ON ST. MNASON THE CYPRIOT,
THE ANCIENT DISCIPLE OF CHRIST.
Section I.
Historico-critical Collection.
The Cypriot, disciple of Christ (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR J. B. S.
Concerning the four Saints, often confused into two by Henschenius and Papebroch, treatment was made on the XXV of June, where we judge rightly distinguished Sosipater from Sopater, Jason from Mnason; so that Sosipater and Jason are to be called disciples and kinsmen of St. Paul the Apostle, What was set forth concerning the distinction and quality of the Saints but Sopater the son of Pyrrhus, of Berœa, and at least most certainly Mnason, disciples of Christ; whatever confusion the Martyrologies have stirred up at home, confounding Sopater with Sosipater, Jason with Mnason, as has already been explained more fully on the day mentioned. But if Tillemont had seen the fifth volume of June, where these things are contained, he would without doubt have abstained from certain things which, in volume 1, note 24 on St. Paul, page 553, he discussed not accurately enough; besides the fact that he attributes some things to Henschenius which were not said by him. On account of the affinity of the argument, we have thought this brief collection should be begun from these.
Thus he there speaks: Bollandus (so throughout he designates all the Bollandists) asserts that the Greeks number Jason and Sosipater among the LXX disciples, which I, he says, do not find in the Venetian Greek Menology, nor in the Canisian: but the Menæa openly make them disciples of Paul; and from the Acts of the Apostles it is sufficiently clear that these things were rightly defined there. He further cites in the margin our work of the XXVIII of April, page 547, namely in the list of the Passed-Over of that day.
[2] Tillemont dozed in that place, for the things which are there said by Henschenius are asserted by Henschenius are certain, as you will clearly understand from his words. The citation is not exact; for thus it stands: SS. Jason and Sosipater, Apostles of the LXX, are commemorated in the Greek Ms. Synaxary of the Parisian College of Clermont: likewise in the Menæa of Cardinal Mazarin and other Mss., of which the supply among us is greater than anywhere else. The difference of the wording is sufficiently clear: in vain did Tillemont seek in the printed Greek Menologies or Menæa what Henschenius there expressly declares he had found in the Mss. I would relate the texts themselves, if it were worth the trouble, or if the matter itself were not already sufficiently clear from those things which he himself afterward discussed more accurately on the already-mentioned XXV of June. Nor are the things true which the same Tillemont added toward the end of the cited article, in these words: Therefore it must be said that the Greeks honor only St. Jason, and the Latins Mnason under the false name of Jason. He could also have said, under the false name of Naso, which here I am about to show at somewhat greater length; but it is false that the Greeks honor only St. Jason, since in the already-mentioned Mss. of ours St. Mnason too is found expressed. This I shall first carry out, thence about to make my step to the Latins.
[3] In the manuscript Menæa of the Ambrosian library, not indeed at the XXVIII or XXIX of April, they are championed against Tillemont nor at the XXV of June or at this day, but at the XIX of October, thus is read: Ἄθλησις τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Μνάσονος ἐπισκόπου Κύπρου, and there is added the name of Modestus καὶ Μοδέστου without a title, which is explained a little more distinctly in the Clermont Synaxary, where at the aforesaid day XIX of October there is joined to the already-mentioned words the dignity of St. Modestus, ἐπισκόπου Ἱεροσολύμων, who, the same, are elsewhere too announced together on the same day, although hitherto I am ignorant of the cause of the festivity and the conjunction; nor do I have it more explored whence those Greek amplifiers of the Menæa found anywhere that St. Mnason was bishop of Cyprus; or why they place there St. Modestus, long the vicar of the captive Zacharias, who died in the year 634, who is venerated by the Latins on the XVI of December. However this came about, for our purpose it is enough to have shown that St. Mnason was not entirely unknown to the Greeks. But this must be pardoned to Tillemont, who consulted, as I suppose, no Greek Menologies or Menæa at the source, besides those which he cited above, published in public print at Venice or in Canisius. Now let us investigate in the Latin Fasti our St. Mnason deformed, whom no Martyrology, that I know of, has rightly expressed.
