Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: CHR-CLI
del.icio.us it!
|
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE , the name generally given to the writings which at one See also:time or another were fathered upon See also:Pope See also:Clement I. (q.v.), commonly called Clemens See also:Romanus, who was See also:early regarded as a See also:disciple of St See also:Peter. Thus they are for the most See also:part a See also:species of the larger pseudo-Petrine genus. See also:Chief among them are: (1) The so-called Second See also:Epistle; (2) two Epistles on Virginity; (3) the Homilies and Recognitions; (4) the See also:Apostolical Constitutions (q.v.); and (5) five epistles forming part of the Forged See also:Decretals (see DECRETALS). The See also:present See also:article deals mainly with the third See also:group, to which the See also:title Clementine literature " is usually confined, owing to the stress laid upon it in the famous See also:Tubingen reconstruction of See also:primitive See also:Christianity, in which it played a leading part; but later See also:criticism has lowered its importance as its true date and See also:historical relations have been progressively ascertained. (1) and (2) became " Clementine " only by See also:chance, but (3) was so originally by See also:literary See also:device or fiction, the cause at See also:work also in (4) and (5). But while in all cases the See also:suggestion of Clement's authorship came ultimately from his See also:prestige as writer of the genuine Epistle of Clement (see CLEMENT I.), both (3) and (4) were due to this See also:idea as operative on Syrian See also:soil; (5) is a secondary formation based on (3) as known to the See also:West. (r) The " Second Epistle of Clement."—This is really the earliest extant See also:Christian See also:homily (see APosTOLIc FATHERS). Its theme is the See also:duty of Christian repentance, with a view to obedience to See also:Christ's precepts as the true See also:confession and See also:homage which He requires. Its See also:special See also:charge is " Preserve the flesh pure and the See also:seal (i.e. See also:baptism) unstained " (viii. 6). But the See also:peculiar way in which it enforces its morals in terms of the Platonic contrast between the spiritual and sensuous worlds, as archetype and temporal manifestation, suggests a special See also:local type of See also:theology which must be taken into See also:account in fixing its provenance. This theology, the fact that the preacher seems to quote the See also:Gospel according to the Egyptians (in ch. xii, and possibly else-where) as if See also:familiar to his hearers, and indeed its literary See also:affinities generally, all point to See also:Alexandria as the See also:original See also:home of the homily, at a date about 120-140 (see Zeit. f . N. T. Wissenschaft; vii. 123 ff). Neither See also:Corinth (as See also:Lightfoot) nor See also:Rome (as See also:Harnack, who assigns it to See also:Bishop See also:Soter, c. 166–174) satisfies all the See also:internal conditions, while the Eastern nature of the See also:external See also:evidence and the homily's quasi-canonical status in the Codex-Alexandrinus strongly favour an Alexandrine origin. (2) The Two Epistles to Virgins, i.e. to Christian celibates of both sexes. These are known in their entirety only in See also:Syriac, and were first published by See also:Wetstein (1752), who held them genuine. This view is now generally discredited, even by See also:Roman Catholics like Funk, their best See also:recent editor (Patres Apost., vol. ii.). External evidence begins with See also:Epiphanius (Haer. See also:xxx. 15) and See also:Jerome (Ad Jovin. i. 12); and the silence of See also:Eusebius tells heavily against their existence before the 4th See also:century, at any See also:rate as writings of Clement. The Monophysite See also:Timothy of Alexandria (A.D. 457) cites one of them as Clement's, while See also:Antiochus of St Saba (c. A.D. 620) makes copious but unacknowledged extracts from both in the original See also:Greek. There is no trace of their use in the West. Thus their Syrian origin is See also:manifest, the more so that in the Syriac MS. they are appended to the New Testament, like the better-known epistles of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus. Indeed, judging from another Syriac MS. of earlier date, which includes the latter writings in its See also:canon, it seems that the Epistles on Virginity gradually replaced the earlier pair in certain Syrian churches—even should Lightfoot be right in doubting if this had really occurred by Epiphanius's See also:day (S. Clement of Rome, i. 412). Probably these epistles did not originally See also:bear Clement's name at all, but formed a single epistle addressed