Susanna

ON ST. SUSANNA, VIRGIN AND MARTYR,

AT ROME,

About the year CCXCV.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Susanna, Virgin and Martyr, at Rome (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR G. C.

§ I. The ancient cult of the Saint, her first burial, translation, and relics.

How renowned and ancient the veneration of this Saint is appears from the first Roman council, which was celebrated at the end of the fifth century under Pope Symmachus, St. Susanna the Roman, and to which, in our Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, column 1315, Asellus, priest of the title of St. Susanna, and Agatho, priest of the title of St. Susanna, subscribed. Besides, the yearly festival of St. Susanna is announced in the old Calendar of Fronto, and in various Hieronymian Martyrologies. But because in these and in other monuments the title of virginity and of martyrdom is not added to her, Tillemont, volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 761, doubts of both. But in the most ancient Calendars, for the most part neither of those titles is joined to the Saints whom nevertheless the Catholic Church venerates as virgins or martyrs from time immemorial, and whom Tillemont himself acknowledges as such. Thus in Fronto's very Calendar at the day X of August is read The birthday of St. Lawrence, at the day XXII of November The birthday of St. Cecilia, and innumerable other announcements of this kind. Yet who would prudently conclude from this silence that such Saints, male or female, were neither virgins nor martyrs?

[2] who most probably was a virgin and martyr, Besides, in the old Roman Martyrology, which our Rosweyde published, on this same day each of those titles is expressly stated in these words: At Rome, between the two laurels, of Tiburtius the martyr, and of Susanna, virgin and martyr. Usuard on this day in his Martyrology ascribes both these titles to the same Saint thus: Likewise at Rome, of St. Susanna the virgin, who, since she had sprung from a noble stock and was the niece of blessed Gaius the Pontiff, merited the palm of martyrdom in the time of Diocletian by the cutting off of her head. With this brief eulogy the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology, which was taken from Usuard, plainly agrees. To these assertors of her virginity and martyrdom add Ado, Rabanus, and Notker, who in their compendia of the Acts adorn that St. Susanna with the lily of virginity and the laurel of martyrdom. Since therefore Tillemont's argument is entirely negative, the aforesaid omission of the same titles in the case of other virgins or martyrs, and the positive assertion of those ancient witnesses, seemed to us sufficient for calling St. Susanna in the title of this Commentary a virgin and martyr, even though we do not admit all that those authors relate of the deeds of this St. Susanna, as will appear more clearly from the third paragraph.

[3] At Rome, not long after the martyrdom of St. Susanna, a church seems to have been consecrated under her name, or rather the house of her father, she has an immemorial cult in her own house, in which she had received the laurel of martyrdom, and which adjoined the house of St. Caius the Pontiff, was changed into a church, as we learn from the Acts to be published below. Certainly this Saint had a church at Rome, says Fronto on page 119 in his notes on the old Roman Calendar, which is among the stations, and was called the title of St. Susanna, which is called AT THE TWO HOUSES, as we read in the Life of Sergius at the year DCLXXXVII. The Pontifical Book, which John Vignoli published not long ago at Rome, page 302, in the Life of Pope Sergius sets these things forth thus: Sergius, a Syrian by nation .. coming to Rome under the Pontiff Adeodatus of holy memory, was numbered among the clergy of the Roman church … and, being made an acolyte, ascending through the ranks, was ordained priest by the Pontiff Leo of holy memory in the title of St. Susanna, which is called AT THE TWO HOUSES. Then in the same place, in the notes on this text, he observes the following: For there were there two chief houses; one namely of St. Gabinus, the father of St. Susanna; the other of St. Caius the Pope, her uncle, from which the name was given it among ecclesiastical writers. Finally the praised Vignoli, to prove the antiquity of that appellation from the Acts, whose style Surius after his manner changed, there brings forward some words which we shall faithfully allege below from our manuscript codex.

[4] Floravante Martinelli in his Sacred Rome assigns the topography of these houses, and there on page 310 and the following writes which was changed into a church, that the temple of St. Susanna was called AT THE TWO HOUSES, situated on the Quirinal hill, in the street formerly called Mamuri, near the forum of Sallust, now in the Baths, raised in the very house of St. Gabinius, the father of St. Susanna, next to which there was another, that of St. Caius the Pope, brother of the said Gabinius, turned into a temple, and on this account a station was assigned at the two houses. Most ancient, it was adorned with a marble ciborium by John VI; restored with a new roof by Hadrian I; newly built from the foundations by Leo III, as the following inscription in the mosaic apse indicated: Formerly this hall of blessed Susanna the martyr, standing in a cramped and gloomy place, had fallen into decay, which the lord Pope Leo III, raising from the foundations, and laying up the body of blessed Felicity the martyr, elegantly building, adorned and dedicated. Which, being disfigured by age under Clement VIII, Cardinal Jerome Rusticucci renewed almost entirely, decorated on every side with paintings, built a monastery for nuns, and raised from the foundations a most beautiful front for the temple of Tiburtine marble. Francis Schott wrote in his Itinerary that it had a beautiful cistern and a bronze vessel of lustral water. It is the title of a Cardinal priest, parochial under the care of the confraternity of St. Bernard, which has the care of the nuns existing here. Also John Ciampini, part 2 of the Ancient Monuments, chapter 23, may be consulted concerning this church of the Saint.

[5] The praised Martinelli, on page 403 of the same Work, again treats in passing of the temple of St. Susanna BETWEEN THE TWO LAURELS, and whose situation is described. which Fulvio and Fauno mention. It is the same as AT THE TWO HOUSES, he says, and there cites Ugonio, who wrote on the stations of the city of Rome. But Pompeo Ugonio, in his History of the Roman Stations, from folio 189, discourses at length concerning the Acts and the temple of St. Susanna, and there at folio 193 verso contends that Andrea Fulvio and Lucio Fauno erred when they called the church of St. Susanna "between the two laurels," because that surname is found in no ancient authors. Whatever be the case with this controversy, which there is no leisure to discuss here more elaborately, Bartolomeo Marliani, in his Topography of the City of Rome, book 5, chapter 24, alleges St. Ambrose as witness for the situation of that temple (yet he nowhere assigns the text of this holy Doctor), and to our purpose has the following. But the street of Mamurrus, in which the statue had been set up to him, is placed by the divine Ambrose near the church of St. Susanna: for it was not far from the forum of Sallust, whose gardens were spread out from that same church to the Accursed Field existing near the Colline gate. But the street of Mamurrus received its surname from the renowned smith Mamurrus, who of old under Numa Pompilius made the sacred shields for the Salian priests, and whose statue, that of Mamurrus, was set up in that place near the forum of Sallust, as Pompeo Ugonio on the page just cited testifies.

