Martyrs

ON THE HOLY MARTYRS

SYMPHOROSA WITH HER SEVEN SONS, CRESCENS, JULIANUS, NEMESIUS, PRIMITIVUS, JUSTINUS, STACTEUS, AND EUGENIUS.

AT TIBUR IN LATIUM.

PERHAPS ABOUT THE YEAR 125.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Symphorosa, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Crescens, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Julianus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Nemesius, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Primitivus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Justinus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Stacteus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Eugenius, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR J. P.

§ I. The occasion, place, and time of the martyrdom; the husband of St. Symphorosa; that she is to be distinguished from St. Felicity.

Among the many illustrious victims who suffered for the cause of the Christian faith under Adrian—or (as others prefer to read, with the emendations and notes on the Life of that Emperor written by Aelius Spartianus) Hadrian—there shone forth above all The occasion of the martyrdom was the building of a palace, St. Symphorosa, wife of St. Getulius the martyr, a kinswoman by marriage of his brother St. Amantius, likewise a martyr, and the fruitful mother of Seven Martyr Sons, and herself a martyr. The occasion of her martyrdom was afforded by the nearness of that most celebrated palace which the aforesaid emperor ordered to be built at the villa of Tibur, which, as Aelius Spartianus reports at the end of his Life, he built up wonderfully, so that in it he inscribed the most famous names of provinces and places, which the same author recounts. For when he had taken care that this royal house, destined for his delight, should be purified by the wicked rite and ceremonies of the heathen, he understood from the idols that it was in vain to think of appeasing the gods, as the Acts relate, unless the Saint should first sacrifice. And so she is commanded to sacrifice, or, if she should refuse, to be herself sacrificed. And this last course, all others having been tried in vain, Adrian willed to be carried into execution; that he was a most superstitious worshiper of rites and gods is proved from his deeds: for, as Spartianus testifies toward the end of his Life, he most diligently attended to the Roman rites, and performed the office of Pontifex Maximus. From a like cause St. Felicity too was driven to martyrdom, with her seven sons also, of whom on the X of this month. That the persecution of the emperors who had preceded him arose from a source of this kind is asserted by Constantine, on the authority of Eusebius in his Life, book 2, chapter 50; Apollo, as was boasted, declaring that the just living upon the earth were a hindrance to him, whereby he could not utter true oracles.

[2] A response of much the same kind Apollo gave to Julian the apostate, which Adrian ordered to be dedicated by the heathen rite, concerning the glory of the body of St. Babylas of Antioch, as you may see on the XXIV of January, page 579, from Sozomen. Further, concerning that which the text of the passion of St. Symphorosa here edited by us says—that Adrian built the palace, and wished to dedicate it by the wicked rite—it might be asked, with Tillemont, Monuments of the Church, volume 2, page 243, whether palaces were dedicated by rites of this kind? But our Fulvius Cardulus, in his notes on the Acts of our Martyrs, published at Rome in the year 1588, page 138, having first set forth the words "to dedicate" and "to consecrate," rightly observes that not only temples, altars, and images, but other things also, such as obelisks and a library (and why then not also palaces, or at least some part of them?), were dedicated by the heathen. It might also be answered that perhaps a shrine or temple stood attached to that palace, and that here by synecdoche the whole is put for the part. However that may be, that a most celebrated temple was ordered by Adrian to be built at Rome in honor of the city of Rome and of Venus, and was probably dedicated in the year 130, you have from the praised Tillemont, History of the Emperors, volume 2, article 10, page 242.

[3] Various things are noted concerning the place of the contest; The arena of martyrdom fell to St. Symphorosa and her Sons at Tibur (commonly Tivoli), an episcopal city of Latium in Italy, situated on a hill by the river Anio; the birthplace of Pope John IX; which Cardulus illustrates at length in his notes from page 62. The emperor Adrian held this city especially dear, as is clear, both because he willed it to be adorned with so notable a structure and other ornaments, and because he made it, as it were, the spectator of the cruelty exercised upon his own subjects in the last years of his life. More in Tillemont, pages 254 and 255. Further, there still stands at Tibur a dry cistern, as Baronius holds in his notes on this day, where in those times St. Symphorosa with her Sons once hid herself—whether she did this to rehearse for her martyrdom by enduring the discomforts of that place, or lest she should thrust herself too soon into the contest, until she had first prepared herself for it, to be strengthened by divine aid and heavenly power. The Acts relate that she suffered at the shrine of Hercules, and that her Sons were tortured to death around the temple of Hercules; so Cardulus and our manuscripts of Trier read in both places. That by the terms "shrine" and "temple" the same place is denoted, gather from these words: But on the next day the emperor Adrian, coming to the shrine of Hercules, ordered their bodies to be carried away together. Further, that the people of Tibur, being more fervent in the worship of Hercules, made this name especially proper to their city, we have from Strabo, book 5, where he says thus: Tibur is Herculean. More in Cardulus, page 81, proving from page 84 that the said worship was born almost together with the city itself; and on page 85 he treats of the temple and its founder: whose temple's portico columns he holds to have been received into the front part of the chief temple of St. Lawrence the martyr, patron of the people of Tibur.

[4] Why the holy Martyrs were slain at the shrine of Hercules rather than elsewhere, and the name given to the same place, one may conjecture this cause: either because that place was more frequented and more celebrated, or because impious men thought they were rendering service to their gods if they removed and sacrificed the Christians—despisers of the Herculean divinity and name—in the very presence and sight, as it were, of Hercules himself. Whence, whether in contempt of the Martyrs or in memory of the deed, the (heathen) priests imposed upon that place the name "at the seven Biothanati" (from the Greek βία, force, violence, and θάνατος, death), that is, those who died not by a natural but by a violent death; but by no means, as it is in Isidore, edited at Paris in the year 1601, book 10 of the Etymologies, "twice dead": where for "twice" (bis) perhaps we should read "by force" (vi), with our own de la Cerda, soon to be cited. It was believed, as Cardulus here notes, by the ancient heathen that the souls of the dead of this kind were excluded from the seats and company of the Blessed. And a little later he adds that the enemies of the faith were once wont to fling this word at the Christians as an insulting and infamous term. Perhaps too the aforesaid priests wished by this Greek appellation to court the favor of Adrian, who was more deeply imbued with Greek studies, his disposition so inclining to them that by some he was called "the little Greek," as Spartianus testifies at the beginning of his Life. The same word is read in Lampridius in the Life of Heliogabalus toward the end; in Tertullian, however, book on the Soul, chapter 57, it is written biæothanatos, either by error, or, if he wished to write it thus, then for the substantive βία the adjective βίαιος is taken. So in Greek it is said βιαιομαχεῖν, that is, to fight by force or bodily strength. Further, from the text of Tertullian it seems to be gathered that the word biæothanatus was especially in use among the magicians. Cassian, Conference XI on Discretion, chapter 5, understands by biothanaton one who took his own life, who by the Greeks is wont to be called αὐτοθάνατος. One may consult our John Louis de la Cerda, Tertullian Illustrated, volume 2, page 428.