[4] From the corrupt reading of the Little Roman, In the Hieronymian codices the name of Mnason will be sought in vain; nor will you find the saints Jason and Sosipater, disciples of St. Paul, marked there; for those who are so called in that place are Martyrs known by name only and mixed among the larger classes, who can have no affinity at all with those former ones: such also is the Jason who occurs in Usuard at the III day of December, brother of Maurus, son of Claudius and Hilaria, who all were received from the Little Roman through Ado. Nor is St. Mnason more known among Bede, Florus, Rabanus, and Wandelbert, to whom it never fell to see the Little Roman. As to those matters which of old gave occasion most frequently to very many tangled and intricate questions, we believe them explained happily enough in the whole Usuardine preface, and, as pertains properly here, notably in chapter 2, article 4, number 144, where it was observed and proved that no Latin Martyrology makes mention of most of the disciples either of Christ the Savior or of St. Paul before the author of the already-praised Little Roman, from whom Ado borrowed his own, from him Usuard, and from these at last the whole progeny of the more recent ones. But as regards St. Mnason, it unhappily so came about that either the author himself (which I can scarcely persuade myself of) or rather some copyist twisted his name, so that Ado, the transcriber of that Martyrology, in his Ravenna Ms. read Naso for Mnason, and thus the announcement was formed: In Cyprus, of Naso the ancient disciple of Christ.
[5] instead of Mnason it is Naso in the Marlyrologies, Nor can this seem doubtful to anyone, since in all the copies of Ado, both printed and manuscript, the same reading is constantly preserved, to which Rosweyde noted that Jason or Mnason from Acts 21 should be substituted. But, be it said with his leave, he could easily have observed that Jason is nowhere called a Cypriot, nowhere an ancient disciple, inasmuch as he is plainly different from him, a citizen of Thessalonica, a disciple of Paul, and, as he himself writes, a kinsman, concerning whom again see what was said on the XXV of June. Rosweyde could, I say, have observed that Mnason the Cypriot is by no means to be confounded with Jason, since all the marks expressed by the Little Roman are so proper to Mnason from Acts 21 that they suit no other at all. Roundly, therefore, it ought to have been written that by Naso, a badly fabricated name, that Saint is altogether understood, concerning whom these are the words of the Acts in the cited place: There came also with us certain of the disciples from Cæsarea, bringing with them one with whom we should lodge, a certain Mnason of Cyprus, an ancient disciple. That each and every stroke of the Little Roman was received from this place is to me, from long use of that little book, beyond doubt, which I have also indicated so far in the Usuardine observation on this day. Nor is it to be wondered at that Mnason was placed in Cyprus, though it is more likely he did not die there; for it was enough for the author of this Martyrology to have read that he was a Cypriot by birth, to derive thence the location; who besides adapted the days to most of his Saints at his own discretion.
[6] Not to enumerate here in a long series the Martyrologies in which all most constantly read Naso, let it suffice to have said once that through Ado, Usuard, and Notker it was transfused into all their successors, which was badly corrected by Jason, among whom the name of our St. Mnason should be restored, not Jason, as Baronius did in the Roman of today, recording many things in the notes which, the matters being now better explained, cannot at all be admitted. I would hardly indeed suppose that Molanus shone before Baronius in this part, of whom, unless I am mistaken, he saw only the first edition, that best and most approved one, in which the text of Usuard is purer, in the later ones often corrupted. But he had others who paved that way, especially Maurolycus, Felicius, and Galesinius, whom last, however, he did not follow in adding to his Cypriot Jason the title of Bishop, which I know not whence was received by Galesinius, any more than whence it was established for Felicius that the Saint himself closed his last day in Cyprus. Nor indeed are those things here to be cared for which others perhaps found each after his own wit, so that they might involve doubtful things in other doubtful and equally uncertain ones, where to one considering the matter nakedly there ought to appear evident the assertion here set forth by us concerning the deformed name of St. Mnason. This last we are compelled to confess, that concerning the deeds or virtues of the Saint nothing has been handed down to memory, at least that is worthy of credit, besides those few things which have already been recited from the Acts of the Apostles.