[6] After her martyrdom the Saint was buried Someone might suspect that St. Susanna was first buried in that house in which she had received the laurel of martyrdom. But our Acts, such as they are, relate that Serena ordered her sacred body to be placed beside the bodies of the Saints in the cemetery of Alexander in the Sandpit, in the crypt beside St. Alexander, near the town of Figlinæ, on the third of the Ides of August. I do not understand what the Mombritian edition of the same Acts means, in which among us the following is immediately subjoined to the preceding words: The birthday of Tiburtius in the cemetery between the two * laurels on the Lavican way, and of Chrysanthus and Daria and Susanna on the Salarian way. Paolo Aringhi, book 4 of Subterranean Rome, chapter 29, number 7, testifies that certain similar things are read in the manuscript codices of the Vatican basilica, in which these same Acts are recited. Then from this he gathers that St. Susanna was buried beside the bodies of the holy Chrysanthus and Daria, and tries to reconcile both these texts with each other.

[7] in the cemetery of St. Alexander, Finally the praised Aringhi in the same place reasons thus concerning the aforesaid tomb of St. Susanna: Besides, in the same cemetery, the most noble virgin and martyr of Christ, Susanna, once crowned with a famous martyrdom under the impious emperor Diocletian, as the same Ado and Bede affirm, was received into the service of the tomb … But from what has been reviewed it is manifestly proved that that cemetery once existed near Figlinæ, of which mention is frequently repeated in the Acts of many holy martyrs: and that place indeed, as it is reasonable to believe, perhaps obtained the name of a town on account of the very many houses of potters existing there, which presented to beholders the appearance of a kind of town. And that in this region above all the workshops of potters once existed is, as I think, openly proved from the very name of the Viminal gate, which lies close by, which, as we have already shown above, was called the Potters' gate.

[8] near Figlinæ, concerning which name there is a dispute, But the reader must be forewarned of this, namely that an error has crept into Acts of this kind, so that for the corrupted word Fidenæ, Figlinæ is read: for on the Salarian way, at the fifth milestone from the City, was Fidenæ, an old and once famous town, where now there stands a castle which is called Jubileum. But in these Acts I should believe that the name of this town has been distorted and changed into Figlinæ by the ignorance of the copyists, or certainly of the readers. For the other town, which was called Ficulea, whence the Ficulensian gate, was situated on the Nomentan way. Wherefore in the seventh letter of Pope Innocent the First the Nomentan or Felician or Ficulensian parish is reckoned as one and the same: for it seems that it must be read in this way there, since the ignorance of the copyists corrupted one of the aforementioned names, as being less known to them, by changing the sense and the letters of the very words. But Fidenæ, as we have said, of the Salarian way, and Ficulea of the Nomentan way, are by no means to be confused by ignorant men, unless perhaps it be asserted that on account of the nearness of the place itself this name was used indiscriminately. Let learned investigators of Roman antiquities judge of this reasoning of Aringhi as they please. We meanwhile give notice that in our two ancient manuscript codices, and in the other transcripts of the Acts, Figlinas is distinctly and constantly read.

[9] Now it remains that we say a few things concerning the sacred relics of St. Susanna, and afterward her body was translated into the church of her name, whose ancient translation Paolo Aringhi, book 4 of Subterranean Rome, chapter 29, number 15, records in these words: Further, the body of the illustrious virgin and martyr Susanna was translated from the same cemetery (namely the one of which we treated above along with him) into a church dedicated to her name; where also her paternal house had once been, namely in the region of the High Path near the baths of Diocletian; in which place, more magnificently adorned down to these our times, it is buried under the high altar and venerated, as is fitting, with the highest veneration of the whole City. But in the confessio of that same former church verses of this kind were read engraved:

Once the happy daughter of the priest Gabinus, Here Susanna lies in peace, joined to her father.

Thomas Reinesius in his Syntagma of ancient inscriptions, page 989, reads in these verses "entombed" for "in peace"; but Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 761, put "in the tomb" for "in peace" or "entombed," although in the same place in the margin he cites Reinesius. At least the reading of Reinesius and Tillemont agrees better with the meter of the verse.

[10] From this last testimony of Aringhi it follows that the Spaniards or Portuguese have erred, but not into Spain, if they thought that the body of this St. Susanna was many centuries ago translated to Braga, and thence in the year of Christ 1102 to Compostela. I said conditionally "if they thought" that the body of this St. Susanna was then translated: for although Adrien Baillet in his French Legend at the day XI of August ascribes that opinion generally to the Spaniards, and to confirm his narrative cites in the margin the Bollandists, volume 2 of April, pages 436 and 437, nevertheless he seems to have asserted both those things rashly and wrongly. We are not unaware that at the cited place of our Work a translation of St. Susanna is narrated by Hugo, archdeacon of Compostela, whose body at the beginning of the XII century was brought to Compostela with other relics of Saints; but that contemporary witness nowhere hints that that St. Susanna was the Roman virgin and martyr. Nay rather, the most illustrious Rodrigo da Cunha in his Ecclesiastical History of the diocese of Braga, part 1, chapter 43, expressly affirms that that St. Susanna was the sister of St. Victor, and was crowned with martyrdom at Braga along with other Christians. Further, in the same place he adds that the body of that St. Susanna rested in the city of Braga until Diego Gelmírez, prelate of Compostela, translated it at the beginning of the XII century to Compostela, certain small bones of that same holy virgin and martyr being left in the former burial place. Juan Tamayo de Salazar ought not to detain us here, who in his Spanish Martyrology at the day XI of August asserts that our St. Susanna was Spanish by origin, and proceeded from the family of the Sereni, who, sprung from Galicia in Spain, enriched Rome with illustrious citizens: for the like ineptitudes of this writer we have already refuted six hundred times to nausea.