[5] The emperor Adrian indeed sheds some light upon the fixing of the epoch of the martyrdom, In what determinate year the Martyrs under whom it was accomplished; but in what year it precisely happened, is difficult to say. Was it then, when he returned to Rome from his first journey into the East, about the year 125, at which time the persecution is believed (which you may see in Tillemont, Monuments of the Church, volume 2, page 224) to have raged more violently, stirred up by him, and to have ceased the following year? Theodoric Ruinart, in his preliminary admonition to the Acts of these Martyrs of the Wetstein printing, page 23, adopts the year about 120, observing from Dio Cassius that Adrian then made many slaughters. Nor do I see what prevents you from deferring that martyrdom to the year 122, when the Emperor could still have been staying at Rome before his first journey into the East: since the persecution seems to have been continued, though with some interruption; for, as the Acts relate, after the death of the Saints the persecution rested for one year and six months: whatever Cardulus, page 173, may not wish to be understood—that immediately

after the killing of these Martyrs the hostile savagery and fury rested—but only in the year 135, the 18th of Adrian's reign; concerning which matter he also treats in his notes on the Passion of SS. Getulius and his fellow martyrs, page 13. Ruinart relates some things, inserted in one Colbert manuscript and in another from the Sorbonne, concerning the death of Adrian, which is there said to have occurred a little after their killing. But that addition was doubtless suspect to him, since he does not transcribe its words, much less approve them, alleging a much earlier reckoning, as we have seen.

[6] when they finished their contest, is uncertain: Nor could you elicit anything more certain from the Acts of SS. Getulius and his fellow Martyrs, very ancient indeed, but not proconsular, as we said on the X day of June, page 264, number 1, their martyrdom being fixed about the year 124: for although those Martyrs finished their course before St. Symphorosa and her Sons, as their Acts expressly affirm together with Ado; and St. Cerealis, companion of St. Getulius in the palm, was baptized by St. Sixtus, the first of that name, who sat from the year 117 to 127, yet the epoch which we seek remains equally undetermined. Baronius attaches the death of St. Getulius and his companions to the year 138, and so the death of our Martyrs would have to be deferred to that same year; in which Adrian ended his life in the month of July, and in which the praised Baronius inserted them into his Annals. But, as we said long ago on the Acts of SS. Getulius and his companions, in that year which Baronius marks, not Sixtus but Hyginus was Pontiff, according to what you have in the ancient Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs, prefixed to the first volume of April, and in the chronological synopsis, which, correcting the Baronian years from the years of those catalogues, is there given on page 37. Therefore St. Sixtus died not in the year 142, as it pleased Baronius, but in the year, as we said, 127; which you will also find proved on the VI day of the said month, page 533, where he is treated of, as also of the beginning of his pontificate, in the year 117, not 132, as Baronius marks. Therefore, since St. Getulius, as his Acts say, and we gather from Ado, was crowned with martyrdom under St. Sixtus; and St. Symphorosa with her family followed him in martyrdom, as likewise appears from their Acts; and since meanwhile the interval of time on either side is hidden from us; it follows that from this it can in no way be established in what determinate year she attained the laurel of martyrdom. This one thing is certain from Ado on the X of June, that she suffered martyrdom not long after (her husband) together with her seven Sons.

[7] [more certain things are brought forward concerning the differing day of the martyrdom of the Mother and the Sons] Another controversy now offers itself, concerning the day on which the Saint, and on which her Sons, accomplished their martyrdom. The Acts teach that they were not all slain together at the same single moment; for, the Mother having been removed, on another day the emperor Adrian ordered all seven of her sons to be presented to him together. So the Acts read, which we give with the Trier transcripts of St. Martin and St. Maximin, and with those edited by Cardulus: to whom, however, it seems to raise some slight scruple, that in the little preface, which he doubtless held to be a genuine part of the Acts, since he printed it in one continuous series together with them, it is read that Blessed Symphorosa was slain by Hadrian together with her seven sons ALMOST ON ONE day. The adverb "almost" (ferme) is also had by Surius, but not by Mombritius. The praised Cardulus explains his reading thus, page 60: Rightly said: for on the day after that day on which Blessed Symphorosa was killed, her Sons are recorded as slain a little below, where, the Mother's death and burial having been narrated, there immediately follows, "But on another day," etc. In some codices it is read: "on one day": which reading indeed can be received, if nonetheless that adverb ALMOST be taken as apposite. For thus otherwise we are commonly wont to speak, even when we wish to signify no long space beyond one day. To which he adds the distinction of the natural and the civil day, which he draws out at sufficient length. But that expression of the little preface ought not to have been of such moment with him (of such moment it certainly will not be with us) that he should twist himself even a little, when the text of the Acts, as we just said, interposes another day between the death of St. Symphorosa and the death of the Sons.

[8] We noted on the said X of June that the husband of St. Symphorosa was wrongly confused with St. Zoticus, The husband of the Saint from Acts most unskillfully patched together, augmented, and altered; which nevertheless gave a foundation to Baronius for attributing those two names to the same Saint, Tillemont following him, volume 2, page 242. Cardulus, in his notes on the Passion of St. Getulius, which he published, page 15, observes that in the most ancient Cassinese codex it is written "Zoticus": in another likewise, a Vatican one written in Lombardic characters, which is believed to contain this history written by the notaries of the Holy Roman Church, it is always read thus, "Zoticus, who is also Getulius." In confirmation is adduced a leaden plate, found in the church of St. Michael the Archangel at the fish market in the year 1562 under Pope Pius IV, together with the relics of St. Symphorosa and her Sons, and inscribed with an epitaph, to be produced elsewhere on the occasion of the relics: to which he subjoins another inscription, found at Tibur: "Here rests Zoticus the martyr": which, in the place cited above, we deferred to the XII of January for more exact examination; on which day, as we then said, St. Zoticus the martyr is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology at Tibur; Baronius referring the reader to the X of June, whose example we too then followed. But on the X of February are recorded SS. Zoticus, Irenaeus, Hyacinthus, and Amantius, martyrs at Rome.

[9] But the Zoticus who is celebrated on the XII of January is placed alone, without companions and as a martyr at Tibur, whether he is to be called Getulius only, or also Zoticus? whereas ours is with companions at Rome. The Zoticus of the X of February is marked at Rome with three companions, as we saw; among whom one and one only, Amantius by name, agrees in name with one of the companions of St. Getulius; the place of martyrdom not being expressed. Is then our Getulius sufficiently distinguished from these in both places? But whether, and what kind of, confusion has been made among those former ones, may be discussed on those days, when January and February shall be recast with second care. The praised Cardulus, page 17, says that our Martyr had the name of Getulius and Zoticus, distinguishing him indeed from various Zotici, but affirming him nevertheless to be the same as the one who is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology on the day before the Ides of January. Ruinart affirms that in the Colbert manuscript, with which he collated the Passion of St. Symphorosa, it is read: "My husband Zoticus, with his brother Amantius, thy tribune, when they both were," etc. And a little after, from the Colbert codex, he notes that for "Getulius" is written "Zoticus." But we hold that reading to be genuine which reads "Getulius," with the Little Roman, Ado, Usuard, those edited by Ruinart and collated with various copies, as well as both our Trier manuscripts. Nor do I delay over the Vatican codex, so greatly praised above by Cardulus; so long as its purity is not established: which I suspect to be either the same, or at least of the same stamp, as the one which Baronius followed. Further, that the husband's body was collected by the holy wife and honorably buried, is read in the often-cited Acts of the X of June, number 8. Ado, having related the martyrdom of St. Getulius and his Companions, relates that St. Symphorosa, wife of Blessed Getulius the martyr, collected their bodies. Concerning which, this is more than enough.

