commending the Christian religion over against all non-Christian rivals or gnostic perversions. That is, more than one effort of this sort had been made to adapt the story of Clement’s Recognitions to general Christian use. Later the Homilies underwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling even before the Epitome, in its two extant forms, was made by more drastic methods of expurgation. One kind of adaptation at least is proved to have existed before the end of the 4th century, namely a selection of certain discourses from the Homilies under special headings, following on Recognitions, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the Recognitions may be dated c. 350–375 (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and the Homilies prior even to 350. But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating precarious.
Summary.—The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity, and proves that it embraced more intermediate types, between Ebionism proper and Catholicism, than has generally been realized. Incidentally, too, its successive forms illustrate many matters of belief and usage among Syrian Christians generally in the 3rd and 4th centuries, notably their apologetic and catechetical needs and methods. Further, it discusses, as Hort observes, certain indestructible problems which much early Christian theology passes by or deals with rather perfunctorily; and it does so with a freshness and reality which, as we compare the original 3rd-century basis with the conventional manner of the Epitome, we see to be not unconnected with origin in an age as yet free from the trammels of formal orthodoxy. Again it is a notable specimen of early Christian pseudepigraphy, and one which had manifold and far-reaching results. Finally the romance to which it owed much of its popular appeal, became, through the medium of Rufinus’s Latin, the parent of the late medieval legend of Faust, and so the ancestor of a famous type in modern literature.
Literature.—For a full list of this down to 1904 see Hans Waitz, “Die Pseudoklementinen” (Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr. Literatur, neue Folge, Bd. x. Heft 4), and A. Harnack, Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur (1904), ii. 518 f. In English, besides Hort’s work, there are articles by G. Salmon, in Dict. of Christ. Biog., C. Bigg, Studia Biblica, ii., A. C. Headlam, Journal of Theol. Studies, iii. (J. V. B.)
CLEOBULUS, one of the Seven Sages of Greece, a native and tyrant of Lindus in Rhodes. He was distinguished for his strength and his handsome person, for the wisdom of his sayings, the acuteness of his riddles and the beauty of his lyric poetry. Diogenes Laërtius quotes a letter in which Cleobulus invites Solon to take refuge with him against Peisistratus; and this would imply that he was alive in 560 B.C. He is said to have held advanced views as to female education, and he was the father of the wise Cleobuline, whose riddles were not less famous than his own (Diogenes Laërtius i. 89-93).
See F. G. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, i.
CLEOMENES (Κλεομένης), the name of three Spartan kings of the Agiad line.
Cleomenes I. was the son of Anaxandridas, whom he succeeded about 520 B.C. His chief exploit was his crushing victory near Tiryns over the Argives, some 6000 of whom he burned to death in a sacred grove to which they had fled for refuge (Herodotus vi. 76-82). This secured for Sparta the undisputed hegemony of the Peloponnese. Cleomenes’ interposition in the politics of central Greece was less successful. In 510 he marched to Athens with a Spartan force to aid in expelling the Peisistratidae, and subsequently returned to support the oligarchical party, led by Isagoras, against Cleisthenes (q.v.). He expelled seven hundred families and transferred the government from the council to three hundred of the oligarchs, but being blockaded in the Acropolis he was forced to capitulate. On his return home he collected a large force with the intention of making Isagoras despot of Athens, but the opposition of the Corinthian allies and of his colleague Demaratus caused the expedition to break up after reaching Eleusis (Herod. v. 64-76; Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 19, 20). In 491 he went to Aegina to punish the island for its submission to Darius, but the intrigues of his colleague once again rendered his mission abortive. In revenge Cleomenes accused Demaratus of illegitimacy and secured his deposition in favour of Leotychides (Herod. vi. 50-73). But when it was discovered that he had bribed the Delphian priestess to substantiate his charge he was himself obliged to flee; he went first to Thessaly and then to Arcadia, where he attempted to foment an anti-Spartan rising. About 488 B.C. he was recalled, but shortly afterwards, in a fit of madness, he committed suicide (Herod. vi. 74, 75). Cleomenes seems to have received scant justice at the hands of Herodotus or his informants, and Pausanias (iii. 3, 4) does little more than condense Herodotus’s narrative. In spite of some failures, largely due to Demaratus’s jealousy, Cleomenes strengthened Sparta in the position, won during his father’s reign, of champion and leader of the Hellenic race; it was to him, for example, that the Ionian cities of Asia Minor first applied for aid in their revolt against Persia (Herod. v. 49-51).
For the chronology see J. Wells, Journal of Hellenic Studies (1905), p. 193 ff., who assigns the Argive expedition to the outset of the reign, whereas nearly all historians have dated it in or about 495 B.C.
Cleomenes II. was the son of Cleombrotus I., brother and successor of Agesipolis II. Nothing is recorded of his reign save the fact that it lasted for nearly sixty-one years (370–309 B.C.).
Cleomenes III., the son and successor of Leonidas II., reigned about 235–219 B.C. He made a determined attempt to reform the social condition of Sparta along the lines laid down by Agis IV., whose widow Agiatis he married; at the same time he aimed at restoring Sparta’s hegemony in the Peloponnese. After twice defeating the forces of the Achaean League in Arcadia, near Mount Lycaeum and at Leuctra, he strengthened his position by assassinating four of the ephors, abolishing the ephorate, which had usurped the supreme power, and banishing some eighty of the leading oligarchs. The authority of the council was also curtailed, and a new board of magistrates, the patronomi, became the chief officers of state. He appointed his own brother Eucleidas as his colleague in succession to the Eurypontid Archidamus, who had been murdered. His social reforms included a redistribution of land, the remission of debts, the restoration of the old system of training (ἀγωγή) and the admission of picked perioeci into the citizen body. As a general Cleomenes did much to revive Sparta’s old prestige. He defeated the Achaeans at Dyme, made himself master of Argos, and was eventually joined by Corinth, Phlius, Epidaurus and other cities. But Aratus, whose jealousy could not brook to see a Spartan at the head of the Achaean league called in Antigonus Doson of Macedonia, and Cleomenes, after conducting successful expeditions to Megalopolis and Argos, was finally defeated at Sellasia, to the north of Sparta, in 222 or 221 B.C. He took refuge at Alexandria with Ptolemy Euergetes, but was arrested by his successor, Ptolemy Philopator, on a charge of conspiracy. Escaping from prison he tried to raise a revolt, but the attempt failed and to avoid capture he put an end to his life. Both as general and as politician Cleomenes was one of Sparta’s greatest men, and with him perished her last hope of recovering her ancient supremacy in Greece.
See Polybius ii. 45-70, v. 35-39, viii. 1; Plutarch, Cleomenes; Aratus, 35-46; Philopoemen, 5, 6; Pausanias ii. 9; Gehlert, De Cleomene (Leipzig, 1883); Holm, History of Greece, iv. cc. 10, 15. (M. N. T.)
CLEON (d. 422 B.C.), Athenian politician during the Peloponnesian War, was the son of Cleaenetus, from whom he inherited a lucrative tannery business. He was the first prominent representative of the commercial class in Athenian politics. He came into notice first as an opponent of Pericles, to whom his advanced ideas were naturally unacceptable, and in his opposition somewhat curiously found himself acting in concert with the aristocrats, who equally hated and feared Pericles. During the dark days of 430, after the unsuccessful expedition of Pericles to
- Dom Chapman (ut supra, p. 158) says during the Neoplatonist reaction under Julian 361–363, to which period he also assigns the Homilies.