[11] although certain smaller bones could have been transferred into other regions. Although at Rome even today the chief relics of St. Susanna are honorably preserved, as we learned above from Aringhi, nevertheless we shall easily let ourselves be persuaded that some smaller bones of the same Saint were also communicated to other regions or cities: for Masini in Bologna Surveyed, at the day XI of August, part 1, page 409, writes that in various churches of Bologna sacred relics of this St. Susanna are honored. Besides, our Papebroch in his manuscript Itinerary, pages 170 and 191, testifies that at Venice among the Franciscans the body of St. Melito the martyr was shown him together with the head of St. Susanna. But since he himself does not add — and perhaps the possessors themselves could not prove — of which St. Susanna that head was, we are wholly ignorant whether these relics pertain to our St. Susanna. Finally Arnold Raissius in his Belgic Hierogazophylacium, page 8, among other relics of Saints which are preserved at Namur in the cathedral church, reckons something of the head of St. Susanna. Since therefore in the Roman Martyrology, besides the present St. Susanna, two other Sts. Susanna, martyrs, are announced, and three Saints of the same name have already been passed over in our Work, we require of these and of other possessors of similar relics authentic testimonies by which they may prove that they pertain to the present St. Susanna. Much more do we demand such things from the people of Parma, who on this day solemnly celebrate the festival of St. Tiburtius and of our St. Susanna, because they believe that they possess their sacred bodies, as Ranuccio Pico in the Theater of the Saints of Parma, pages 136 and 141, testifies.

* read: in the cemetery between the two

§ II. Various copies and compendia of the Acts, which the most eminent Baronius defends.

We have various Acts of St. Susanna, Our predecessors at the day XVIII of February have already published from old manuscript codices a great part of these Acts, except the last chapter, which pertains chiefly to our St. Susanna, and which they reserved for this day. We have these same Acts in two ancient manuscript codices, one of which we preserve in our Museum under the letter Q Ms. 6, the other under Q Ms. 7. Besides, we have at hand three transcripts of the same Acts, reduced to a compendium, the first of which we took from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour's, which agrees almost word for word with the Adonian synopsis of the Acts, which we shall presently exhibit below. The second, divided into three Lessons of the ecclesiastical Office, comes from the manuscript Lectionary of the church of Saint-Omer. The third, finally, we received from Soissons, likewise divided into ecclesiastical Lessons, which Louis Nicquet, a Celestine and librarian of Soissons, in the year 1666 obligingly sent to our predecessors. Those compendia are sufficiently similar to one another, and narrate the same matter in different words, so that if you know one, you know them all. We say nothing here of the various Acts of the same Saint or their compendia which are read in print, both in Latin and in the vernacular, in Peter of Equilio, Mombritius, Surius, Gallonio, and Tristan.

[13] The Acts of St. Claudius and his companions, the martyrs, already published at the day XVIII of February by our predecessors, among which, for the greater understanding of what follows are connected with the deeds of St. Susanna, and to them

they are intermingled. Lest therefore we be compelled to repeat here, to the reader's weariness, the various things which preceded the martyrdom of St. Susanna, for the clearer understanding of the matter we shall now give an accurate epitome of them from Ado, who at the third of the Ides of August, doubtless from the longer and more ancient Acts, thus contracted these things: On the same day at Rome, the birthday of St. Susanna, virgin and martyr, under the Augusti Diocletian and Maximian, Macedonius being judge. Now she was the daughter of the glorious priest and martyr Gabinius, the brother of Gaius the bishop and martyr, sprung of a sufficiently noble stock, whom her father had reared and imbued with the divine Scriptures. Diocletian, therefore, hearing of the girl that she excelled in beauty and in wisdom, sent to Gabinius a certain man who was of his own family, his cousin, by name Claudius, and asked her in marriage for his son Maximinus Augustus. Then Gabinius, coming to his daughter Susanna, asked Gaius, bishop of the City, her uncle, to be present, and told them how Diocletian Augustus had dispatched Claudius their cousin to seek Susanna in marriage for his son Maximinus: and she, strengthened by the Holy Spirit, rejected such a marriage; and answering her father and her uncle she said: Father, I know that from your mouth I have been taught to be zealous to keep chastity, and to present my purity to the Lord Jesus Christ. Being therefore now established in his fear, I shall never be defiled by union with a man; but him to whom you once delivered me, him I serve, and in him I trust: for he knows my conscience.

[14] Accordingly Claudius himself, answering her and disclosing the wish of Diocletian, we here premise from Ado when he had in no way been able to bend her mind to be joined to his son Maximinus, but on the contrary, being taught and instructed in the way of God by the blessed Gaius and Gabinius, had asked penance for the blood of the Saints which he had shed, was baptized together with his wife, by name Præpedigna, and his sons Alexander and Cutias, and grew so strong in the faith that he sold all his goods and distributed them to the poor Christians; and whomsoever he could approach who were held in custody he relieved with food and clothing, casting himself at the feet of each, and desiring from them only the grace of their prayer. Meanwhile, when after one month and sixteen days he is inquired after by Diocletian, and it was answered him that he was held by sickness, he sent to him his brother, by name Maximus, Count of the privy purse, that he might visit him and treat with him concerning the girl Susanna. Maximus therefore, coming, found Claudius praying in a hair shirt, and was astounded. And when he had related in order the matter for which he had come, Claudius brought him to the house of blessed Gabinius, and blessed Gabinius and St. Gaius diligently expounded to him the way of the Lord. Whence, being pricked in heart, Maximus believed and was baptized. And from that same day he began to sell his property through a certain friend of his, by name Thraso, a most Christian man of the toga, who was a secret Christian, whom many years before blessed Gaius had baptized; who, going about the streets and the prisons in the hours of night, ministered necessaries to the poor Christians, and collected their acts, and adorned their memorials.

[15] After fifteen days all things were made known to Diocletian, an exact compendium of them. and he sent Julius, who should punish Claudius and Maximus, Præpedigna and Alexander and Cutias; but should bind Gabinius and Susanna in chains. And after fifty-five days Diocletian ordered that Susanna be brought to Serena his wife, who was secretly a Christian. And so, when she was giving herself to hymns and prayers with her, and day and night was singing psalms in the praise of God, this was reported to Diocletian. Then he told his son Maximinus that Susanna should be called back to the house of her father Gabinius, and that there he should abuse her as he pleased. But on that very night, after she was called back, Maximinus, entering the house where Susanna was praying, saw an exceeding brightness above her, and was terrified, and returned in haste to the palace. But Diocletian, imputing this to the magic art, sent Macedonius, who should constrain her within her house to sacrifice: who, when he wished to bend her to offer to the gods, stripping her began to beat her with cudgels. But blessed Susanna kept saying: Glory to you, O Lord. And so the blessed virgin, remaining in the confession of the Lord, was struck with the sword within her own house; and rendered her undefiled spirit to God. Her body Serena Augusta gathered by night, and with her own hands adorned it with linen cloths and spices, and placed it beside the bodies of the Saints in the cemetery of Alexander in the sandpit, in the crypt beside St. Alexander, on the third of the Ides of August. But the blood of the Martyr, which had been shed in the place of her house, she wiped up with a cloth, and placed it in a silver casket in her palace, where day and night she poured herself out to the Lord in stealthy prayers. And she suffered on the third of the Ides of August.

