, 27, 81, 
 
 106 ; according to Hilary, a jjersecutor, 
 
 81, 350 
 Vespasianus, T. Flavius ; see Titus, the 
 
 emperor 
 Vespasianus, son of T. Flavius Clemens, 
 
 17, 20 sq, 24, 34, 42, 112; consul, 21 ; 
 
 date of consulship, 24; fate of, 42; his 
 
 tutor Quintilian, 20, 24, 112 
 
 Waitz, on the Liber Pontificalis, 305, 308 
 
 AVandinger, on the Roman domestic tri- 
 bunal, 30, 31 
 
 Wetstein, 407, 408, 411 
 
 Westcott, 8, 96, 375 
 
 Wieseler, 53, 57, 350, 359 
 
 Williams, 78 
 
 Wotton, 118, 178, 401 
 
 Wright, his assistance in this edition, 
 i«4. 185, 322 
 
 Xystus I, bisho]5 of Rome; the name, 
 253 ; the Liberian Catalogue on, 253 ; 
 Lenseus on, 204 ; Eusebius on, 207 ; 
 his place in Eusebius' list, 246, 273 ; 
 in Flcgesippus' list, 326; in other lists, 
 208, 221, 234, 241, 267, 272 
 
 Xystus n, bishop of Rome; the Liberian 
 Catalogue on, 256, 289 ; date of the 
 error there, 289, 301 ; date of his 
 episcopate, 285, 2S9 sq ; day of his 
 martyrdom, 290 ; his place in Euse- 
 bius' list, 246 ; in other lists, 209, 221, 
 241, 242, 265, 266, 285 
 
 Young, Patrick ; his cditio ])rinceps of 
 Clement, 116, 118,400 
 
 Zacchsus, in the Clementine romance, 
 
 14, 162, 175 
 Zahn, 53, 57, 82, 113, 114, 115, 152,371 
 Zeitz, 3 1 1
 
 496 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome ; omiUcd in lion in the Armenian version and in 
 
 the Liberian Catalogue, 253; the lacuna Syncellus, 276; Lipsius on, 281; his 
 
 supjilied, 254, 2?5, 265, 267, 275; his place in Eusebius' list, 246; in other 
 
 term-number omitted in Jerome's ver- lists, 208, 218, 221, 241, 244, 275 
 sion of the Chronicon, 276; the cornip- 
 
 cambridgk: printed uy c. j. clay, .m.a., and sons, at the university press.
 
 7i
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 y^.ii 
 
 
 JBfiL 
 
 fi£ 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 SEC'D LD-URL 
 
 Form L 
 
 (;0'' 
 
 I mr 
 
 i;:D 
 
 «^ 
 
 •V-;
 
 3 1158 00439 0877 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 589 535 4