ON SS. THE MARTYRS OF TOMIS, STRATOR, THEODOTUS, MERONA, MARINA OR MARINUS, RODOFIA, MAGRINUS, SECUNDINUS, THOMUS OR THEONUS, AND PERHAPS SODERA OR SODEPHA
An account from the Hieronymian Martyrologies.
Strator, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Theodotus, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Merona, Marina, or Marinus, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Rodofia, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Magrinus, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Secundinus, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Thomus or Theonus, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
Sodera or Sodepha, Martyr at Tomis in Scythia (S.)
J. B. S.
The Roman Martyrology, in the present-day announcement of these mutilated Saints, again has as its guide the Plantin Bede from Rabanus, who first, from our Hieronymian class, plucked no more than three names, and those not very entirely. Names inflected in various number and gender The difficulty is in defining the number of the whole company, which in the Lucca is composed of seven companions, in the Corbie grows to eight, in the Epternach to ten; in some the names are masculine which in others are inflected in the feminine, as most frequently recurs in these codices. To describe the several little entries, already sufficiently published, is not worth the trouble; I thought the names should be determined from the concord of several codices: let others determine what most pleases them. The Lucca, the Blume, and the Barberini read Strator; Straton is in the Corbie and the Gellone, for which it rendered Staris. The Epternach orders the Saints in another series. That Theodotus should be written the greater part of the exemplars teach, except again the Epternach, where it is Theodotha. Again we preferred Merona from the Epternach, the Corbie, and the Auxerre, which name also some make masculine. Rodofia, or if you prefer Rodaphia, read the Lucca and the Blume; the Epternach Rodopia, the Auxerre Rodolia; the Corbie Rodesia; if I have chosen ill, do you prefer what you please, and, if you wish, have recourse to the Auctaria of Bede, published by us.
[2] It is doubtful whether the Marina of the Epternach codex should be adopted, They are more probably determined. for which perhaps others read Macrinus or Magrinus; but since the same Epternach codex adds also the name Mafrimus, it is more probable that by this corrupt name Magrinus or Macrinus is indicated, and that he is therefore to be distinguished from Marina. Yet I would not dare to affirm Mairnus, since Rabanus seems to have formed him from Marina, or to have taken Marinus for Macrinus, just as also for Sodera he probably wrote Sodepha. More basely have the more recent writers corrupted the names, who have dared to feign Martinus for Marinus, Godefa for Sodepha. Concerning Secundinus the matter is clear enough, for thus have the Epternach, the Lucca,
the Blume, the Augsburg, and the Barberini, against the Corbie, in which alone is Secundus. The Theonus of the Epternach would please me more than the Thomus of the others, were it not that the number of these prevailed. There seems to be a superfluity in the Corbie in the last little clause, Likewise of Theodotus, for which reason also I exclude the Rodinia of the Epternach, which seems the same as Rodopia, repeated in that codex, unless I am mistaken; from which others form Rhodaphia. Concerning the Sodera of the same codex, which was transformed by Rabanus into Sodepha, the reasoning does not seem the same; for although she is not noted by others, it is more probable that she is not to be excluded: yet I added the little word perhaps, to show a thing not sufficiently certain. I do not know why in the Roman is read Sedopha, where it is so certain that the disputed announcement was taken from the Plantin Bede.