[16] The most eminent Cardinal Baronius This compendium of the Acts, or the more prolix Acts themselves, which are today impugned by learned men, the most eminent Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of Christ 294, explains and defends in this manner: The year of Christ which follows, the two hundred and ninety-fourth, had as consuls the new Cæsars Constantius Chlorus and Galerius Maximian. Under these consuls, on the third of the Ides of August, Susanna, the daughter of Gabinius and niece of Pope Caius, having refused a marriage with Maximian attempted by Diocletian her kinsman, because she was found to be a Christian, was beheaded in her father's house by the order of the same emperor, and obtained the palm of martyrdom. But in what manner these things happened, the Acts of her martyrdom declare; which indeed were wont to be read in the churches, and to which all the old Martyrologies add credit. But for the elucidating of those things which may seem ambiguous, this above all must be understood: that the daughter of Diocletian, who was joined in marriage (as has been said) to Galerius Maximian Cæsar, did not long survive the wedding: for there exists no memory of her at all in the more ancient monuments; nor is any offspring read to have been received from her. But the father, that he might consecrate to eternity the memory of his deceased daughter, wished (so says Ammianus) that a part of Pannonia be instituted and named by her name. But he also called by the name of the same Valeria a city situated on the bank of the Danube, as Ennodius relates; yet more frequent is the mention of the province Valeria than of the city: for after Ammianus, Zosimus, and among our own writers St. Ambrose, mention it. And it was called Valeria of Pannonia to distinguish it from the province Valeria in Italy, of which we have spoken more fully elsewhere.

[17] strives to explain various difficulties, Diocletian therefore, who (as has been demonstrated) employed every diligence to bind by the bonds of affinity Galerius, whom he had created Cæsar, and on that account had compelled him to repudiate the wife whom he had married and to take his daughter Valeria to wife, the bond being now dissolved by her death, hastened to join to him in the covenant of marriage that virgin whom he had in his kindred in a nearer degree. This was Susanna, the daughter of Gabinius, brother of Pope Caius, both of whom were joined by blood to Diocletian: namely cousins, and likewise sprung from Dalmatia. But as to the fact that the Acts of the same Susanna have it that Diocletian sought a wife for Maximian, or, as other codices have, for Maximinus (but it matters nothing; for he is held to have been called by either name), his adoptive son: certainly indeed it was peculiar to the princes that whomever they desired as successor to the empire, him they adopted as a son. For as he himself adopted Galerius Maximian, so also his colleague Maximian Herculius adopted Constantius Cæsar, which the panegyric addressed to him testifies. Indeed certainly in another panegyric the same Galerius Cæsar is named the son of the emperor Diocletian; which could not lawfully be except by adoption, since Diocletian had no male offspring at all. To him therefore, Valeria being dead, Diocletian (as has been said) resolved to join Susanna in matrimony. But what followed after these things, the Acts of the martyrdom of the same Susanna declare, of which we have obtained four copies, and of these we have read some more prolix, others briefer, differing little from one another. But we, because we have found that in plainly different words nearly the same things are narrated, shall write out these things taken summarily from them.

[18] First of all, we find the pedigree of Susanna deduced in them thus: occurring in these Acts, that Maximus or Maximinus was the brother of Diocletian, and that he, having departed this life, left two children of his own, Caius and Gabinius, whom the profession of the Christian religion separated from the company of the same Diocletian. Gabinius took a wife, from whom Susanna was born; and he afterward, his wife being dead, initiated into sacred Orders, was held worthy of the priesthood: but Caius, because he had led a celibate life, was also raised to the highest priesthood, and was created bishop of the City, and at the same time prelate of the whole Christian religion. Further, we read in the same Acts that Gabinius, endowed with excellent erudition, wrote against the Gentiles a defense of the Christian religion. Valeria therefore (as has been said) being taken from this life, Diocletian acts through Claudius his kinsman to join Susanna as wife to Galerius Maximian. Then he sets forth the fruitless embassy of Claudius, the unconquered constancy of St. Susanna in her purpose of preserving her virginity, the wonderful conversion and glorious martyrdom of the family of Claudius, and some other things, which at the day XVIII of February are related more fully in our Work, and can be sufficiently understood from the compendium of Ado given above.

[19] Then the most eminent father of the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the following year, number 2, thus pursues in particular the deeds of St. Susanna: he strives to explain, But while Diocletian was busy fulfilling the plan once entered upon concerning the joining of Susanna his niece in matrimony to Maximian Cæsar (which was spoken of in the preceding year), and had already found out that Susanna in her refusal was devoted to the Christian religion, he wished her to be detained in custody together with her father Gabinius, that so he might soften the mind both of the parent and of the daughter. But after both had been thus detained fifty-five days, the same prince deals with his Augusta wife that she should bring Susanna to herself, and explore the counsel of her mind, and endeavor to recall her from the new religion she had taken up. With these things the most eminent Annalist has mingled a little disputation concerning the wife of Diocletian, whom he contends was called by the name of Serena, of which controversy treatment will have to be made at the day XVI of this month.

[20] and their authentic credit Finally the most eminent writer, at the same year of Christ 295, number 6, goes on to narrate the rest thus: Serena therefore, summoning Susanna by the emperor's order, is so far from having attempted to move her away from the religion she had taken up — which the Augusta herself also secretly practiced — that she vehemently strengthened her in her confession, and exhorted her to act bravely and constantly: for, detaining her with herself very many days, together with her according to the institute of the Christians she frequented day and night the offices which belonged to the Christian religion. But when it had become known to the emperor that Susanna persisted in her resolve of following the Christian faith and refusing the marriage, he orders her to be led back into the house of her father Gabinius, to which Maximian Cæsar, to whom

Diocletian had promised her, coming to offer violence to the virgin, sprang back, seized by the divine power *, by whose brightness he perceived that she was surrounded and guarded. But the whole is attributed to magic, when what had happened is disclosed to Diocletian. Wherefore the emperor, having sent Macedonius to her, orders that she be secretly subjected to examination, and that she be punished if she resisted. He went; he met her; he brings up a tripod; he orders that she offer incense to the image of Jupiter which he had set up: but she, detesting the crime, on bended knees besought God that he would overthrow the abominable impiety. Wherefore it came about by divine power that the statue of Jupiter vanished from their eyes, and was found elsewhere prostrate on the ground. When these things were reported by Macedonius to Diocletian, he ordered that she be slain by the sword within the walls of her home; being struck by which she rendered her spirit to God, and thus added the glorious crown of martyrdom to the laurel of virginity.

[21] by various arguments But what followed after these things, the Acts themselves have in these words: When Serena Augusta learned that Susanna had consummated her martyrdom with a brave spirit, rejoicing she came by night into her house, and tended her body with her own hands, wrapped it in linen, and seasoned it with spices in the embalmer's fashion, and buried it in the sandpit, in the crypt near St. Alexander, on the third of the Ides of August. But the veil with which she wiped up her blood she kept with herself in a silver case, and day and night she was there praying with stealthy prayers. From the day on which Susanna was struck down, blessed Pope Caius continually offered the Sacrifice in the house of Susanna, in the place where she was struck, for her commemoration. The house of Caius was joined to the dwelling of St. Susanna and of Gabinius her father. And thence it came about afterward that a station of the Christians was instituted in those two dwellings. These things were done in the sixth region, near the street of Mamurus, before the forum of Sallust.

[22] he attempts to defend them. There is mention of the street of Mamurus or Mamurcus in the sixth region in Sextus Rufus and Publius Victor. But of the leaden statue of Mamurius, which gave the place its name, the memory is famous among ancient writers. Mamurius the statuary was renowned in the times of Numa. Famous and frequent is the mention among Gentile authors of the buildings and gardens of Sallust, situated in the same region. There persists to this day the noble memorial of St. Susanna in the same place; but that of Caius which was near it has now fallen through age. Mention is frequently made in the ecclesiastical records of the title of St. Susanna; which place in our age has been increased with a noble monastery of consecrated virgins of the institute of St. Bernard. But in what manner, for the same cause, both Gabinius the father of Susanna, and also Pope Caius, underwent martyrdom by the same Diocletian's command, we shall tell in the following year, in which the old monuments testify that it happened. Thus far the most eminent writer, whose opinion our predecessors followed in illustrating the Acts of certain Saints which have a connection with this matter, since the book of Cæcilius or Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors had not yet appeared, as will appear from the following paragraph.

* perhaps: by the light,

§ III. The judgment which certain learned men have passed against the most eminent Baronius concerning these same Acts of the Saint.

Tillemont Tillemont, volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 760 and following, attacks the Acts of St. Susanna with various arguments of lesser weight, to which some answer could be made, and on account of which we should not altogether withdraw credit from those Acts, which certainly have such antiquity that they gave light to Ado, as is clear from his compendium which we exhibited in the preceding paragraph. But since other learned men before Tillemont have opposed to the same Acts grave difficulties which we cannot dissolve, we shall here propose them in the very words of those authors, just as in the preceding paragraph we reported the whole reasoning of the most eminent Baronius in defense of those same Acts. In this way the reader himself, having heard and weighed the reasons on both sides, will be able more easily and more safely to pass judgment on that controversy.

[24] First let us hear Étienne Baluze, who in the year of Christ 1679 brought forth into light from long darkness the work of Lucius Cæcilius or Lactantius, and Baluze and who in volume 2 of the Miscellanea, page 378, on chapter 15 of that Work, notes that Valeria, daughter of the emperor Diocletian, was married to Galerius Maximian Cæsar, who led a wretched life after the death of her husband, he says, and perished by a pitiable death with her mother under the reign of Licinius, as Lactantius teaches at the end of this work. Then from this testimony of Lucius Cæcilius or Lactantius he thus argues against the opinion of the most eminent Baronius: By which narrative the conjecture of the most illustrious Cardinal Baronius is entirely overthrown, who at the year CCXCIV writes that the daughter of Diocletian, who was joined in marriage to Galerius Maximian, did not long survive the wedding, since no memory of her exists in the more ancient monuments, nor is any offspring read to have been received from her.

[25] He then adds that the father, that he might consecrate to eternity the memory of his deceased daughter, from the testimony of Lactantius wished a part of Pannonia to be instituted and named by her name, and cites for that matter book XIX of Ammianus Marcellinus. But Marcellinus does not say this; but only that that part of Pannonia was both instituted and so named in honor of Valeria the daughter of Diocletian. And I shall report his very words: There comes Valeria, once a part of Pannonia; but both instituted and so named in honor of Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian. Further, it was neither instituted nor named by Diocletian, but by Galerius Maximian, as Aurelius Victor teaches in his book On the Cæsars: He called the province Valeria by the name of his wife.

[26] These things being thus established, as though they were certain, Baronius adds they impugn the Acts of St. Susanna, that Diocletian, when by Valeria's death the affinity had been dissolved which had been contracted between him and Galerius, hastened to join to him in the covenant of marriage the virgin whom he had in his kindred in a nearer degree, namely Susanna, the daughter of Gabinius, brother of Pope Caius; both of whom were joined by blood to Diocletian, as being born of the brother of that same Diocletian, as is plain from the Acts of the same St. Susanna. But this whole history falls, the foundation falling on which it had been placed, that is, the death of Valeria, whom it is established to have long survived Galerius. But so dangerous are the errors of great men that this lapse of Baronius has drawn along with it very many learned men: Odorico Rinaldi, Bolland, and others. After these things he there treats of the wife of Diocletian, who in the praised Acts of St. Susanna is called Serena, and whom some address by another name. But whether she was the wife of the emperor Diocletian must be inquired into at the day XVI of August, on which the feast of St. Serena occurs in the Roman Martyrology.

[27] to whom Antoine Pagi accedes; Meanwhile let Antoine Pagi be heard, who in his Historico-chronological Criticism of the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of Christ 294, number 2 and following, discourses of this matter thus: What Baronius says from the Acts of St. Susanna, namely that she could by no art be induced to a marriage with Galerius Maximian, and that she was in the following year crowned with martyrdom, and that then her father, to consecrate to eternity the memory of his deceased daughter, wished a part of Pannonia to be instituted and named by her name, cannot be true, the foundation falling on which it had been placed, that is, the death of Valeria, whom it is established to have long survived Galerius, as the most learned Baluze observed in his notes on the Book of Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chapter 15, where Lactantius, speaking of the things that were done in the year CCCIII, after Diocletian stirred up the persecution against the Christians, says: The emperor therefore was raging now not only against his own household, but against all, and first of all he compelled his daughter Valeria, and his wife Prisca, to be polluted by sacrifice.