to ascetics among an actual circle of churches. In that See also:case they, or rather it, may date from the 3rd century in spite of Eusebius's silence, and are not pseudo-Clementine in any real sense. It matters little whether or not the false ascription was made before the See also:division into two implied already by Epiphanius (c. A.D. 375). Special occasion for such a hortatory See also:letter may be discerned in its polemic against intimate relations between ascetics of opposite See also:sex, implied to exist among its readers, in contrast to usage in the writer's own locality. Now we know that spiritual unions, prompted originally by highstrung Christian See also:idealism as to a religious fellowship transcending the See also:law of nature in relation to sex, did exist between persons living under vows of See also:celibacy during the 3rd century in particular, and not least in See also:Syria (cf. the case of See also:Paul of See also:Samosata, c. 265, and the See also:Synod of See also:Ancyra in See also:Galatia, c. 314). It is natural, then, to see in the original epistle a protest against the dangers of such spiritual boldness (cf. " Subintroductae " in See also:Herzog-Hauck's Realencyklopddie), See also:prior perhaps to the famous case at See also:Antioch just noted.
Possibly it is the feeling of See also:south Syria or See also:Palestine that here expresses itself in remonstrance against usages prevalent in See also:north Syria. Such a view finds support also in the New Testament canon implied in these epistles.
(3) [a] The Epistle of Clement to See also: This was originally part of (3) [b], in connexion with which its origin and date are discussed. But as known to the West through . See also:Rufinus's Latin version, it was quoted as genuine by the synod of See also:Vaison (A.D. 442) and throughout the See also:middle ages. It became " the starting point of the most momentous and gigantic of See also:medieval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals," " where it stands at the See also:head of the pontifical letters, extended to more than twice its original length." This See also:extension perhaps occurred during the 5th century. At any rate the letter in this See also:form, along with, a " second epistle to James." (on the See also:Eucharist, See also: The older criticism assumed a dependence of one upon the other, and assigned one or both to the latter part of the 2nd century. Recent criticism, however, builds on the principle, which emerges alike from the external and internal evidence (see See also:Salmon in the Dict. of Christian See also:Biography), that both used a See also:common basis. Our See also:main task, then, is to define the nature, origin and date of the See also:parent document, and if possible its own literary antecedents. Towards the solution of this problem two contributions of See also:prime importance have recently been made. The earlier of these is by F. J. A. Hort, and was delivered in the form of lectures as far back as 1884, though issued posthumously only in 1901; the other is the elaborate monograph of Dr Hans See also:Waitz (1904). Criticism.—(i.) External Evidence as to the Clementine See also:Romance. The evidence of See also:ancient writers really begins, not with See also:Origen,1 but with Eusebius of Caesarea, who in his Ecci. Hist. writes as follows: " Certain men have quite lately brought forward as written by him (Clement) other verbose and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter, forsooth, and See also:Apion, whereof not the slightest mention is to be found among the ancients, for they do not even preserve in purity the See also:stamp of the Apostolic orthodoxy." Apion, the Alexandrine grammarian 1 Dr Armitage See also:Robinson, in his edition of the Philocalia (extracts made c. 358 by See also:Basil and See also:Gregory from Origen's writings), proved that the passage cited below is simply introduced as a parallel to an See also:extract of Origen's; while Dom See also:Chapman, in the See also:Journal of Theo'. Studies, iii. 436 if., made it probable that the passages in Origen's See also:Comm. on See also:Matthew akin to those in the See also:Opus Imperf . in Matth. are insertions in the former, which is extant only in a Latin version. Subsequently he suggested (Zeitsch. f. N. T. Wissenschaft, ix. 33 f.) that the passage in the Philocalia is due not to its authors but to an early editor, since it is the only See also:citation not referred to Origen. and foe of Judaism, whose criticism was answered by See also:Josephus, appears in this See also:character both in Homilies and Recognitions, though mainly in the former (iv. 6-vii. 5). Thus Eusebius implies (i) a See also:spurious Clementine work containing See also:matter found also in our Homilies at any rate; and (2) its quite recent origin. Next we See also:note that an extract in the Philocalia is introduced as follows: " Yea, and Clement the Roman, a disciple of Peter the Apostle, after using words in See also:harmony with these on the present problem, in conversation with his father at See also:Laodicea in the Circuits, speaks a very necessary word for the end of arguments touching this matter, viz. those things which seem to have proceeded from See also:genesis (= astrological destiny), in the fourteenth See also:book." The extract answers to Recognitions, x. 10-13, but it is absent from our Homilies. Here we observe that (I) the extract agrees this time with Recognitions, not with Homilies; (2) its framework is that of the Clementine romance found in both; (3) the tenth and last book of Recognitions is here parallel to book xiv. of a work called Circuits (Periodoi). This last point leads on naturally to the See also:witness of Epiphanius (c. 375), who, speaking of See also:Ebionites or Judaizing Christians of various sorts, and particularly the Essene type, says (Haer. xxx. 15) that " they use certain other books likewise, to wit, the so-called Circuits of Peter, which were written by the See also:hand of Clement, falsifying their contents, though leaving a few genuine things." Here Ephiphanius simply assumes that the Ebionite Circuits of Peter was based on a genuine work of the same See also:scope, and goes on to say that the spurious elements are proved such by contrast with the See also:tenor of Clement's " encyclic epistles " (i.e. those to virgins, (2) above); for these enjoin virginity (celibacy), and praise See also:Elijah, See also:David, See also:Samson, and all the prophets, whereas the Ebionite Circuits favour See also:marriage (even in Apostles) and depreciate the prophets between See also:Moses and Christ, " the true Prophet." " In the Circuits, then, they adapted the whole to their own views, representing Peter falsely in many ways, as that he was daily baptized for the See also:sake of See also:purification, as these also do; and they say that he likewise abstained from See also:animal See also:food and See also:meat, as they themselves also do." Now all the points here noted in the Circuits can be traced in our Homilies and Recognitions, though toned down in different degrees. The witness of the Arianizing Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum (c. 400) is in See also:general similar. Its usual form of citation is " Peter in Clement " (aped Clementem). This points to " Clement " as a brief title for the Clementine Periodoi, a title actually found in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411 which contains large parts of Recognitions and Homilies, and twice used by Rufinus, e.g. when he proposes to inscribe his version of the Recognitions "Rufinus Clemens." Rufinus in his See also:preface to this work—in which for the first time we meet the title Recognition(s)—observes that there are two See also:editions to which the name applies, two collections of books differing in some points but in many respects containing the same narrative. This he remarks in explanation of the See also:order of his version in some places, which he feels may strike his friend Gaudentius as unusual, the inference being that the other edition was the better-known one, although it lacked " the transformation of See also:Simon " (i.e. of Clement's father into Simon's likeness), which is common to the See also:close both of our Recognitions and Homilies, and so probably belonged to the Circuits. We may assume, too (e.g. on the basis of our Syriac MS.), that the Greek edition of the Recognition(s) actually used by Rufinus was much nearer the See also:text of the Periodoi of which we have found traces than we should imagine from its Latin form. So far we have no sure trace of our Homilies at all, apart from the Syriac version. Even four centuries later, See also:Photius, in refer-See also:ring to a collection of books called both Acts of Peter and the Recognition of Clement, does not make clear whether he means Homilies or Recognitions or either. " In all the copies which we have seen (and they are not a few) after those different epistles (viz. ` Peter to James ' and ` Clement to James,' prefixed, the one in some See also:MSS. the other in others) and titles, we found without variation the same See also:treatise, beginning, I, Clement, &c." But it is not clear that he had read more than the opening ofthese MSS. The fact that different epistles are prefixed to the same work leads him to conjecture " that there were two editions made of the Acts of Peter (his usual title for the collection), but in course of time the one perished and that of Clement prevailed." This is interesting as anticipating a result of See also:modern criticism, as will