This gives the latest limit for the publication of R. We may infer that the chronicle of Hippolytus A.D. 235 recognizes the Ep. of Clement to James, since it counts Peter as first bp. of Rome, and places the episcopate of Clement at a time so early as to make his ordination by Peter possible. [ Clemens Romanus.] It is not unreasonable to date the Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter of a cent. earlier, in order to allow time for its ideas to gain such complete acceptance at Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that he knew the work on which the Recognitions were founded, but not this later version. As a limit in the other direction we have the use of the name Faustus for one represented as a member of the imperial family, which points to a date late than the reign of Antoninus, whose wife, and whose daughter married to Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of Faustina. A section (R. ix. 17‒29) is identical with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncertain. [ Bardesanes.] The date assigned by Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, A.D. 173, seems to need to be put later, because an authority likely to be better informed, the Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity assigns for the date of his birth July 11, A.D. 154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius and by R. has been now recovered from the Syriac, and has been published in Cureton's Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it appears that the dialogue does not purport to be written by Bardesanes himself, but by a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him as father and is addressed by him as son. This forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early period of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may have been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von Edessa) tries to shew that other sections also in R. were later interpolations from Bardesanes; but his arguments have quite failed to convince us. On the whole, A.D. 200 seems as near an approximation as we can make to the probable date of R. The form H. must be dated later, possibly A.D. 218, the time when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. There is little to determine very closely the date of the original document. If we could lay stress on a passage which speaks of there being one Caesar (R. v. 19, H. x. 14), we should date it before A.D. 161, when Marcus Aurelius shared the empire with Verus; and though this argument is very far from decisive, there is nothing that actually forbids so early a date, though we could not safely name one much earlier.
The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the Clementines are collected in Migne's Patrologia. The most important monographs are von Cölln's article in Ersch and Gruber (1828), Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844); Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Die Homilien and Recognitionen des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854); Lehmann, Die clementinische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works will be found references to other sources of information. Baur has treated of the Clementines in several works: the section in Die christliche Gnosis, pp. 300‒414, may especially be mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios and Die Quellen der Römischen Petrussage, and an interesting review by Lipsius of Lehmann's work in the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung (1869), pp. 477‒482. Cf. Lightfoot's Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 99 ff. and 406 ff.; and Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Ch. Lit. p. 212 ff.
Cletus or Anacletus, "le même que St. Clet, comme les savants en conviennent" (L’Art de vérif. les dates, i. 218). Eusebius calls him Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth year of Domitian, having himself sat there twelve years. According to this, his own consecration would have fallen in the first year of Domitian, or A.D. 81; but it is variously dated by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of Rome: yet he places him between Linus, whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, whom he calls third. Other ancient authorities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and another pope named Anencletus after Cletus (E. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls "the modern Roman view." [But for this question of the succession of the Roman bishops, see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 201‒345; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to Lightfoot), "Perhaps it is not too much to say that the question of the order of the first five bps. of Rome is now finally settled."] Three spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collection (Migne, Patr. cxxx. 59 and seq.).
Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., modern German Ludwig, modern French Louis), son of Childeric, one of the kings of the Salian Franks, born A.D. 466, succeeded his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii. 43). As soon as he reached manhood (486) he attacked Syagrius, "rex Romanorum" (Greg. ii. 23), son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent representative of the Roman power in Gaul (Junghans, pp. 22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, and Clovis advanced his territory from the Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the Loire (Gesta Francorum, 14), was recognized as king by the former subjects of Syagrius (Greg. ii. 27), and transferred his capital from Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigii, ap. Bouquet, iii. 377 e). Waitz (ii. 60 n.) doubts this (see Junghans, p. 34, n. 3). Many wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii. 27).
About A.D. 492 Clovis married the Burgundian princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, and she is said to have made many attempts to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg. ii. 29; Rückert, Culturgeschichte, i. pp. 316, 317; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanische Reich, Leipz. 1868, pp. 111‒114, doubts the value of Clotilda's work; Bornhak, Geschichte der Franken unter den Merovingern, Greifswald, 1863, pp. 207, 208, magnifies it). What her entreaties could not effect the crisis