[10] St. Symphorosa is not the same as St. Felicity. On the X of this month, page 7, a doubt having been proposed in the words of Cardinal Baronius, whether St. Felicity the martyr, likewise the fruitful mother of seven sons, might not be the same as St. Symphorosa, on account of the resemblance that exists between her and St. Symphorosa; we answered in the words of the praised Cardinal that the two Martyrs are distinguished in name and in reality; in reality (that we may not here repeat what is there said about the name) because a different homeland is assigned to each, a different emperor under whom they suffered, a different arena of the passion; different names of the sons of each mother; different kinds of martyrdom: to which you may add these. St. Symphorosa preceded her Sons in martyrdom by one day; St. Felicity followed hers; the latter had vowed her widowed virginity to God; the former, likewise a widow, is nowhere recorded to have been bound by any such vow; of the latter's husband not even the slightest mention is made in the Acts; but the name of the former's husband and martyr is expressly stated; whom besides we know to have been buried by her; the sons of the latter suffered under various judges; in the sons of St. Symphorosa nothing similar was done. Felicity and her sons were buried on the Via Salaria, and indeed in different places; the former with her family on the Via Tiburtina. Rightly therefore does the Little Roman distinguish each band of Martyrs, speaking thus on the X of July of the sons of St. Felicity: "At Rome, of the Seven Brothers." But of the Sons of St. Symphorosa on the XXVII of June it relates this: "At Tibur in Italy, of Symphorosa with her seven Sons." And these considerations more than sufficiently establish the distinction of both classes of Martyrs.

§ II. The controversy concerning the seven Sons of St. Symphorosa here newly proposed and discussed.

The names of the Sons of St. Symphorosa create a difficulty, The seven Sons of St. Symphorosa are twice expressed in the same manner in the Passion which we edit: Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Primitivus, Justinus, Stracteus, and Eugenius. In the same order and spelling they are recorded by Bede augmented by Florus on the XXI of June; by Ado and Usuard on the XXVII of the same month; and by the Roman Martyrology on this XVIII of July, Stacteus being everywhere put for Stracteus. Observe meanwhile that the names in the said Bede are not consistent with themselves: for in the announcement is written "Julianus," who afterward, where the torments of the individuals are commemorated, is called "Lucianus," doubtless by an error of the copyists or typesetters. On the XXVII of June, page 252, Henschenius gave the Martyrs of Cordova, Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Fratria, Primitivus, Justinus, Stathaeus, with the rest, who do not belong here. Where you see that among the seven, the first six of today's names are recorded as the first names, and indeed in the same order. The name "Fratria" has no connection with these, taken from the Epternach codex, as is there indicated, and lacking in the other three transcripts. But "Eugenius," omitted, supply from elsewhere. The Reichenau codex has thus: "At Cordova, of Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Primitivus, Eugenius"; where Justinus and Stacteus are lacking. The Barberini manuscript reads thus: "In the Spains, of Crescens, Julianus, Eugenius, Novatianus."

[12] because on another day, and under another class in the Martyrologies related. The Lucca codex edited by Florentini is expressed in these words: "Of the Seven Brothers. In Spain, of Crescens, Milianus, Nemesius, Primitivus, Justinus, Stathaeus, Eugenius." These seven Brothers, on the cited page 252, from four ancient transcripts of the Hieronymian Martyrology, we joined with the holy Roman Martyrs Felix and Spinella,

with the added observation, whether by these are to be understood the seven Sons of St. Symphorosa, or rather others. But since those seven Brothers, taken from the Hieronymian transcripts, are noted without a name, I think that scarcely anything can be established about this matter except by mere conjecture. It is otherwise with our seven Brothers, offering a tangled mass of complications, because they are marked with the same names, and on different days, in different places, are ascribed to a different class of Martyrs, as we have just seen.

[13] The difficulty grows from this, that the most ancient transcripts of the Hieronymian Martyrology commemorate them under wholly different names, The Hieronymian transcripts read wholly different names; and in a different place and on a different day; for the arena is placed at Rome; the day, the XVIII of July, the names as follows. The old Martyrology of Christina, queen of Sweden, among the abridged Hieronymian ones almost the chief, has this: "On the XV Kalends of August, at Rome, of Semperosa, mother of seven Brothers, that is, Peter, Marcellianus, Januarius, Dionysius, Sempronius, Clemens, Germanus." We gave the various readings in the place assigned by us a little before. The Hieronymian Epternach codex, written long before Ado and Usuard, which is reckoned the most ancient among our transcripts, confirms these especially, when it announces thus: "At Rome, of Semphorensia the martyr; of the Seven Brothers, Peter, Marcellianus, Januarius, Dionysius, Sempronius, Clemens, Germanus. And of Herenaeus." Notker, the transcriber of Ado, seems on the XXVII of June to have preserved almost his very words; but on today's day, the XVIII of July, in the manner fairly commonly received, as we have noted elsewhere, he followed the Hieronymian examples; when he relates this: "On the XV Kalends of August. At Rome, on the Via Tiburtina, at the eighth milestone, the birthday of St. Symphorosa the martyr, and mother of seven Brothers; who is placed together with them. The names of the Brothers are these: Peter, Marcellinus, Januarius, Dionysius, Sempronius, Clemens, Hirenaeus."

[14] Thus he, the name of Germanus being omitted; otherwise he would exhibit eight Martyrs for seven. We long ago thought that Hirenaea was to be excluded from the Seven Brothers; with Notker. since she attained the palm of martyrdom on the same day together with Magnus. And so the name of Hirenaeus is excluded in the ancient manuscript of the queen of Sweden praised above, and also in another ancient manuscript of the Carmelites of Cologne, in which the following are related: "At Rome, the birthday of the holy Seven Brothers, Peter, Marcellianus, Januarius, Dionysius, Symphronius, Clemens, Germanus, martyrs, and of their mother Symphorosa." The Reichenau and Rheinau manuscripts, which we edited with others in volume VII of June, and which we said were abridged from the larger ones, have: "At Rome, of Symperosus, Peter, Marcellianus, Januarius." The little or abridged Corbie codex places them without a name: "At Rome, on the Via Tiburtina, at the ninth milestone, the birthday of the holy Symphorosa, mother of seven brothers." The larger Corbie codex in Achery, volume 4, adds: "Whose names are these: Peter, Marcellianus, Januarius, Dionysius, Simphronius, Clemens, Germanus."

[15] You have here, not to pursue more, the seven Sons of St. Symphorosa, partly named, partly unnamed; This difficulty scarcely soluble, partly with the same, partly with different names, mostly seven, sometimes with fewer names expressed; in one place on the same, in another on a different day, and not always reckoned in the same class of Martyrs. A manifest confusion indeed here soon betrays itself; but to correct it, to distinguish the sound reading from the corrupt, the genuine from the spurious, and to reduce the several names from a text not their own to the true and legitimate one, this is the task, this the labor. Others long before me have entered this labyrinth, but with no sufficient reward of their toil: since no one has thus far been found, so far as I know, who could extricate himself with sufficient credit from these tangled windings—a difficulty not yet solved, indeed perhaps never to be solved, not to say insoluble. This Cardulus either did not see, or would not see; content to have noted the different days on which the Saints are recorded by the Martyrologists.

[16] Florentini notices it, but does not solve it, Florentini, in his notes on the XXVII of June, attempts to solve the difficulty with these words: "They (the names of the Sons of St. Symphorosa) seem to be compounded from these Martyrs, which on this day (XXVII of June) are attributed to Spain, namely Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Primitivus, Justinus, Stacteus, and Eugenius." Then, having noted the error of Baronius, who thinks that on this XVIII of July St. Symphorosa with her seven Sons is recorded by Usuard, concerning which we too are about to treat, he continues thus: "It might therefore be doubted whether in some old codex an error crept in, and the names of the Martyrs of Spain, the place of the passion being mutilated, were accommodated to the seven Brothers; and thus, unless the authority of the Roman Martyrology were the greatest for me, our codices would persuade me, besides the most ancient Antwerp and Corbie manuscripts." Then, after he had rightly separated from the seven Brothers the seven Sleepers, marked on this day by Ado, he finally concludes thus: "Wherefore I readily came to this opinion, that the seven Sons of Symphorosa here be venerated with Bede (the Plantin edition), Usuard, Ado, and Notker: because their birthday would truly be so, as Ado affirms, but their memory is again observed on the XV Kalends of August from some solemn translation; of which, from an ancient inscription, the most Eminent Baronius makes mention on that day; and Aringhi, book 4 of Rome Underground, chapter 17; and we below."

[17] as is here shown: Florentini says neither nothing nor everything: for 1, the source of the error remains undiscovered: since what he says about the corruption which crept into some old codex cannot help at all except in those copies in which the names of the seven Sons are expressed in the same manner, namely in Ado, Usuard, Notker, and others, and indeed in the very Acts of the Martyrs of Cordova, the names being accommodated to the class of the seven Brothers, the place of the passion being mutilated. 2. Then it is asked, what is to be said to the Hieronymian transcripts, which accommodate wholly different names to each and all. 3. It is left undecided by which Martyrology one is to stand concerning the genuine and sound formation of the names. 4. Not so much the diversity of days ought to have caused annoyance to the most learned Man, as the diversity of names; for the former he adopts two different days; for the latter, in which the whole knot of the tangle consists, he does not utter even a word by which he might fully satisfy. Now in a word, on this XVIII of July, where the proper place offered itself for discoursing on this marvelous diversity, he performs almost nothing more; for he indeed notices it; and offers various conjectures concerning the names of Germanus, Herenaeus, and Magnus; but how much besides these he leaves to be solved, is sufficiently clear; being at last compelled to take refuge in this, that each of the Brothers had two names—which, though he does not affirm, he yet seems somehow to suspect, saying: "Nor indeed would I assert that all the marked Brothers had two names, as St. Getulius the martyr, husband of St. Symphorosa, who was also called Zotius (Zoticus) (concerning whom we have expressed our judgment), nor would I affirm it without the authority of some more ancient book."

[18] Henschenius, praised above, sets down a double class of Martyrs under distinct titles; nor Henschenius; the one of SS. Felix and Spinella, and of the Seven Brothers; the other of the holy Martyrs of Cordova; writing on page 253 that he greatly doubted whether he should remove from the former class that "of the Seven Brothers," and set a new title from Ado, Usuard, and others, in this manner: "At the city of Tibur, of the seven Brothers, Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Primitivus, Justinus, Stacteus, Eugenius," the rest being attributed to Cordova in Spain. But he confesses that he was deterred by the ancient monuments which are had for the XVIII of July, concerning which above. Finally, from this clause of the Lucca and Blume transcript, ascribed to our Martyrs, whose deeds are had, he wishes that they might be found, so that from a comparison of the genuine and primitive Acts with those which now exist, it might be seen whether they agree among themselves, and only other names were substituted; which he confesses he cannot determine. He adds that perhaps it is an indication of the names being lacking in the true Acts, that in Usuard, augmented in Alsace, the names are not repeated; but it is said that the first was pierced through the throat, another stabbed in the breast, the third fixed in the heart, etc. These things Henschenius had to say, exceedingly versed by use and time in the tangles of the Martyrologies; further decision being deferred to this day, if better documents should be proposed.

[19] Ruinart makes no mention of this controversy. Tillemont proposes it briefly, Monuments of the Church, volume 2, in the notes, nor Ruinart or Tillemont, page 596. Then, having begun to solve the tangles of this triple knot, he rightly affirms that it is by no means probable that names were imposed on them, expressed in the Acts, and others fitted to them in the Martyrology: to this, even if their Acts were false, why would their author have accommodated to them the names of Spanish Martyrs? A thing which made his fiction easier to detect. If he did not know the true names of the Martyrs, he would rather have supposed invented ones. It is also scarcely credible that he was ignorant of their names, which he could read in the Hieronymian codices, and which doubtless were preserved either in writing, or by tradition and report, among the people of Tibur. For although we suppose, he says, that those Acts were not written by Eusebius and Africanus; they must nonetheless be held as very ancient, since Bede follows them both as regards the names of the Martyrs and many circumstances of the matters.

[20] Thus Tillemont reasons, and rightly. Then he decides the matter, [whose latter decision we do not approve: much less that of another more recent writer.] resolving this contradiction into a confusion made by the fault of copyists in the Hieronymian Martyrology: which in it is easy, and common enough. But that this had place in the Acts, he thinks cannot be so easily presumed, Bede, Ado, Usuard, and all the rest who mentioned them (if you except Notker) standing for their authority. What? That the Hieronymian codices on their part here do not lack tangles: for although they do not number more than seven Sons of St. Symphorosa, they yet reckon eight or nine persons, Florentini marvelously twisting himself on this account. You have heard Tillemont; to whom you may join the most illustrious Francis Maria de Aste, archbishop of Otranto, who in his Disputations on the Roman Martyrology, edited at Benevento in the year 1716, is wholly occupied on this day in reviewing the difficulties, whose knot he scarcely cuts aptly enough, much less unties, when he concludes thus: "Lest any prejudice be brought upon the Seven Sons of Symphorosa, and that the Roman Martyrology may stand without any hesitation, the judgment of the wiser being interposed, let it be set forth, the names of the Sons of Symphorosa being removed, as [in] the Martyrology of the Queen of Sweden manuscript: 'At Rome, of St. Symphorosa … with her seven Sons.'" But this is to avoid the difficulty, not to solve it.

[21] Our opinion concerning this controversy is proposed. Now let it be permitted to me to contribute a mite to the efforts of so many others, and to set forth what I think. The following reason forbids my assenting to Tillemont. That the Hieronymian transcripts are, from manifold copying, corrupt in many places, with names changed, dislocated, corrupted, transposed, and torn from their own place and thrust into one not their own, is held a most attested fact: but that concerning whole classes of Martyrs they ever contracted this fault; as if a long series of names were extracted in one place and thrust in another, I can by no means thus far be induced to believe; and it seems hard to me to admit this, so long as a depravation

so gross is not proved, at least by some few specimens: such as are brought forward for the additions, afterward added by others, and the innumerable errors with which it teems. On which matter our general preface at the beginning of the Work, chapter 4, §4, may be consulted, and others on Usuard, page VII; where I read nothing of this kind about whole classes of Martyrs being torn away, transposed, or thrust in elsewhere; nor do I know of this being censured or observed by anyone else thus far. That this therefore was here done, is not presumed in our case; and so, because the Hieronymian transcripts are set before the other Martyrologies in age, being wont to be cited by the Martyrologists as belonging at least to the sixth century, I judge it more probable that our class of Martyrs is to be read with them: who, this being granted, are wholly distinguished from those of Cordova; but not in the opinion of Tillemont, who touches this difficulty above, but leaves it unsolved. Nor ought it to seem strange that Tillemont here recedes from the Hieronymian codices; for, as Honoratus of St. Mary, a Discalced Carmelite, observes in his work On the Use and Rules of Criticism, published in French not long ago, volume 1, part 2, article 22, page 173, he cites that Martyrology in countless places, to confirm his opinions; but where he finds in it something that inconveniences him, he does not cease to reject it as a work full of errors and of slight authority. So great also is the difference of days, on which they are announced otherwise in the Hieronymian codices, otherwise in Ado, that I am mistaken if it does not savor of something more than a copyist's error. Now the Acts, from which we recede, are indeed ancient, but of uncertain age, nor wholly sound: nor does Tillemont himself admit them as original in his notes, page 595. These, or their epitome, so far as we conjecture, shone before Bede augmented by Florus, in the names which he marks; thence Ado adopted them in the usual way; in the noting of the day following the Little Roman, which places the Brothers unnamed on the XXVII of June, and therefore was compelled to borrow the names from elsewhere. Whence they passed to Usuard and others. What Tillemont set down concerning the names added to the seven Brothers beyond the number, can easily be solved; if with Henschenius you separate one from another. But the names we have placed in the title of this commentary in the same order and manner in which they are read in the Roman Martyrology and Breviary; except that in the Breviary "Crescentius" is written for "Crescens." For we defer more to the reading inserted in the sacred Fasti of the Church, than to change it on account of our particular opinion, which, saving always a better judgment, we have proposed as more probable to us.

§ III. The Acts; the day of cult and of death; the burial.

Ruinart gave a place among his select and sincere pieces to the Acts of our Martyrs. Tillemont praises them for their brevity and simplicity: The Acts, which he also commends in his notes, page 595. Yet that they have not come to us in their original phrasing; but, even in the utmost brevity, have suffered interpolation, we have already indicated, and it is persuaded from what follows. For that introduction displeases, which is prefixed to them at the beginning: "St. Eusebius the historiographer records that Africanus wrote the deeds of almost all the Martyrs of Christ from the royal City and from all Italy: for he said that Symphorosa was slain at the city of Tibur with her seven Sons on one day by Adrian the prince, in this order." In Mombritius, Surius, Cardulus, and in both Trier manuscripts these things are had in much the same way: which we, following Ruinart's example, shall pass over. Whether the title of "Saint," which is elsewhere applied to Eusebius, and elsewhere omitted, truly belongs to him, we do not here inquire: Florentini discusses the matter in his Preliminary Exercises from page 71.

[23] That his name is indeed inscribed in the most ancient Martyrologies, which are not proved to have been written by Africanus, has been shown in the observations on Usuard Illustrated, on the XXI of June: where more that pertains to this. Moreover, that in Eusebius is had what is here asserted, Tillemont flatly denies: nor did I ever find it there; where, however, in his Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 31, he enumerates the writings of Africanus one by one. To believe with Cardulus that this was handed down by him in the Commentaries which he published on the Martyrs, is mere conjecture: since antiquity has begrudged us this work. It may moreover be added to these things, that the aforesaid words by no means determine whether from Eusebius, or from Africanus, these Acts were immediately extracted: whatever Baronius, in his notes on this day, may wish—that they were written (as the title, he says, sets forth) by Africanus; who flourished when the 3rd century was somewhat advanced. You may see concerning him Cardulus in his notes, pages 57 and 58.

[24] Ado, Peter de Natalibus, Surius, and Cardulus, whom Ruinart follows, they are shown by more than one indication to be interpolated lack another rather long digression, which Mombritius has, a little differently than it is contained in both Trier manuscripts; from which I produce it: "But after seven days, on the eighth day of their martyrdom, the devil seized the daughter of the emperor Adrian, and coming to the place where the Saints were buried, the devil cried out through her mouth, saying: My lords, ye seven brothers, Martyrs of Christ, ye are burning me, wretched one. But her father Adrian the emperor himself was seized with fear, so that his bones were racked. And when the magicians and soothsayers had seen him so shaken, they made him remain languishing beneath the earth in the Tiburtine palace, and there to persist, saying to him: If thou shalt see the light of day, or look upon the splendor of the sun, thou shalt soon die: but when he had stayed there nearly a year, led by desire of the heavenly light, he went forth: and immediately the demon seized him, and so long tormented him, until it had taken away his spirit. And there arose the fear of Christ."

[25] Nor indeed would you call those things the addition of some most recent interpolator: and corrupted, for Rabanus narrates an epitome of them; things which he did not find in Bede or Florus, whence he is wont to copy his own material, and whence he here copied almost verbatim what he has, but in the corrupted Acts, as I think: which grew by the ignorance of some unskilled fabulist, by no means aware how ill the disease, the year, and the place of the death of the emperor Adrian cohered with his invention: as who, beginning to languish in the year 135, having contracted dropsy, dragged his sick limbs, and slowly dying at last closed his final day in 138 at Baiae in Campania. Of his wife Sabina indeed, but of no offspring begotten of her, I find mention in Spartianus: who elsewhere is read to have been childless. Ruinart also notes that in one Colbert codex and another from the Sorbonne, some things were inserted of the same or similar, as I think, stuff, concerning the death of Adrian; which is there said to have happened a little after the killing of these Martyrs. Whence it is clear that those Acts which are circulated today are not sound in every respect. The same is proved by a fragment in Cardulus, added in some copies, as he testifies, and rightly not appended in both the Trier manuscripts and in Ruinart's edition. It has thus: "Formerly they rested (the bodies of the holy Martyrs) on the Via Tiburtina … but now, by the Lord's help, they rest in the city of Rome, in the basilica of the blessed archangel Michael."

[26] nor to be consistent with themselves in all things. Indeed Florentini rightly and candidly, in his notes, page 670, treating of the often-cited Acts, says: "For my part, they do not seem to me to savor of that antiquity which they promise; since in them mention is made of a translation done under Pope Stephen, who could scarcely have been the first in the times of the persecution (snatched from the living about the year 260), but the second or third, up to nearly the eighth century. To this, that the Acts anciently were not consistent with themselves in all things, or that they were afterward altered, this is an argument, that Bede or Florus, accustomed to borrow their text, recounts the martyrdom of Justinus and Stacteus otherwise than the Acts themselves relate it: for whereas in them it is said that Adrian ordered Justinus to be pierced through the back with a sword; Bede reads: "Justinus, stretched out through his limbs, was cut through each joint and juncture of his body." But of Stacteus the Acts read, "wounded in the side." For which Bede writes, "pierced to the ground with innumerable lances, until he died." Ado agrees with Bede or Florus: Usuard here does not follow Ado, either because he saw that diversity, or because he wished to dispatch everything in few words, saying thus briefly: "But the Sons (of St. Symphorosa), stretched by stakes to pulleys, completed their martyrdom by different modes of death." Ruinart edited the Acts from those printed in Mombritius, Surius, and Cardulus, collated with two Colbert manuscript codices and one from the Sorbonne; which we give from him, employing also two Trier manuscripts of St. Maximin and St. Martin. Tillemont compiled the history in French, as also a modern French Legendist.

[27] [The Martyrs are recorded on different days; we in the day of cult and death follow the Hieronymian transcripts, etc.] From the announcements of the preceding paragraph it is established that these holy Martyrs were venerated on different days: namely, as Rabanus after Bede, on the XXI of July; as the Hieronymian codices with Notker and the Roman Martyrology, on this XVIII of July; as the Little Roman, Ado, and Usuard, whom the supposititious Bede follows, on the XXVII of June. The praised Usuard does not have them on this day, as Florentini rightly observes, page 627, against Baronius in his notes; although they are then recorded in the additions appended to Usuard, as may be seen in the supplements; nor are they had in him on the XXI of June, as Ruinart wrongly asserts in his preliminary admonition to the Acts of the Martyrs; he perhaps meant to note the XXI of July, on which St. Symphorosa recurs several times in certain Usuardine additions. Here Molanus's corrector Tillemont deserves to be corrected, who in his notes, page 596, has thus: "Usuard places St. Symphorosa and her Sons on the XVIII of July in the edition of 1583 (which is the third of Molanus), and Molanus does not warn that he changed the day of their feast, as he certainly ought to have done." But Molanus, who in the first edition with the pure Usuard had given our Martyrs on the XXVII of June, warns in the epistle to the reader prefixed to the second edition of the year 1573, folio 5 verso, number 8, as also in the said third edition, that he transposed the birthdays of certain Saints according to the Breviary of the Council of Trent; and not only warns, but also renders the reason of the deed, which escaped Tillemont. Ado most expressly determines the day of death, saying: "But the birthday of the holy Martyrs is on the V Kalends of July": whence Florentini assigns this day to their death and cult, but again thinks their memory is observed on the XV Kalends of August from some solemn translation, as we have already said. But what forbids that they finished their contest on the XVIII of July? the solemnity being probably celebrated soon after their death on that very day on which they were endowed with the crown of martyrdom; and on the XXVII of June a church was perhaps afterward erected over their tomb, or some other solemnity instituted in their honor:

for the Hieronymian transcripts clearly mark the XV Kalends of August. For which number Bede perhaps read in the Acts, of which he transcribes some part, the XII Kalends of August, as Tillemont notes, page 596. In the Passion of St. Getulius edited by Cardulus, the Saint is said to have died with her sons on the XXVII day of the month of June; but in the one which we have edited, this is not had: so that perhaps it is an addition. Therefore we think it more probable that we should stand by the Hieronymian transcripts, so long as they are not proved faulty in the placing of the day, in conformity with our Acts and the Roman Martyrology: on which day Wandelbert too marks them, singing this metrical distich:

The mother, with her sevenfold offspring, hallowed the fifteenth; Symphorosa, slain together with her holy seed.

But whether the Mother, or rather the Sons, were crowned with martyrdom on that day, who shall determine? We know from the Acts that they did not suffer on the same day: yet rightly are they all joined together on the same day in the sacred Fasti. Gavantus, in his Commentaries on the Rubrics of the Breviary, volume 2, section 7, chapter 9, notes this concerning their cult: In the Appendix of the Gregorian, at Rome only, says Radulphus, proposition 22. Simple in the manuscript, and in 1550 as today.

[28] But now the burial of the Martyrs calls us. And that of St. Symphorosa indeed is determined clearly enough in the Acts: [The place of St. Symphorosa's burial is handed down rather definitely in the Acts,] "Her body her brother Eugenius, chief man of the curia of Tibur, collecting, buried in the suburbs of the same city." On which Cardulus notes thus: "In what part of the territory of Tibur this estate of St. Symphorosa was, is unknown. That it was near and neighboring to Tibur, the very word 'suburban' teaches: for a farm, garden, field, countryside, estate, or villa are called 'suburban' which are beneath the city or outside the city. At Tibur indeed, in the church of St. Vincent the martyr, a small crypt is shown, which in ancient centuries is thought to have been outside the city, perhaps in the suburb of this holy matron; afterward, the boundary being extended and the walls enlarged, it was enclosed within the upper circuit of the city. In that crypt Blessed Symphorosa with her Sons is thought to have hidden for some time through those days, when the fury and impiety of the Roman princes raged against the Christians—of which there is indeed the testimony of no certain author, but yet a constant and old opinion and report among the people of Tibur confirms it. But it was necessary that the body of the holy martyr was afterward brought into the tomb of her Sons, where it is established that a church was built under her name."

[29] than that of her Sons, The place of burial of the seven Brothers is more obscure: for, as the Acts have it, "the persecution rested for one year and six months: in which space the holy bodies of all the Martyrs were honored, and buried in constructed tombs with all diligence … Their bodies rest on the Via Tiburtina at the eighth milestone from the city." So also Cardulus reads, adding for "eighth" elsewhere "ninth." Mombritius, with the Trier manuscript of St. Martin, writes "at the ninth milestone," omitting "from the city." The Hieronymian transcripts, as we saw, read "on the Via Tiburtina at the milestone": the Corbie codex, with Ado and Peter de Natalibus, add "ninth"; and, according to Florentini, page 669, almost all retain NINTH. But it is of no importance to linger over minutiae of this kind, which contribute little to the matter, and of which the genuine reading cannot be hoped for. "From the city," which you just read, if it truly ought to be so written, is without doubt, as Tillemont rightly observes in his notes, to be understood of Rome, called by antonomasia by the name of "the City," not of Tibur. And in that sense the Hieronymian transcripts announce the Martyrs "at Rome on the Via Tiburtina." The Little Roman, Florus, Ado, with the modern Roman Martyrology, attribute them to Tibur, both because they suffered there; and because their tomb was distant almost equal space from each: for from Rome to Tibur are reckoned sixteen miles, or, as Ferrari says in the Topography of the Roman Martyrology, XVI M. P., from which the place of the tomb was perhaps a little less distant, if they were truly buried at the ninth milestone from the City.

[30] Aringhi, Rome Underground, book 4, chapter 17, page 132, number 2, mentions a church once erected in their honor, whose traces he asserts still exist in the estate of the Maffei, in the place called "At the Seven Brothers," which is corruptly commonly called "a sette fratte": where he conjectures the place of the Martyrs' burial and arena to have been; Christians being wont there to erect churches where the Martyrs had suffered or been laid. Similar things Cardulus had written before Aringhi in his notes, page 171, proving that this place formerly lay in the territory of Tibur from this, that the Roman one was formerly circumscribed by quite narrow bounds. To which I think the noble and very ancient memorial of St. Symphorosa is to be referred, which, as Baronius relates in his notes, "is had on the Via Tiburtina": where by the phrase "is had," he seems to hint that it still existed in his time; but Aringhi relates that in his own time only traces survived. Certainly that the remains of the Saints did not always continue to rest in the same place where they had first been laid, will be established from what is to be said in the paragraph next following.

* elsewhere "morre"

§ IV. The translation, discovery, and reenclosure of the bodies; relics conveyed to Tibur to a church dedicated under the name of Symphorosa; others honored elsewhere.

In certain copies of the Acts these words were added, which are read in Surius and Baronius in their notes, and teach the translation of the holy bodies from the original place of burial: "Their relics, translated to Rome, were found in our times in the diaconia of St. Angelo at the fish market, and together with them a leaden plate inscribed with these words: 'Here rest the bodies of the holy martyrs Symphorosa, her husband Zoticus, and her sons, translated by Pope Stephen.'" That the feast of St. Symphorosa and her Sons is also celebrated there, and their bodies preserved there, has been said long ago from Carlo Bartolomeo Piazza, on the X of June, page 264. Ottavio Panciroli, in the Hidden Treasures of the city of Rome, Region 10, church 1, asserts that the aforesaid church was restored and enriched with sacred relics by Pope Stephen the younger (who according to Baronius was the third of that name, but who is elsewhere more rightly called the second by others, as we said on the same day), created in the year 752; and to this end he raised the bodies from that church which had first been destined for them on the Via Tiburtina, under the names of SS. Getulius, Symphorosa, and the seven Sons. Cardulus, page 173, learnedly confirms these things, and draws out at greater length, which I forbear to relate here. But why the praised Pontiff wished to enrich this church rather than another with these sacred pledges, he offers this conjecture: that the same Stephen, when he was a Cardinal, perhaps presided over this diaconia of St. Michael the archangel. Besides, he assigns another reason: "If," he says, "the marble once placed in that church gives credit, on which is read an inscription which teaches that in the times of Lord Stephen the younger, Pope, it was either dedicated, or built from the ground by Theodotus, once duke, then primicerius of the Apostolic See, and by his deacon Benedict, for the remission of all sins, and the salvation of his soul."

[32] But concerning the discovery and reenclosure of the same sacred relics, which were afterward found and reenclosed; the several-times-praised Cardulus writes thus from page 175: "Moreover, these sacred bones, buried under the high altar of that church, were uncovered under Pius IV, Supreme Pontiff, when that altar, which had hitherto been outside the hemicycle or tribunal, or, as ecclesiastical writers say, the apse, was transferred to the middle of the hemicycle wall; and were transposed into a little coffer or fenestrated chest, translucent with glass, so that they might be exposed to the people for pious cult and veneration on set days. But when, through that form of piety and the faculty of viewing them, occasion was afforded to many, by the Pontiff's permission, of carrying off something from the holy relics, and they were daily diminished, therefore in the year of salvation 1587, on the VI Kalends of October, Marianus Perbenedictus of Camerino, bishop of Marturanum, and governor of the sacred City, who had once been a canon of that church, replaced the holy bones under the same principal altar in the ancient manner, never thereafter to be seen, enclosed in a marble tomb which he made at his own expense, and marked with this epitaph and inscription: 'To the holy martyrs Symphorosa, her husband, and seven Sons, Marianus Perbenedictus, bishop of Marturanum, governor of the sacred City, once canon of this church, made this, 1587.'"

[33] Yet some relics had first been translated to Tibur with solemn pomp to the church of the Society of Jesus, some relics, however, having been translated to Tibur consecrated under the name of the same Saints, as Cardulus testifies from page 176: "From that coffer eight fragments of the sacred bones were then taken; and before, in the year 1584, on the sixth Kalends of December, the thirteenth of the pontificate of Gregory XIII, these few relics had been taken by the liberality of the same Pontiff: of the hair and head-veil of St. Symphorosa; a whole leg, and two pieces of the head, and a piece of a rib of the same St. Symphorosa, her husband, and Sons: which relics were granted on this condition, that they should be conveyed to Tibur to adorn the new church of the Society of Jesus: for at Tibur, in so great a number of sacred churches as the excellent piety and religion of the ancient people of Tibur raised, none was seen built under the name of Blessed Symphorosa or her Sons: because the citizens, forsooth, were content with that one which, placed on the Via Tiburtina, where the holy bodies rested, at the seventh milestone from Tibur, they religiously venerated and frequented."

[34] into the new church of the Society of Jesus sacred to St. Symphorosa: The sacred relics thence translated to Rome, and the church having collapsed through the disturbances of the times, the people of Tibur, whether cast down by grief of soul over the loss of so precious a treasure, or hindered by public or private straits, could neither restore the old one, nor found a new one in the city, though they greatly desired it. But the divine goodness has now at last answered their pious wishes and vows, since the church built by the Christian munificence of Matteo Contarelli (to whose excellent virtues and singular deserts toward the Society of Jesus no speech can be equal), Cardinal Presbyter of the Holy Roman Church under the title of St. Stephen on the Caelian hill, for the use of the College of the Society of Jesus, built in the best and most convenient place of the city, he wished to be dedicated under the name of St. Symphorosa. Wherefore their venerable relics, which we mentioned, were enclosed in a gilded wooden effigy: the hair indeed and veil in the hollow head, but the bones in the breast, shining through glass. Likewise in another effigy the skull of St. Getulius is contained in the same manner. And after a few things which he adds concerning the relics of other Saints, he thus continues, describing the solemn apparatus of the procession:

[35] with which, with the greatest pomp; "All these, on the XVI Kalends of August, that is, the day before the birthday of St. Symphorosa and her Sons, were conveyed to Tibur with great pomp and a crowded gathering of the clergy and people of Tibur …; and with immense joy of soul, the greatest applause, a singular sense of pious delight, and with as great an apparatus

finally as the slender means of the citizens and the straits of the time allowed, they were received. They were carried on the shoulders of the priests of the Society of Jesus, taking up the burden by turns. To meet them, outside the lower gate as far as the church of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, lying beneath the villa of Maecenas (for in that church, which the Society of Jesus has now for 45 years possessed, the sacred relics rested), the clergy went in suppliant procession with the bishop, and the sacred families of all orders, and the colleges and confraternities of the laity with their banners. Throughout the whole city the walls, along which the procession was led, were hung either with tapestry or with branches of trees: little fountains were led here and there through channels: arches or vaults were erected in various places for the sake of honor for the time, inscribed with fitting verse, and adorned with painting."

[36] and with applause they were conveyed. The verses inscribed on the first arch at the episcopal palace under the image of the Saints, on the second at the chief church of St. Lawrence in the market of Ulmus, on the third at the church of St. Valerius, on the fourth at the church of St. Dominic, on the fifth at the market of the crossroads, and finally over the door of the new church of the Society of Jesus, as also the Latin hymns chanted in the procession itself, Cardulus exhibits, together with fifteen Latin epigrams bound in elegiac meter. Nor does he keep silent about the very crowded gathering of the people at the church, to gain the jubilee which Pope Sixtus V had granted, the fervor and increase of eagerness and zeal toward the native Saints and patrons being afterward continued. Nor was the singular veneration of the people of Tibur toward the Saints without fruit: "A witness is," says Cardulus, "beside others distinguished for integrity of life, prudence, and gravity of morals, a Prelate of sacred rank (he does not express the name), who, when he lately in that church prayed as a suppliant to these holy martyrs for his brother's little son, sick and brought into danger of life, being immediately made master of his vow, obtained health for the boy."

[37] It remains that to those things which have been brought forward concerning the sacred remains of our Saints, Other places honored with relics are enumerated. the following corollary be woven: "But the bodies of the same Martyrs," says Aringhi in the place cited above, "and of Zoticus, the citizens of Tibur boast that they possess to these very times, as a precious treasure." In what sense this ought to be understood is clear from what has been said; and he himself rightly adds that it is to be subunderstood only of some particle of the sacred relics. To these, as Ferrari testifies in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, some of their relics are said to be preserved at Pavia in the parish church of St. Eusebius. Masini, in his Bologna Surveyed, page 412, says the relics of St. Symphorosa martyr are preserved at St. Peter's. Raissius, in his Belgian Hierogazophylacium, page 41, reckons among the relics of St. Amatus at Douai those of SS. Nemesius and St. Symphorosa his mother. Cardulus, page 170, treating of the heart of St. Nemesius struck or pierced through, relates that it is "so pierced through and is still today (in the year 1588, in which he published the history of our Martyrs), after 1465 years, preserved and seen." The townsmen of St. Angelo in Pontano, in the diocese of Fermo in Italy, claim for themselves the body of St. Julianus (ours, as they wish, not another's). In a letter directed here in the year 1701 by our Giuseppe de Albertis of the aforesaid town, his native place, and juridically confirmed by several authentic modern testimonies, I read: "In the church of St. Augustine is preserved and exposed to public veneration the body of St. Julianus the martyr, son of St. Symphorosa the martyr, the second of the seven whom she bore first to earth and afterward to heaven." Would that from more ancient testimonies it were established to us concerning the circumstances by which that body is affirmed to be of this particular Julianus. And these things thus far concerning St. Symphorosa and her seven Martyr Sons; whom Bartolomeo Piazza, in his Sacred Hemerology of Christian and Heathen Rome, published in Italian, page 55, dreams to have been of the most noble Roman family de Cercali.

THE PASSION

Written by an Anonymous author,

From those edited and collated by Theodoric Ruinart among the sincere and select Acts, from page 23 of the Wetstein edition, collated with other manuscripts.

Symphorosa, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Crescens, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Julianus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Nemesius, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Primitivus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Justinus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Stacteus, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

Eugenius, Martyr at Tibur in Latium (S.)

BHL Number: 7971

FROM RUINART'S EDITION.

[St. Symphorosa, the idols demanding that she sacrifice, is urged to this by the Emperor Adrian:] When Hadrian had built the palace, and wished to dedicate it by that wicked rite, and had begun to demand responses by the sacrifices of idols and of the demons who dwell in the idols: they answered and said: "Symphorosa the widow, with her seven Sons, tears us daily, invoking her God. Therefore if she with her Sons shall sacrifice, we promise to grant all that you ask." Then Hadrian ordered her to be held with her Sons, and with soothing words exhorted them to consent to sacrifice to the idols.

[2] which she rejects by the example of St. Getulius her husband; To whom the blessed Symphorosa said: "My husband Getulius, with his brother Amatius [a], when they were thy tribunes, suffered various torments for the name of Christ, lest they should consent to sacrifice to the idols, and, like good athletes, they conquered thy demons by dying. For they chose rather to be beheaded than to be conquered; suffering a death which, undertaken for the name of Christ, indeed bore them among men a temporal ignominy, but among the angels an everlasting honor and glory; among whom now walking, and giving the trophies of their passions ^b, they enjoy eternal life with the eternal King in the heavens."

[3] and, terrified in vain by threats, The emperor Hadrian said to St. Symphorosa: "Either with thy Sons sacrifice to the almighty gods, or I will cause thee thyself with thy Sons to be sacrificed." The blessed Symphorosa answered ^c: "And whence to me so great a good, that I should deserve with my Sons to be offered as a victim to God?" The emperor Hadrian said: "I will cause thee to be sacrificed to my gods." The blessed Symphorosa answered: "Thy gods cannot receive me as a sacrifice; but if I be burned for the name of Christ, my God, I the more consume those demons of thine." The emperor Hadrian said: "Choose for thyself one of two things; either sacrifice to my gods; or thou shalt end by an evil death."

[4] she is crowned with martyrdom, and buried by her brother. The blessed Symphorosa answered: "Dost thou think that my soul can be changed by any terror ^d? Since I desire to rest with my husband Getulius, whom thou didst slay for the name of Christ." Then the emperor Hadrian ordered her to be led to the shrine of Hercules, and there first to be beaten with blows ^e, and after this to be hung by the hair. But when by no means and by no terror could he recall her from her good purpose ^f; he ordered her, a huge stone being bound to her neck, to be cast headlong into the river ^g: whose body her brother Eugenius, chief man ^h of the curia of Tibur, collecting, buried in the suburbs ⁱ of the same city.

[7] But on another day the emperor Hadrian ordered all seven of her Sons to be presented to him together: The seven Sons follow their Mother, slain by various torments: whom, when he provoked them to sacrifice to the idols, and by no means saw them consent to his threats and terrors; he ordered seven stakes to be fixed around the temple of Hercules, and there them to be stretched to pulleys ^k: and first he commanded Crescens ^l to be pierced through the throat; the second, Julianus, to be stabbed in the breast ^m; the third, Nemesius, to be struck in the heart ⁿ; the fourth, Primitivus, to be wounded in the navel ^o; the fifth, Justinus, turned away, to be pierced through the back with a sword [p]; the sixth, Stracteus [q], to be wounded in the side [r]; but the seventh, Eugenius, to be cleft from top to bottom [s].

[6] But on the next day the emperor Hadrian, coming to the shrine of Hercules, whose bodies are honorably buried. ordered their bodies to be carried away together, and thrown into a deep pit, and the priests imposed a name on that place, "At the Seven Biothanati [t]." After this the persecution rested for one year and six months [u]. In which space the holy bodies of all the Martyrs were honored, and buried in constructed tombs with all diligence: whose names are written in the book of life. But the birthday of the holy Martyrs of Christ, the blessed Symphorosa and her seven Sons, Crescens, Julianus, Nemesius, Primitivus [x], Justinus, Stracteus, and Eugenius, is celebrated on the XV Kalends of August. Their bodies rest on the Via Tiburtina at the eighth milestone from the city [*], our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, to whom is honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

a. Elsewhere Amantius.

p. So also Cardulus, and both Trier manuscripts. But Ado: "Justinus, stretched out through his limbs, to be cut through each joint and juncture of his body." Bede agrees. Most briefly the Roman Breviary: "Justinus is cut limb from limb."

q. Bede, Ado, Usuard, Roman Breviary, Peter de Natalibus, the Trier manuscripts, Cardulus read "Stacteus." The Colbert codex in Ruinart, "Extracteus"; Surius, "Starteus."

r. Ado: "with innumerable lances" (de Natalibus, "with many lances"). Cardulus, "to be wounded in the side," omitting "with a sword." Roman Breviary: "Stacteus is pierced with darts."

s. Cardulus agrees. But Bede with Ado: "Eugenius to be cleft (de Natalibus, cut) from the breast to the lower parts." Roman Breviary: "Eugenius is divided from the breast into two parts."

t. Concerning this place and its etymology, the Preliminary Commentary.

u. Whether "after this" ought to be taken with a great latitude of time, see the Commentary. In both Trier manuscripts here is the digression "But after seven days," concerning which in the Preliminary Commentary, number 24.

x. Primitivus is here erroneously omitted in Surius, and in the first edition of Ruinart.

* elsewhere "ninth."