appear below. The earliest probable reference to our Homilies occurs in a work of doubtful date, the pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis, which mentions " Clementines, whence came by selection and rewriting the true and inspired form." Here too we have the first sure trace of an expurgated recension, made with the idea of recovering the genuine form assumed, as earlier by Epiphanius, to See also:lie behind an unorthodox recension of Clement's narrative. As, moreover, the extant See also:Epitome is based on our Homilies, it is natural to suppose it was also the basis of earlier orthodox recensions, one or more of which may be used in certain Florilegia of the 7th century and later. Nowhere do we find the title Homilies given to any form of the Clementine collection in antiquity. (ii.) The Genesis of the Clementine Literature. It has been needful to cite so much of the evidence proving that our Homilies and Recognitions are both recensions of a common basis, at first known as the Circuits of Peter and later by titles connecting it rather with Clement, its ostensible author, because it affords data, also for the historical problems touching (a) the contents and origin of the See also:primary Clementine work, and (b) the conditions under which our extant recensions of it arose. (a) The Circuits of Peter, as defined on the one hand by the epistle of Clement to James originally prefixed to it and by patristic evidence, and on the other by the common See also:element in our Homilies and Recognitions, may be conceived as follows. It contained accounts of Peter's teachings and discussions at various points on a route beginning at Caesarea, and extending northwards along the See also:coast-lands of Syria as far as Antioch. During this tour he meets with persons of typically erroneous views, which it was presumably the aim of the work to refute in the interests of true Christianity, conceived as the final form of divine revelation—a See also:revelation given through true prophecy embodied in a succession of persons, the chief of whom were Moses and the prophet whom Moses foretold, Jesus the Christ. The prime exponent of the spurious See also:religion is Simon Magus. A second protagonist of See also:error, this time of See also:Gentile philosophic criticism directed against fundamental Judaism, is Apion, the notorious See also:anti-Jewish Alexandrine grammarian of Peter's day; while the role of upholder of astrological See also:fatalism (Genesis) is played by Faustus, father of Clement, with whom Peter and Clement debate at Laodicea. Finally, all this is already embedded in a setting determined by the romance of Clement and his lost relatives, " recognition " of whom forms the denouement of the See also:story. There is no See also:reason to doubt that such, roughly speaking, were the contents of the Clementine work to which Eusebius alludes slightingly, in connexion with that See also:section of it which had to his See also:eye least verisimilitude, viz. the dialogues between Peter and Apion. Now Eusebius believed the work to have been of quite recent and suspicious origin. This points to a date about the last See also:quarter of the 3rd century; and the prevailing doctrinal See also:tone of the contents, as known to us, leads to the same result. The standpoint is that of the peculiar Judaizing or Ebonite Christianity due to persistence among Christians of the tendencies known among pre-Christian See also:Jews as Essene. The See also:Essenes, while clinging to what they held to be original Mosaism, yet conceived and practised their ancestral faith in ways which showed distinct traces of See also:syncretism, or the operation of influences See also:foreign to Judaism proper. They thus occupied an ambiguous position on the See also:borders of Judaism. Similarly Christian See also:Essen-ism was syncretist in spirit, as we see from its best-known representatives, the Elchasaites, of whom we first hear about 220, when a certain See also:Alcibiades of See also:Apamea in Syria (some 6o in. south of Antioch) brought to Rome the Book of Helxai—the manifesto of their distinctive See also:message (Hippol., Philos. ix. 13)—and again some twenty years later, when Origen refers to one of their leaders as having lately arrived at Caesarea (Euseb. vi. 38). The first See also:half of the 3rd century was marked, especially in Syria, by a strong tendency to syncretism, which may well have stirred certain Christian Essenes to fresh propaganda. Other writings than the Book of Helxai, representing also other species of the same genus, would take shape. Such may have been some of the pseudo-apostolic Acts to which Epiphanius alludes as in use among the Ebionites of his own day: and such was probably the See also:nucleus of our Clementine writings, the Periodoi