CLAUDIUS
LYSIAS
Antony
and
Octavia,
sister
of
the
emperor
Augustus),
and
was
born
on
1st
August
10
b.c.
at
Lyons.
From
childhood
he
was
weaWy,
and
a
prey
to
disease,
which
affected
his
mind
as
well
as
his
body.
This
caused
him
to
be
neglected
and
despised.
He
was,
however,
a
man
of
considerable
ability,
both
literary
and
administrative,
as
he
showed
when
he
was
called
to
succeed
his
own
nephew
Gaius
(Caligula)
as
emperor.
He
has
been
com-pared
with
James
i.
(vi.
of
Scotland)
in
both
his
weak
and
his
strong
points.
It
was
in
his
reign
that
the
first
real
occupation
of
Britain
by
the
Romans
took
place.
He
is
twice
mentioned
in
Acts
(ll^s
and
18').
The
great
famine
over
the
whole
of
the
Roman
world
which
Agabus
foretold
took
place
in
his
reign.
The
expul-sion
of
Jews
from
Rome,
due
to
dissensions
amongst
them,
occurred
in
the
year
50.
This
latter
date
is
one
of
the
few
fixed
points
of
chronology
in
the
Book
of
Acts.
The
reign
of
Claudius
was
satisfactory
to
the
Empire
beyond
the
average.
The
government
of
the
provinces
was
excellent,
and
a
marked
feature
was
the
large
number
of
public
works
executed
under
the
emperor's
supervision.
A.
Souter.
CLAUDIUS
LYSIAS.
See
Lysias.
CLAW.
—
In
Dn
4»
'claw'
means
a
bird's
claw;
but
In
Dt
146
and
Zee
11"
it
has
the
obsolete
meaning
of
an
animal's
hoof.
CLAY.
—
See
Pottery.
CLEAN
AND
UNCLEAN.—
Introductory.—
The
words
'clean,'
'unclean,'
'purity,'
'purification,'
have
acquired
in
the
process
of
religious
development
a
spiritual
connotation
which
obscures
their
original
meaning.
Their
primitive
significance
is
wholly
cere-monial;
the
conceptions
they
represent
date
back
to
a
very
early
stage
of
religious
practice,
so
early
indeed
that
it
may
be
called
pre-rellgious,
in
so
far
as
any
useful
delimitation
can
be
established
between
the
epoch
in
which
spell
and
magic
predominated,
and
that
at
which
germs
of
a
rudimentary
religious
consciousness
can
be
detected.
—
In
a
conspectus
of
primitive
custom,
one
of
the
most
wide-spread
phenomena
is
the
existence
of
'
taboo.'
Anthropology
has
yet
to
say
the
last
word
about
it,
and
its
general
characteristics
can
be
differently
summarized.
But,
broadly
speaking,
taboo
springs
from
the
religion
of
fear.
The
savage
met
with
much
which
he
could
not
understand,
which
was
supra-normal
to
his
experience.
Such
phenomena
appeared
to
him
charged
with
a
potency
which
was
secret
and
uncanny,
and
highly
energetic.
They
were
therefore
to
be
avoided
with
great
care;
they
were
'taboo'
to
him.
It
would
be
rash
to
dogmatize
about
the
origin
of
this
notion;
it
most
probably
dates
back
to
days
prior
to
any
conscious
animistic
beliefs,
and
may
even
be
trace-able
ultimately
to
instincts
which
mankind
shares
with
the
higher
animals.
No
doubt
in
later
times
the
idea
was
artificially
exploited
in
deference
to
the
exigencies
of
ambition
and
avarice
on
the
part
of
chiefs
and
priests,
to
the
distrust
of
innovations
(cf.
Ex
20^,
Dt
27''-
•,
Jos
8"),
to
the
recommendations
of
elementary
sanita-tion,
etc.
But
originally
the
savage
regarded
as
taboo
certain
persons,
material
substances,
and
bodily
acts
or
states
which
he
considered
to
possess
a
kind
of
trans-missible
electric
energy
with
which
it
was
very
dangerous
to
meddle;
and
these
taboos
were
jealously
guarded
by
the
sanctions
of
civil
authority,
and
later
of
religious
belief.
It
seems
probable
that
even
at
such
an
early
epoch
taboos
could
be
viewed
from
two
distinct
points
of
view.
A
taboo
might
be
either
a
blessing
or
a
curse,
according
as
it
was
handled
by
an
expert
or
a
layman.
Thus
blood
produced
defilement,
but,
properly
treated,
it
might
remove
impurity.
A
chief
or
king
was
taboo,
and
to
touch
him
produced
the
primitive
equivalent
of
'king's
evil';
and
yet
his
touch
could
remove
the
disease
it
created.
The
reasons
for
this
twofold
point
of
view
are
very
obscure,
and
do
not
come
within
the
scope
CLEAN
AND
UNCLEAN
of
this
article.
But
the
differentiation
seems
to
hare
existed
in
a
confused
way
at
the
earliest
era.
After-wards
this
notion
crystallized
into
a
very
vital
distinc-tion.
On
the
one
hand
we
find
the
conception
of
holiness
as
expressing
an
ofiBcial
consecration
and
dedication
to
the
Divine
beings.
A
sanctuary,
a
season,
a
priest
or
chief,
were
set
apart
from
common
life
and
placed
in
a
peculiar
relation
of
intimacy
to
God
or
the
gods;
they
were
tabooed
as
holy.
On
the
other
hand,
certain
taboos
were
held
to
arise
from
the
intrinsic
repulslveness
of
the
obuct
or
condition,
a
repulslveness
which
affected
both
GodRnd
man
with
dislike.
Such
taboos
were
due
to
the
essential
uncleanness
of
their
object.
With
the
rise
of
animistic
beliefs
and
practices
this
differentiation
was
reinforced
by
the
dualism
of
benev-olent
and
malignant
spirits.
Uncanny
energy
varied
according
as
it
arose
from
the
one
or
the
other
class,
and
much
care
must
be
taken
to
propitiate
the
one
and
avert
the
power
of
the
other.
Thus
on
the
one
side
we
find
sacrificial
ritual,
which
has
as
its
object
to
please
the
good
demons,
and
on
the
other
side
we
have
a
cathartic
ritual,
which
aims
at
expelling
evil
demons
from
the
vicinity
(cf.
Lv
16,
where
the
two
notions
are
united
in
one
ceremony).
But
even
after
the
growth
of
such
refinements,
ideas
and
rules
survived
which
can
be
explained
only
as
relics
of
primitive
and
even
primeval
taboo
customs.
A
still
later
stage
is
seen
when
rules
of
purity
are
attributed
to
the
conscious
command
of
God,
and
their
motive
is
found
in
His
own
personal
character
(Lv
11").
The
Jewish
sacred
books
teem
with
refer-ences
which
demonstrate
the
survival
of
primitive
taboos.
Thus
Frazer
draws
especial
attention
to
the
Nazirite
vows
(Nu
6'-2'),
to
the
Sabbath
regulations
(Ex
352-
'),
to
the
views
as
to
death
(Nu
19"«-),
and
child-birth
(Lv
12).
Similarly
the
origin
of
the
conception
of
holiness
may
be
seen
in
the
idea
that
it
is
transmissible
by
contact
(Ex
29"
SO'',
Lv
6",
Ezk
44"),
or
in
the
penalty
for
meddling
with
a
holy
object
(1
S
6",
2
S
6');
whilst
allusions
to
ritual
uncleanness
occur
frequently
in
Ezekiel,
and
the
legislation
on
the
subject
forms
a
large
part
of
Leviticus
and
Deuteronomy.
In
some
cases
these
ideas
may
have
arisen
in
protest
against
historical
developments
of
Hebrew
custom.
Thus
it
has
been
supposed
that
the
Nazirite
vows
originated
in
the
desire
for
a
return
to
primitive
simplicity
by
way
of
contrast
to
the
habits
of
Palestinian
Canaanites.
But
many
of
the
regulations
about
uncleanness
can
be
explained
only
by
a
reference
to
primitive
ritualism,
with
its
conceptions
of
objects
charged
with
a
secret
energy
which
the
ordinary
man
does
well
to
shun.
The
word
'clean,'
it
may
be
remarked,
conveyed
originally
no
positive
idea.
A
clean
object
was
one
which
was
not
under
a
taboo,
which
had
contracted
no
ceremonial
taint.
And
so
again
'purification'
meant
the
removal
of
a
ceremonial
taint
by
ceremonial
means,
the
unclean
object
being
thus
restored
to
a
normal
condition.
Fire
and
liquids
were
the
best
media
of
purification.
Similarly
'common,'
the
opposite
of
'holy,'
merely
meant
'undedicated
to
God,'
and
ex-pressed
no
ethical
or
spiritual
notion.
In
fact,
when
the
conceptions
of
holiness
and
uncleanness
had
been
definitely
differentiated,
the
rule
would
be
that,
though
the
holy
must
be
clean,
the
dean
need
in
no
way
be
holy.
Later
thought,
however,
confused
the
two
ideas
(of.
Ac
10»).
I.
Uncleanness
in
the
OT.
—
The
consequences
of
uncleanness
and
the
methods
of
purification
naturally
differed
in
different
races.
But
in
the
Jewish
religion
uncleanness
was
always
held
to
disqualify
a
man
for
Divine
worship
and
sacrifice.
In
practice
a
certain
amount
of
laxity
seems
to
have
been
tolerated
(Ezk
22«
44'),
though
this
did
not
pass
without
protest
(Ezk
44',
Is
52').
But,
strictly,
an
unclean
man
was
debarred
from
religious
offices
(Lv
7"-
'<>)
;
and
nobody
could
perform
them
in
an
unclean
place,
e.g.
in
any
land
but
Palestine
(2
K
5",
Hos
9^).