[28] who by almost the same arguments Nay, both Valeria and Prisca survived Maximian Augustus, who died in the year CCCXIII, as I shall demonstrate below from the same Lactantius, chapter 50. Then the passage of Ammianus, book 19, which Baronius cites, says nothing else, as Baluze rightly says in the same place, than that that part of Pannonia was both instituted and so named in honor of Valeria the daughter of Diocletian. These are the words of Marcellinus: There comes Valeria, once a part of Pannonia, but both instituted and so named in honor of Valeria the daughter of Diocletian; not by Diocletian, but by Galerius Maximian, as Victor relates in On the Cæsars: He called the province Valeria by the name of his wife. And therefore these things make nothing to the purpose, since that province received that name while Valeria was living. Bolland, at the day XXIII of January (perhaps Pagi meant to indicate the day XVIII of February, on which the martyrdom of Claudius and his fellows, connected with the deeds of St. Susanna, was treated in our Work), in the Life of St. Susanna, relates the same things that Baronius relates: for neither had seen the praised Book of Lactantius, afterward published by the most famous Baluze to the greatest advantage of ecclesiastical history.

[29] refutes the opinion of Baronius, The things which are said by Baronius concerning St. Serena, the wife of Diocletian, on the credit of the Acts of St. Susanna, fall to the ground from what has been said in the preceding number; and thence it is established that those Acts are either wholly, or at least in part, supposititious: for indeed if Prisca, the wife of Diocletian, was the mother of Valeria — as certainly she was — it is necessary that she was married to Diocletian before he became emperor, since Valeria was joined in matrimony to Galerius Maximian in the year CCXCII, in at least the twelfth year of her age. And that Prisca her mother was then living is certainly gathered from this, that she long afterward survived, and died only in the year CCCXIII, after the victory which Licinius won over Maximinus. Baronius, although he had not seen the Book of Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors, nevertheless suspected that there would be those who would call into doubt that history concerning Serena Augusta; because no mention at all of her is found elsewhere, either among the pagan writers or in ancient inscriptions; and, as though he had put an end to that most difficult question, he asks the petty men of letters, if the name of Serena Augusta displeases them, to say by what other name the Augusta wife of Diocletian is found called by the more ancient writers; and, when they have not found one, not to make a controversy about the name.

[30] But this question has been most abundantly satisfied, and solidly answers his doubts. says Baluze at the place cited, where he also rejects the opinion of Hadrien de Valois in the defense of his Disquisition on Basilicas, where he gathers from Anastasius the Librarian in the Life of Pope Vigilius that Eleutheria was truly the wife of Diocletian. But since it is certain that Diocletian throughout the whole time of his principate had no other wife than Prisca, the passage of Anastasius, where there is talk of Diocletian and Eleutheria, is corrupt. Corrupt too are the Acts of St. George the martyr, in which treatment is made of St. Alexandra the wife of Diocletian, although Henschen and Papebroch, in volume III of the Saints of the month of April, at the day XXI, speak of St. Alexandra as though she had been the wife of Diocletian, and assert that Serena, the former wife of Diocletian, who died about the year CCXCVI, is venerated on the XIX of the month of August (read XVI of August, at which day St. Serena is recorded in the Roman Martyrology); but Alexandra,

his other wife, flew gloriously to heaven in the year CCCIII, and that the Greeks celebrate her sacred memory on the day XXI of April; and finally that they adduce the encomium which is attributed to Alexandra in the very ancient Menology of the emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus, written in the X century of Christ, and other things from the Menæa of the Greeks: for those most learned men had not seen the Book of Lactantius when they wrote these things.

[31] But Papebroch afterward saw that Book of Lactantius, Papebroch, having seen the book of Lactantius, proposes various evasions, where it first came to light, and therefore in the Preliminary Commentary on the Acts of Sts. Theodotus and his fellow martyrs at the day XVIII of May, volume IV of that month, page 149, thus admonishes the reader: Add that from the same Book of Lactantius it is also established that Diocletian, when these things were being done, had a wife Prisca and a daughter Valeria, and that both lived until the year CCCXIII. What then shall become of Alexandra in the Passion of St. George, and of Serena in the Acts of St. Susanna, named as wives of Diocletian? Shall we say that they were his concubines? Or shall we confess that they are wholly fictitious, and so to be eliminated from the calendars of the Saints? It will be permissible to examine this with greater leisure at the XI of August. Meanwhile it has seemed good to indicate these things, that it may appear that we do not so tenaciously cling to what has once been settled but that, new light being offered from elsewhere, we are ready to retract it.

[32] That evasion does not please me, by which Alexandra and Serena might be called concubines among which one does not please, whom Diocletian had besides his wife Prisca. Indeed I am not unaware that sometimes such miracles of divine grace have occurred, that the mistresses or concubines of Gentile emperors were converted to the Christian faith and to a holier life: for on the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, among other causes, the most cruel Nero put to martyrdom Peter and Paul, the chief of the Apostles, because his mistresses had been led by them to the Christian faith and to preserving chastity thenceforth. But from the common testimony of the ancient writers Diocletian seems to have been given over to superstition, cruelty, and avarice rather than to lust. Besides, Alexandra and Serena are called by the name of empress or Augusta, with which title the mistresses of emperors are not wont to be adorned. For the rest, what is to be judged concerning these two Saints we shall indicate at the end of this paragraph, after we have reported the judgment of one or another learned man.

[33] and therefore with Nicolas le Nourry, Nicolas le Nourry, a learned Benedictine monk, in his Dissertation on the Book of Lucius Cæcilius Lactantius, chapter 9, article 1, writes to our purpose thus: As often as mention has been made by ancient authors of Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian, so rarely has it been made of his wife Prisca. We know indeed that the wife of this emperor is called in certain Acts of the Saints Serena, in others Alexandra. But these Acts seem, and with very good right, neither true nor sincere. Besides, in the Pontifical Deeds published by Anastasius she is called Eleutheria, and in the most ancient codex of them Leutheres. But that rests on the testimony of the writer of these deeds alone: Prisca, moreover, is the name given her by our Cæcilius. But whether by better right, and whether she was called by several names, we shall gladly hear from others more learned. But by whatever name at last this empress, or lawful wife of Diocletian, was called, from the testimony of Lactantius it is established that she sacrificed to the gods. Nor does Lactantius anywhere mention any later repentance for this impiety, which certainly, to the reproach of the Christian religion, he would not have passed over in silence, especially while he expressly narrates the violent death of this empress and of her daughter. Then the praised Benedictine writer thus continues: For the rest, Diocletian received from this his wife a daughter Valeria, whom, as we shall show below, he gave in marriage to Maximian Galerius, when he made him Cæsar and partner of his empire. And he, having cut down (as Aurelius Victor writes) huge forests, and having let the lake of Peltona among the Pannonians into the Danube, wished the province to be called Valeria by the name of his wife. Ammianus Marcellinus favors this opinion, who committed to writing that that province was so named in honor of Valeria the daughter of Diocletian. There is extant, moreover, in the royal treasury that coin of bronze of the second module, which we owe to our most loving associate Anselm Banduri, who will shortly send it forth into public light along with many others, not without learned observations.