of Peter. Harnack (Chronologie, ii. 522 f.), indeed, while admitting that much (e.g. in Homilies, viii. 5-7) points the other way, prefers the view that even the Circuits were of See also:Catholic origin (Chapman, as above, says Arian, soon after 325), regarding the syncretistic Jewish-Christian features in it as due either to its earlier basis or to an See also:instinct to preserve continuity of manner (e.g. See also:absence of explicit reference to Paul). Hort, on the contrary, assumes as author " an ingenious Helxaite . . . perhaps stimulated by the example of the many Encratite Periodoi" (p. 131), and See also:writing about A.D. 200. Only it must not be thought of as properly Elchasaite, since it knew no baptism distinct from the See also:ordinary Christian one. It seems rather to represent a later and modified Essene Christianity, already half-Catholic, such as would suit a date after 250, in keeping with Eusebius's evidence. See also:Confirmation of such a date is afforded by the silence of the Syrian Didascalia, itself perhaps dating from about 250, as to any visit of Simon Magus to Caesarea, in contrast to the reference in its later form, the Apostolical Constitutions (c. 350-400), which is plainly coloured (vi. 9) by the Clementine story. On the other hand, the Didascalia seems to have been evoked partly by Judaizing propaganda in north Syria. If, then, it See also:helps to date the Periodoi as after 250, it may also suggest as See also:place of origin one of the large cities lying south of Antioch, say Laodicea (itself on the coast about 30 M. from Apamea), where the Clementine story reaches its See also:climax. The intimacy of local knowledge touching this region implied in the narrative common to Homilies and Recognitions is notable, and tells against an origin for the Periodoi outside Syria (e.g. in Rome, as Waitz and Harnack hold, but Lightfoot disproves, Clem. i. S5 f., 64,See also:ioo, cf. Hort, p. 131). Further, though the See also:curtain even in it See also:fell on Peter at Antioch itself (our one See also:complete MS. of the Homilies is proved by the Epitome, based on the Homilies, to be here abridged), the See also:interest of the story culminates at Laodicea. If we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines arose in Syria, perhaps c. 265,1 had it also a written source or See also:sources which we can trace? Though Hort doubts it, most recent scholars (e.g. Waitz, Harnack) infer the existence of at least one source, " Preachings (Kerygmata) of Peter," containing no reference at all to Clement. Such a work seems implied by the epistle of Peter to James and its appended adjuration, prefixed in our MSS. to the Homilies along with the epistle of Clement to James. Thus the later work aimed at superseding the earlier, much as Photius suggests (see above). It was, then, to these " Preachings of Peter " that the most Ebionite features, and especially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still inhering in the Periodoi (as implied by Homilies in particular), originally belonged. The fact, however, that these were not more completely suppressed in the later work, proves that it, too, arose in circles of kindred, though largely modified, Judaeo-Christian sentiment (cf. Homilies, vii., e.g. ch. 8). The See also:differences of standpoint may be due not only to See also:lapse of time, and the emergence of new problems on the See also:horizon of Syrian Christianity generally, but also to See also:change in locality and in the degree of Greek culture represented by the two See also:works. A probable date for the " Preachings " used in the Periodoi is c. 200? While See also:Hart and Waitz say c. 200, Harnack says c. 260. The reign of See also:Gallienus (260-268) would suit the tone of its references to the Roman See also:emperor (Waitz, p. 74), and also any polemic against the Neoplatonic See also:philosophy of revelation by visions and dreams which it may contain. s Even Waitz agrees to this, though he argues back to a yet earlier anti-Pauline (rather than anti-Marcionite) form, composed in Caesarea, c. 135. If the home of the Periodoi was the region of the Syrian Laodicea, we can readily explain most of its characteristics. Photius refers to the " excellences of its See also:language and its learning "; while Waitz describes the aim and spirit of its contents as those of an See also:apology for Christianity against See also:heresy and paganism, in the widest sense of the word, written in order to win over both Jews (cf. Recognitions, i. 53-70) and pagans, but mainly the latter. In particular it had in view persons of culture, as most See also:apt to be swayed by the philosophical tendencies in the See also:sphere of religion prevalent in that age, the age of neo-See also:Platonism. It was in fact designed for