CLEMENT
17
CLEMENT
pointing out that we hear carHer of the importance
of the Roman Church than of the authority of the
Roman bishop. If Clement had spoken in his own
name, they would surely have noted expressly that
he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged
"presbyter" who had known the Apostles. St. John
indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer
to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes of-
ficially, with all that autliority of the Roman Church
of which Ignatius and Irena?us have so much to say.
The Second Letter to the Corinthians. — An ancient
homily by an anonjTnous author has come down to
us in the same two Greek MSS. as the Epistle of
Clement, and is called the Second Epistle of Clement
to the Corinthians. It is first mentioned by Eusebius
(Hist. EccL, III, xxxvii), who considered it spurious,
as being unknown to the ancients; he is followed
(perhaps not independently) by Rufinus and Jerome.
Its inclusion as a letter of Clement in the Codex
Alexandrinus of the whole Bible in the fifth century
is the earliest testimony to a belief in its authenticity;
in the sixth century it is quoted by the Monophysite
leaders Timothy of Alexanflria and Severus of Anti-
och, and it was later known to many Greek writers.
This witness is a great contrast to the very early
veneration paid to the genuine letter. Hilgenfeld's
theory that it is the letter of Pope Soter to the Corin-
thians, mentioned by Dionysius in the fragment
quoted above, was accepted by many critics, until
the discovery of the end o{ the work by Bryennios
showed that it was not a letter at all, but a homily.
Still Harnack has again and again defended this view.
An apparent reference to the Isthmian Games in
§7 suggests that the homily was delivered at Corinth;
but this would be in character if it was a letter ad-
dressed to Corinth. Light foot and others think it
earlier than Marcion, c. 140, but its reference to
Gnostic views does not allow us to place it much
earlier. The matter of the sermon is a very general
exhortation, and there is no definite plan or sequence.
Some citations from unknown Scriptures are inter-
esting.
The editio princeps of the two "Epistles to the Corinthians" is that of Patrick Young, 1633 (2d ed., 1637), from the famous Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the whole Bible in Greek. A number of editions followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (enumerated by Funk, Gebhardt, and Lightfoot). In the nineteenth w-e may notice those of C. J. Hefele (Tubingen, 1st ed., 1839), Jacobson (Oxford, 1st ed., 1840, etc.), Drcssel (Leipzig, 1857), in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers by these writers. An edition by Bishop J. B. Lightfoot appeared in 1869 (London and Cambridge), one by J. C. M. Laurent in 1870 (Leipzig), and one by O. von Gebhardt and A. Har- nack in 1875 (Leipzig). All these editions are founded on the one MS., which gives both letters incom- pletely, and not always legibly. On its doubtful readings Tischendorf wrote in 1873 (dementis Rom. Epistulip. Leipzig), and he gave a so-called facsimile in 1867 (Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici et Vaticani, Leipzig). A photographic reproduction of the whole codex was published at the British Museum in 1879. In 1875 the complete text of both Epistles was published by Bryennios at Constanti- nople, from a MS. in the Patriarchal library of that city. It was used in Hilgenfeld's "dementis Romani Epistuls" (2d ed., Leipzig, 1876), in the second edition of Gebhardt and Harnack (1876). In Light- foot's edition of 1877 (London) a SjTiac version was also used for the first time. The MS. was written in 1170, and is in the Cambridge University Library. It has been published in full by R. L. Bensley and R. H. Kennctt, "The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac " (London. 1899). Dr. Funk's "Opera Patrum Apostolicorum " first appeared in 1878-81 (Tubingen). The great and comprehensive IV.— 2
posthumous edition of Lightfoot 's ' ' Clement of Rome "
(which contains a photographic facsimile of the
Constantinople MS.) was published in 1890 (2 vols.,
London). The Greek text and English translation
are reprinted by Lightfoot, "The Apostolic Fathers"
(1 vol., London, 1891). In 1878 Dom Germain
Morin discovered a Latin translation of the genuine
Epistle in an eleventh-century MS. in the library of
the Seminary of Namur (Anecdota Maredsolana, 2
vols., "S. dementis ad Corinthios Epistulae versio
antiq\iissima", Maredsous, 1894). The version is
attributed to the second century by Harnack and
others. It has been employed to correct the text
in Funk's latest edition (1901), and by R. Knopf,
" Der erste Clemensbrief" (in "Tpxte und Unters.",
New Series, Leipzig, 1899). Besides Lightfoot 's excel-
lent English rendering, there is a translation of the
two Epistles in " Ante-Nicene Chr. Lit. (Edinburgh,
1873, I).