[34] Anselm Banduri, and other learned men To these he subjoins the very coin of Galeria Valeria, which Anselm Banduri in the year 1718, among the coins of the Roman emperors, volume 2, page 146, likewise reproduced, prefixing the Life of that same wretched princess, which agrees with what has been recorded above. The praised Banduri, on page 43 of the volume just cited, treats of Prisca, of whom no coin is found, and of whom he supplies a brief notice in these words: Prisca, the wife of Diocletian, known only from Cæcilius, is called by some writers Serena, by others Alexandra, by Anastasius Eleutheria. That she was a Christian certain moderns maintain, whose conjecture rests on no sufficiently certain argument: but it is established that she took part in the ancestral superstitions in the year CCCII, in which year we observed in its place that our people began to be harassed. She followed Diocletian as he withdrew to Salona; then, but it is uncertain at what time, she seems to have given herself as companion to her daughter Valeria, the wife of Galerius Maximian, who, when she was bereft of her husband, was banished into Syria by Maximinus, Diocletian vainly demanding her back. Finally, the tyrant being slain, after she had wandered through various provinces for fifteen months in plebeian dress, she was at last seized at Thessalonica, and by the order of Licinius was beheaded together with her mother at the end of the year CCCXIV.

[35] All these circumstances of matters and of times being maturely weighed, against the eccentric opinion of Ilbach we ingenuously confess that the history of our Acts cannot be reconciled by us with the testimony of Lucius Cæcilius or Lactantius: for we do not wish to imitate Odoacer Ilbach, who, since he cannot loose those knots, in desperation cuts them, and in his Acts of the Martyrs Vindicated, book 3, chapter 10, rashly calls the Work of Lucius Cæcilius or Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors supposititious, although it was received with the common applause of the whole literary world, and is today held in great esteem by all the learned. It is not worth the pains to refute the eccentric and singular opinion of this writer with many arguments, since it deserves rather the hissing of learned men than a refutation. Let us therefore allow this good man, and one ready to believe anything whatever, to lie hidden under the obscure anagram of his name, and against all the learned to be wise for himself alone.

[36] We meanwhile shall assent to the most learned Antoine Pagi, we rather judge, who in his Historico-chronological Criticism of the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of Christ 295, number 2, thus rightly judges: Baronius reports from the Acts of St. Susanna the martyrdoms of Maximus, Count of the privy purse, of Claudius his most illustrious brother, of Præpedigna the wife of Claudius, and of Alexander and Cutias their sons, which are also read in the published Martyrology of Bede; nay, also in the old Roman Martyrology published by Rosweyde, at the day XVIII of the month of February, at which day Bolland exhibits a part of the Acts of St. Susanna, in which there is discourse concerning all these holy martyrs. But already in the preceding year we said that the aforesaid Acts of St. Susanna are not sincere, but were written by later men, because Spondanus, whose order we were following in the first edition of this volume, drew back the martyrdom of St. Susanna into the same year. Susanna therefore, Serena, Maximus Count of the privy purse, and the others just mentioned were indeed punished with death by Diocletian in hatred of the Christian faith; but the things which later writers have reported of them are, either wholly or in part, fabulous.

[37] François Pagi in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, volume 1, page 59 and the following, thus confirms this opinion of his uncle Antoine: that those Acts are partly supposititious, Nor does it stand in the way that Baronius writes from the Pontifical Book and from the Acts of St. Susanna that Caius, namely, with his brother Gabinius, the father of St. Susanna, was crowned with martyrdom, because Diocletian, his daughter Valeria the wife of Galerius Maximian being dead, in order to conciliate him more to himself, wished to join to him in the covenant of marriage Susanna, whom he had in his kindred in a nearer degree, as being the daughter of Gabinius, the son of Maximus or Maximian, the brother of Diocletian: for this cannot stand, since it is certain that Valeria, the wife of Galerius Maximian, survived her husband, as Baluze observed in his notes on the Book of Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors; and thence it is established that the Acts of St. Susanna are, either wholly or in part, supposititious. Most recently too John Vignoli, who published the Pontifical Book at Rome in the year 1724 and dedicated it to Pope Benedict XIII, seems to doubt of the authentic credit of the same Acts: for when in his notes on this Book, page 67, he had reported that St. Caius the Pope and St. Gabinius the priest were crowned with the laurel of martyrdom on account of St. Susanna, whose mind they had turned away from marriage with Galerius Maximian Cæsar, he prudently adds these words: For thus her Acts (whatever they be, let others see to it) set forth that matter. Now let us candidly bring forward our judgment on these Acts.

[38] [although we do not doubt of the lawful cult of the Martyrs who are recorded in them.] In the first place we readily believe that a certain illustrious virgin, by name Susanna, the daughter of St. Gabinus the priest, and perhaps the niece of St. Caius the Pontiff by his brother, refused the marriage offered by a noble pagan, and on that account was enviously accused of the profession of the Christian faith, and was beheaded in her own house. This substance of the Acts can be composed without much difficulty with the words of Usuard cited above, and with the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology. But besides, we suspect that the Acts of this illustrious Virgin and martyr (if ever they were copiously written) perished by the injury of the times, or in the later and most savage persecution of Diocletian; and that after some centuries an unskilled writer, they being lost, substituted others at his own pleasure, into which, according to the genius of his age and for ornament, he mingled the things which are narrated of Maximian and Serena Augusta. However that may be, from all these things we conclude with Pagi that St. Susanna and the other martyrs recorded in these Acts have a lawful and immemorial cult, which we have abundantly established from the ancient Martyrologies. Now it only remains that you read the Acts themselves, illustrated with the customary annotations, and studiously compare them with the Preliminary Commentary.

THE ACTS

by an anonymous author,

From an ancient manuscript Fulda codex, which is preserved in our Museum under the letter Q Ms. 6, and which we have collated with other manuscripts.

Susanna, Virgin and Martyr, at Rome (S.)