propaganda among religious seekers in a time of singular religious restlessness and varied inquiry, and, above all, for use by catechumens (cf. Ep. Clem. 2, 13) in the earlier stages of their preparation for Christian baptism. To such its romantic setting would be specially adapted, as falling in with the literary habits and tastes of the See also:period; while its doctrinal peculiarities would least give offence in a work of the aim and character just described. As regards the sources it the narrative part of the Periodoi, it is possible that the " recognition " motif was a literary common-place. The account of Peter's journeyings was no doubt based largely on local Syrian tradition, perhaps as already embodied in written Acts of Peter (so Waitz and Harnack), but differing from the Western type, e.g. in bringing Peter to Rome long before See also:Nero's reign. As for the allusions, more or less indirect, to St Paul behind the figure of Simon, as the See also:arch-enemy of the truth—allusions which first directed See also:attention to the Clementines in the last century—there can be no doubt as to their presence, but only as to their origin and the degree to which they are so meant in Homilies and Recognitions. There is certainly " an application to Simon of words used by or of St Paul, or of claims made by or in behalf of St Paul" (Hort), especially in Homilies (ii. 17 f., xi. 35, xvii. 19), where a consciousness also of the See also:double reference must still be present, though this does not seem to be the case in Recognitions (in Rufinus's Latin.) Such covert reference to Paul must designedly have formed part of the Periodoi, yet as adopted from its more bitterly anti-Pauline basis, the " Preachings of Peter " (cf. Homilies, ii. 17 f. with Ep. Pet. ad Jac. 2), which probably shared most of the features of Ebionite Essenism as described by Epiphanius xxx. 15 f. (including the qualified See also:dualism of the two kingdoms—the present one of the See also:devil, and the future one of the angelic Christ—which appears also in the Periodoi, cf. Ep. Clem. ad Jac. r fin.). (b) That the Periodoi was a longer work than either our Homilies or Recognitions is practically certain; and its See also:mere bulk may well, as Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form. Yet Homilies and Recognitions are abridgments made on different principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers. " The Homilies care most for doctrine," especially philosophical doctrine, " and seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposes " (e.g. matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx. 1-to gives additional emphasis to the Homilies' theory of evil, perhaps over against See also:Manichaeism). " The Recognitions care most for the story," as a means of religious edification, " and have preserved the general framework much more nearly." They arose in different circles: indeed, See also:save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of 411 A.D., " not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books in any form." But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, while Homilies arose in Syria, Recognitions took shape in Rome. Both probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a See also:good See also:deal in religious standpoint.' Homilies was a sort of second edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a See also:generation or two after the Periodoi appeared. The Recognitions, in both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others in the West, was more Catholic in tone and aimed chiefly at a Dom Chapman maintains that the Recognitions (c. 370-390,) even attack the doctrine of See also:God in the Homilies or their archetype. 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 See also:adaptation to Catholic feeling even before the Epitome, in its two extant forms, was made by more drastic methods of expurgation. One See also: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. 41 I. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the Recognitions may be dated c. 350—3753 (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that of See also:Eunomius of See also:Cyzicus, c. 362), and the Homilies prior even to 350. But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating See also:precarious. See also:Summary.—The Clementine literature throws See also: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 See also: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 See also:appeal, became, through the See also:medium of Rufinus's Latin, the parent of the See also:late medieval See also:legend of See also:Faust, and so the ancestor of a famous type in modern literature. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] CLEMENTI, MUZIO (c. 1751-1832) |
[next] CLEOBULUS |