Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/804

786 CLEMENS, him of it, in b. c. 319, after Antipater's death, he garrisoned the principal cities, and sailed away to Macedonia to report the state of affairs to Poly- sperchon. In b. c. 318, after Polysperchon had been baffled at Megalopolis, he sent Cleitus with a fleet to the coast of Thrace to prevent any forces of Antigonus from passing into Europe, and also to effect a junction with Arrhidaeus, who had shut himself up in the town of Cius. [See p. 350, a.] Nicanor being sent against him by Cussander, a battle ensued near Byzantium, in which Cleitus gained a decisive victory. But his success ren- dered him over-confident, and, having allowed his troops to disembark and encamp on land, he was surprised by Antigonus and Nicanor, and lost all his ships except the one in which he sailed him- self. Having reached the shore in safety, he pro- ceeded towards Macedonia, but was slain by some soldiers of Lysimachus, with whom he fell in on the way, (Diod. xviii. 1.5, 39, 52, 72.) [E- K] CLEMENS (KAri)U7js), a Greek historian, pro- bably of Constantinople, who wrote, according to Suidas (s. t?.), respecting the kings and emperors of the Romans, a work to Hieronymus on the figures of Isocrates (ire^ Twy ^laoKpariKuy (rx?,"«Ta>v), and other treatises. Ruhnken {Praef. ad Tim. I-jMi. p. X.) supposes that Suidas has confounded two different persons, the historian and gramma- rian, but one supposition seems just as probable as the other. The grammatical works of Clemens are referred to in the Etymologicum Magimm (s. v. faArj) and Suidas («. w. "Hpas, 7rar/i)3oA.oy), and the historical ones very frequently in the Byzantine writers. (Vossius, ofo HisUtr. Graec. p. 416, ed. Westermaan.) CLEMENS (KAtJ^itjs), a slave of Agrippa Postu- mus, whose person very much resembled his master's, and who availed himself of this resemblance, after the murder of the latter on the accession of Tiberius in A. D. 14, to personate the character of Agrippa. Great numbers joined him in Italy; he was gene- rally believed at Rome to be the grandson of Ti- berius ; and a formidable insurrection would pro- bably have broken out, had not Tiberius contrived to have him appreMfended secretly. The emperor did not venture upon a public execution, but com- manded him to be slain in a private part of the palace. This was in a. d. 16. (Tac. Ann. ii. 39, 40; Dion Cjvss. Ivii. IG ; comp. Suet. 7t6. 25.) CLEMENS ALEXANDRrNUS, whose name was T. Flavius Clemens, usually sumamed Alexan- drinus, is supposed to have been born at Athens, though he spent the greater part of his life at Alexandria. In this way the two statements in which he is called an Athenian and an Alexandrian (Epiphan. Haer. xxvii, 6) have been reconciled by Cave. In early life he was ardently devoted to the study of philosophy, and his thirst for know- ledge led him to visit various countries, — Greece, southern Italy, Coelo-Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. It appears, from his own accoiuit, that he had various Christian preceptors, of whom he speaks in terns of great respect. One of them was a Jew by birth, and several were from the East. At length, coming to Egypt, he sought out Pantaenus, master of the Christian school at Alexandria, to whose instructions he listened with much satisfac- tion, and whom he prized far more highly than all his former teachers. It is not certainly known whether he had embraced Christianity before hear- ing Pantaenus, or whether his mind had only been CLEMENS. favourably inclined towards it in consequence of previous inquiries. Probably he first became a Christian under the influence of the precepts of Pantaenus, though Neander thinks otherwise. After he had joined the Alexandrian church, he became a presbyter, and about a. d. 190 he was chosen to be assistant to his beloved preceptor. In this latter capacity he continued until the year 202, when both principal and assistant were obliged to flee to Palestine in consequence of the persecution under Sevenis. In the beginning of Caracalla's reign he was at Jerusalem, to which city many Christians were then accustomed to re- pair in consequence of its hallowed spots. Alex- ander, bishop of Jerusalem, who was at that time a prisoner for the gospel, recommended him in a letter to the church at Antioch, representing him as a godly minister, a man both virtuous and well- known, whom they had already seen, and who had confirmed and promoted the church of Christ. It is conjectured, that Pantaenus and Clement re- turned, after an absence of three years, in 206, though of this there is no certain evidence. He must have returned before 211, because at that time he succeeded Pantaenus as master of the school. Among his pupils was the celebrated Origen. Guerike thinks, that he died in 21 3 ; but it is better to assume with Cave and Schrockh, that his death did not take place till 220. Hence he flourished under the reigns of Severus and Ca- racalla, 193—217. It cannot safely be questioned, that Clement held the fundamental truths of Christianity and exhibited genuine piety. But in his mental cha- racter the philosopher predominated. His learn- ing was great, his imagination lively, his power of perception not defective ; but he was unduly prone to speculation. An eclectic in philosophy? he eagerly sought for knowledge wherever it could be obtained, examining every topic by the light of his own mind, and selecting out of aU systems such truths as commended themselves to his judg- ment. " I espoused," says he, " not this or that philosophy, not the Stoic, nor the Platonic, nor the Epicurean, nor that of Aristotle ; but whatever any of these sects had said that was fit and just, that taught righteousness with a divine and religious knowledge, all that being selected, I call philoso- phy." He is supposed to have leaned more to the Stoics than to any other sect. He seems, indeed, to have been more attached to philosophy than any of the fathers with the exception of Origen. In comprehensiveness of mind Clement was cer- tainly deficient. He never develops great principles, but runs chiefly into minute details, which often be- come trifling and insipid. In the interpretation of the Scriptures he was guided by fancy rather than fixed rules deduced from common sense. He pur- sues no definite principles of exposition, neither does he penetrate into the essential nature of Christianity. His attainments in purely religious knowledge could never have been extensive, as no one doctrine is well stated. From his works no system of theology can be gathered. It were pre- posterous to recur to them for sound exegesis, or even a successful development of the duties of a Christian, much less for an enlightened estimate of the obligations under which men are laid to their Creator and to each other. It may be question eii, whether he had the ability to compose a connected system of theology, or a code of Ciiristian morality.