BHL Number: 7937

FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS.

The Saint, rejecting marriage with a noble pagan, After fifty-five days he (Diocletian) ordered Serena ^a his wife that Susanna be brought to her, that she might bend her ways; and she, when she had seen the soldiers coming to her, prayed to the Lord, saying: Lord, do not forsake your handmaid. And when Susanna had been brought to Serena Augusta, Serena Augusta did reverence to her at her entrance. But Susanna prostrated herself on the pavement, and Serena said to Susanna: May Christ the Lord rejoice in you

our Lord. And when she had learned that she had called upon Christ, she said this: I give thanks to my God, because in every place are his dominions. And Susanna was with Serena Augusta many days. In those very days, day and night, Susanna did not cease with hymns and prayers, standing before the Lord, to give thanks. But the emperor Diocletian, still hoping that Susanna might through Serena be inclined to a marriage with his son Maximinus ^b, sent a certain Curtius, one of his household, to Serena; Diocletian Augustus saying: Let us join the girl to my son Maximinus by your industry. Serena said to Curtius: Unless the will be there, the union is not fitting *; because I do not perceive in the girl any love for a partnership with your son. But the girl, day and night, tearfully in the praise of her God did not cease to sing the voice of the psalms, as her father Gavinius ^c the priest did. This was reported to Diocletian Augustus.

[2] Then Diocletian Augustus, kindled with the greatest fury, ordered Maximinus she is handed over to him to be violently ravished, that she be called back to the house of her father Gavinius the priest, saying: Let not our palace be defiled; but in the house of her father use her there as you desire, and leave her. At the same time he dismissed her. Serena answered, saying: He who freed his handmaid Susanna of old, may he free you also, and be your helper, giving you peace with glory. But Susanna, coming with two women, entered into her house, and casting herself on the pavement began to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ. But Maximinus, coming to her by night, entered into the chamber where Susanna was praying, and at his entrance an angel of the Lord appeared above Susanna: and he, seeing so great a brightness, was afraid, and fled in haste to the palace, and did not touch her, and told all to his father Diocletian Augustus. But Diocletian Augustus said: This kind of thing is nothing but the magic art; and he sent Curtius, and ordered that he examine her most fully in her own house. Curtius, coming, began more and more to be afraid.

[3] At the same time Diocletian Augustus went in to Serena his wife, but defended by an angel against that violence and began to have an altercation with her concerning the coming of Christ and concerning the worship of idols: and when he had been refuted ^d by Serena, he turned himself to the matter of Susanna's teaching, saying to Serena: Why have you acted so that a prudent and beautiful girl would not consent to marriage with my son? Serena said: Because she chose something better, which your son in his report related to us — the eternal light, which Maximinus did not keep silent from relating. Diocletian Augustus, angered, sent to a certain Macedonius, a sacrilegious pagan, to whom he gave this command, saying: Constrain her in her own house to offer sacrifices to the gods; yet secretly, on account of the odium against our clemency.

[4] But Macedonius, coming, entered into her house in the region of Sallust, she is ordered to sacrifice to the image of Jupiter, and began to constrain her to sacrifice, bringing a little golden godling of Jupiter and a three-legged table. When Susanna had seen this she blew upon it, and, bending her knees, said to the Lord: Lord, let not my eyes see the caskets of demons; but console your handmaid. Then Macedonius said to her: Raise yourself from the ground and adore the god of Cæsar. As Susanna raised her head to heaven, suddenly the image appeared nowhere. Then Macedonius said to her: The desire of gold seduced you, and in the rush of desire made you conspicuous; nevertheless I thank you, because you would not have stolen it except out of love of the gods. But she, signing her breast, said: The Lord sent his angel, and took it away from before my face, lest my eyes should be defiled.

[5] At that same hour one of the servants of Macedonius came in, and announced that the golden Jupiter was lying in the open square before the palace of Sallust. which by her prayers she drives away, and she is crowned with martyrdom, Macedonius, kindled with anger, stripping her with his own hands, began to beat her with cudgels. But Susanna, rejoicing, kept saying: Glory to you, O Lord. Macedonius said to her: Take counsel for yourself, and sacrifice. But she, signing her breast, said: I desire to offer myself as a sacrifice to my God. At the same time Macedonius reported to Diocletian Augustus what had been done, and how the image of Jupiter had been driven out, and broken in the square and brought back. Then Diocletian Augustus ordered that she be punished with the sword there within her own house, next to the house of Gaius the bishop; and she, being struck within her own house, gave up her spirit.

[6] and she is honorably buried. When Serena Augusta had heard this, coming with joy by night she gathered up the body of St. Susanna the martyr, and the blood which she had shed in that same place she wiped up with her own veil, and placed it in a silver casket in her palace, where day and night by stealthy turns she did not cease to pray; but the body of St. Susanna she herself adorned with her own hands with linen cloths and with spices, and placed it beside the bodies of the saints in the cemetery of Alexander in the Sandpit, in the crypt beside St. Alexander, near the town of Figlinæ ^e, on the third of the Ides of August. From that same day blessed Gaius the bishop began to enter into that same house where she had been struck with the sword, and to offer the Sacrifice to the Lord his God for the commemoration of blessed Susanna before the people. Because the house of blessed Gavinius the priest was joined to the house of blessed Gaius the bishop, from that same time this was already such a sign to the Christians, and a station was assigned at the two houses ^f, which is so even to the present day. And this was done at Rome in the sixth region, near the street of Mammurtinus ^g *, before the forum of Sallust, the Lord reigning in the whole world with the Father and the Holy Spirit, our Lord Jesus Christ, world without end. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

* otherwise: the joining of a crown, or a crown by marriage;

* otherwise: Mammurus

ON STS. THE ANONYMOUS MARTYRS

AT NICOPOLIS.

From the Hieronymian Martyrologies.

The anonymous Martyrs at Nicopolis (SS.)

J. B. S.

Among the other announcements in those codices that are suspect, of which we treated in the Passed-Over, this one seems sufficiently safe, although it names no Martyr. The words are: At Nicopolis, the passion of many Martyrs, whose names God knows — just as elsewhere this Martyrology strings together classes of anonymous Martyrs whose names God alone knows. Concerning the position itself, or the place of the martyrdom, Florentinius rightly doubts, observing thus: But which Nicopolis it is among the several cities of this name is difficult to affirm. I should incline toward the Nicopolis of Thrace or Bithynia, because there, especially in the times of Diocletian, was the greater butchery of Martyrs. Let the conjecture stand for what it is worth; we have nothing to add to it.