On the Epistle in general the completest commentarr is that of Lightfoot, 1S90; Dr. Funk's, in Latin, will be found most serv-iceahle. See also Freppel, Les Peres Apoetotiques (Paris, 1859; 4th ed., 1885); Harnack, Gesch. der allchrist. Lit. (Vol. I, Leipzig. 1S93), (Vol. II, Chronologic, I, 1897); Wrehe, Uniersuchungen zum ersten Clemcnsbriefe (1891); Bhvll, Der ersic Brief drs Clemen.i von Horn (Freiburg im Br., 1883). Detailed references to other writers and to periodicals will be found in Bardenhewer. Patrologie (1894); Idem, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lilt.: Chevalier, Rip. des sources hisl., Bio-Bibl.; Ehrhard, Die allchrist. Litl.; Richardson, Bibliographical Synopsis (Buffalo, 1887).
On the order and chronology of the first popes, the earlier investigations are fruitless; see P. L.. CXXVI-VII. Modern re-search begins with Mo.mmsen, Ueber den Chronographen vom Jahre ;Wi, in Abhandlungen k. Sachs. Gas. der Wiss. (1850), I. 549. and the unsatisfactory works of Lipsius, Die Papslver- zeiehnissc des Eusebios (Kiel, 1868), Chronol. der rom. Bi-schofe (Kiel, 1869). The next most important work is Liber Pontiji' calis, ed. Duchesne (1st part, 1884). Lie htfoot's long ex- cursus in Clement of Rome, I. was epoch-making. Since then Harnack, Chronol., I, 70-230; Turner, in Journal of Th. Stud., Jan., 1900; Flamion, in Revut d'hist. cedes. (Dec, 1900); Chapman, in Revue Benedictine (Oct., 1901, Jan. and April. 1902).
On the Church of St. Clement see MuLOOLV, Saint Clemeni and his Basilica at Rome (1st ed.. Rome, 1869; 2d, 1873); De Ro.ssi, Bull, di arehrol. crist. (1863, 1864, 1865, 1867, and 1870); Roller, Saint Clement de Rome (Paris, 1873). Shorter accounts in Grisar. Gesch. Roms und der Pdpste (Freiburg im Br., 1901); Lightfoot and the various Roman guide-books, Murray, Baedeker, Chandlery, etc.
John Chapman.
Clement II, Pope (Suidger'), date of birth unkno^^-n; enthroned 25 December, 1046; d. 9 October, 1047. In the autumn of 1046 the King of Ciermany, Henry III, crossed the Alps at the head of a large army and accompanied by a brilliant retinue of the secular and ecclesiastical princes of the empire, for the tw'ofold purpose of receiving the imperial cro^\-n and of re- storing order in the Italian peninsula. The condi- tion of Rome in particular was deplorable. In St. Peter's, the Lateran, and St. Mary Major's, sat three rival claimants to the papacy. (See Benedict IX.) Two of them, Benedict IX and iSylvestcr III, repre- sented rival factions of the Roman nobility. The po.-iition of the third, Gregory VI, was peculiar. The reform party, in order to free the city from the in- tolerable yoke of the House of Tusculum, and the Church from the stigma of Benedict's dissolute life, had stipulated with that stripling that he should re- sign the tiara upon receipt of a certain amount of money. That this heroic measure for delivering the Holy See from destruction was simoniacal, has been doubted by many; but that it bore the outward aspect of simony and would be considered a flaw in Ciregorjs title, consequently in the imperial title Henrj' was seeking, was the opinion of that age.
Strong in the consciousness of his good intentions, Gregory met King Henrj' at Piacenza, and was received with all possible honours. It was decided that he should summon a synod to meet at Sutri near Rome, at which the entire question should be venti- lated. The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman
