ON THE HOLY MARTYRS OF ANTIOCH: QUIRICUS, JULITTA, AND THEIR 404 COMPANIONS.
From the Hieronymian Martyrology and others.
CommentaryQuiricus Martyr at Antioch (S.)
Julitta Martyr at Antioch (S.)
The 404 Martyrs at Antioch (SS.)
D. P.
The four ancient transcripts of the Hieronymian
Martyrology, often cited
and often to be cited, Great agreement of the Latin Feasts, concerning the Four Hundred
the Epternach, the Corbie,
the Lucca, and the Blume,
with great agreement concerning the
aforesaid Martyrs read thus: "At Antioch,
the feast of Quiricus, and of Julitta his mother, and of the other
404 Martyrs"; except that the Lucca copy
says more expressly, "And with them 404
Martyrs," but the Corbie, content with the round
number, omits the four added on top;
and finally the Blume writes the names "of Cyricus
and of Julita." and as to the place; That copy which Ado found there, transmitted from Rome to Aquileia, comes closest
to the former; and only omits the word "Martyrs";
for which the Augsburg copy of St. Udalric and the Gallican of Labbe and
the Gellone copy have "Soldiers": but between the names of Cyricus and Julitta
they place Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentia,
no doubt taken over from the preceding day.
The Monte Cassino and the Roman copies of St. Cyriaca, after Saints
Ferreolus and Ferrutio are reported, some diversity as to the companions, and the name
of Antioch omitted, only place "And elsewhere." The companion
Martyrs the old Vallicellan copy at Rome omits. In
a double Florentine Ms., of which one belonged to the Laurentian,
the other to the Strozzi library;
and in a copy consonant with them, printed there at Florence
at the press of Francis de Bonacursiis, it is read thus:
"At Antioch, the feast of the Holy Martyrs
Domestus, Crescentius, and Julius with four hundred
soldiers": from which not far departing
our Ms. Florarium has thus: "Likewise the feast of Domestus
the Martyr, with four hundred other soldiers."
In all these it can deservedly be seen,
that, by the negligence of the copyists, out of Modestus was made
Domestus; out of Crescentia was formed Crescentius
(as we noted to have happened also in certain Hieronymian copies
on the preceding day) and
finally Julitta (between whose name and the name
of Cyricus, elsewhere also I said three names are interposed)
could have passed into Julius; and this addition of names
to the other 400 unnamed having been made,
the fourth Julitta would have seemed to be omitted, whom moreover the Hieronymian
transcripts have.
[2] Now since the Passion of Quiricus and Julitta
is reckoned Apocryphal by Pope Gelasius, in the list
of apocryphal books which are not received;
Baronius seems to reckon, in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology, Therefore the name of the place does not seem to need correcting; that from these
most of the Latins took occasion to ascribe
to Antioch those who from more certain Acts are proven to have suffered at Tarsus in Cilicia, in which
there was also a certain Antioch on the river Pyramus
not far from Tarsus, according to Stephanus
of the Cities. But that this may be sustained, he asserts
that without doubt those Acts perished,
which St. Gelasius the Pope, as a fabrication of heretics,
cast far away, lest occasion be given to them of scoffing.
But when
I compare with a certain Bodeck Ms. those published by
Hucbald, Prior of Elnon, and Philip, Abbot
of Bonne-Espérance, who attempted to introduce a more plausible appearance
into their paraphrase of the old Acts; I can scarcely
doubt that I have those very apocryphal Acts,
which Baronius reckoned had utterly perished.
And since no mention is made in them of Antioch, but rather the "of his Mother" should be expunged,
so constantly named by all the Martyrologies
(of which however the original first seems taken
from the collections of Eusebius, whom it is not credible
to have had those or other Apocrypha) I am more
inclined to believe that this is the genuine reading;
and that the words "his Mother"
should rather be expunged: as added wrongly by an interpolating
hand, beyond the mind of the first author, namely,
because in the Latin churches, especially the Gallican,
Quiricus and Julitta were most celebrated, of whom
were held Apocryphal Acts, referring their death to the
month of June, the Interpolator undoubtedly
thought them to be those, whose names were read
in the first of all the Martyrology, and so
to be son and mother; nor would he have thought he need labor
over the place or day, which were named by some in Acts of whatever sort,
by others in the Martyrology.
[3] But it is well, that there are held of these more genuine
Acts among the Greeks: from which it not only
is established that the son suffered with his mother at Tarsus, as added by someone, that they suffered at Antioch on 16 June but
that he suffered on the 15th of July; which two points the Author of the Apocrypha
being ignorant of, (for the Greek writings were not yet written,
after the matter carefully examined) deemed it enough
to have found a month marked with such names,
to which he might apply what he had received by
report concerning Martyrs of the same name, and he wished to take it as the
subject of a tale to be composed by him. confounding [them with the synonymous Saints crowned at Tarsus on 15 July.] But the Four
Hundred and Forty-four Companions of martyrdom whom he added,
I would think he rather took them from the Martyrology
to be fabulously embellished, than utterly invented from
his own brain. For although it could have happened,
that he who intruded the "of his Mother" also stuffed in
those companions; yet there is nothing that compels
[us] to this, since they could from the beginning have been so written,
and have had as leaders of the contest at Antioch placed in the title
Quiricus and Julitta. So also did Peter de Natalibus do, book 5,
although in book 6 chapter 101 he treats of Saints Quiricus
and Julitta from their genuine Acts; he adds
however, that there 44 Gentiles were found there, who as if
converted to Christ by their example, and
detained by Alexander, after ten months were crowned with martyrdom; of whom above it has been said,
he says, on the day before the Nones of June, namely in book 5
chapter 86, where he says they suffered at Iconium, and were buried
in the same city, both of which he himself
determined by his own judgment.
[4] Further, if what I said be accepted concerning the two Synonymous
pairs of Martyrs, to be divided through two places
and two feasts of the month of June, so that in the manner as
most conveniently can be done the authority both
of the truer Acts and of the more ancient Martyrology may be saved;
I shall not go on further to divine which here of
the many Antiochs is to be understood; although presumption
may stand for the more famous [one] in Syria: nor
shall I define whether the Julitta of Antioch, properly pertaining to this
day, is a man or a woman. For why
could it not equally be the name of a man, as
is Jovita, who is venerated as having suffered with Faustinus on the 15th of February;
and Mauritta, to be commemorated on the 13th
of July with the Archdeacon Salutaris, and others similar?
Finally I shall not ask at what time, or under what
Emperor they suffered; since the ancient martyrologies
do not lead to that; But I shall pass to those who, thus
distinguished from those of Antioch, can in no other way be referred to this month
than through a certain epieikeia (equity);
lest by deferring them to the month of July, I should seem
to wish the day of cult changed, which now everywhere
in the Latin churches the Son and Mother have, crowned at
Tarsus.