Eustochia

ON ST. EUSTOCHIA, VIRGIN AND MARTYR, AT TARSUS IN CILICIA,

UNDER JULIAN THE APOSTATE.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Eustochia, virgin and martyr, at Tarsus. (S.)

BY G. V. H.

§ I. Origin of the Acts. Time and place of the martyrdom.

We edit the Acts of St. Eustochius or Eustochia from four manuscript codices collated with one another. They are those same Acts which Unpublished Acts of St. Eustochia our predecessor Sollerius testified in his notes on Usuard that he had in his possession; and the same, as we think, which Peter de Natalibus is said by Baronius to have reduced to a compendium: and for that reason we suspect that he had these Acts of ours before his eyes. Two apographs of these Acts we found in the collections of our predecessors: one taken from a certain Vatican codex no. 1190, p. 172; the other from a notable parchment codex of the monastery of Böddeken of the Order of Canons Regular of St. Augustine in the diocese of Paderborn, which Fr. Cornelius Gamans of the Society of Jesus had sent in the year 1642. A third we found in Strozzi codex IV (15th c., from the Laurentian library) at Florence; a fourth in Vallombrosa codex 363 (13th c.) from the same library. These, diligently collated with one another, the varieties of readings being noted, will be given below to be read.

[2] they seem to have been written originally in Syria, The Acts of St. Eustochia (for so our codices have it, not Eustochius) seem to have been written once in Syria, by an author, as we suppose, of Antioch. For they begin thus: In the six hundred and fifty-seventh year from the founding of the city, the emperor Julian, etc. Since this year is to be referred to Julian the Apostate, as is manifest from the course of the Acts, it cannot depend on the founding of any city other than Antioch on the Orontes, in Syria. For Antioch was founded by Seleucus in the twelfth year of his reign, in the year 301 before Christ: and in the year 356 after Christ, Julian, Gallus being dead, was created Caesar by Constantius. The six hundred and fifty-seventh year from the founding of the city of Antioch, therefore, is the second of Julian's dignity as Caesar. And this is the first blemish of these Acts. For the martyrdom of St. Eustochia, as is clear from the Acts themselves, is to be referred to the year A.D. 362. Perhaps it was written otherwise in the Greek original: or, what I should rather believe, the author, being about to relate a deed that had happened in the second year of the emperor Julian, confused the year of Julian as Caesar with the year of Julian as emperor. Whatever it is, the blemish is of no great moment.

[3] translated from the Greek into the Latin language, That these Acts were written in the East is clear from this manner of computing the years alone. For who among Westerners, computing from the founding of the City, would have in mind the city of Antioch? — That they were translated from the Greek language into Latin is indicated chiefly by the word king, which in the body of the Acts is constantly used of Julian, just as the translator had read βασιλεύς in Greek. In the first phrase only is Julian called emperor, and in the last Caesar: in both the note of time is expressed. Wherefore one may suppose that the author consulted a chronological table, and took the epoch of Julian Caesar (Ἰουλιανοῦ Καίσαρος) for the epoch of Julian Emperor (Ἰουλιανοῦ βασιλέως), and that the name Καίσαρος written in both places was rendered in Latin by the translator first by the word Emperor and last by the word Caesar, the word king being retained in the body of the Acts where βασιλεύς was read. It seems moreover to be noted from this last phrase: And the venerable virgin of Christ Eustochia was martyred in the city of Tarsus of Cilicia under Julian Caesar, that it becomes sufficiently manifest that the author did in fact confuse the years of Julian as Caesar with the years of Julian as emperor.

[4] and to consist in great part of judicial records. Hence I seem to myself rightly and deservedly to judge that the present form of the Acts of St. Eustochia does not betray the hand of a single writer. I judge that the judicial records of the martyrdom itself, a few things being added in place of a proem by Christians contemporary with the martyr, were published as one narrative, with no note of time attached except the name of the emperor, as we see done in most Greek Acts of martyrs. This form of the Acts, then, came into the hands of a man of a later age living at Antioch, who added what he himself considered an accurate note of time. And since he himself did not know what difference there was between the dignity of Caesar and of emperor in the first times, but yet knew that Julian met death in the second year of his reign and that Eustochia was martyred under Julian, he thought that the martyrdom had occurred in the second year of his dignity as Caesar and prefixed this epoch to the Acts.

[5] [The martyrdom of St. Eustochia could have taken place at Tarsus in the month of November of the year 362,] The other difficulty by which these Acts of St. Eustochia are pressed is the very day assigned to the martyrdom, namely the day of "the kalends of November." For since Julian the Apostate himself is said to have presided at the judgment of the holy martyr, it is asked in what way Julian, who at that time was wintering at Antioch, could have exercised judgment in person at Tarsus in the month of November. For if he condemned Eustochia at Tarsus in Cilicia in the month of November, he must have done so in the year 362. That Julian came to Tarsus in that year is most certain. For when he was preparing war against the Persians, hastening to go to Antioch he left Constantinople Ammianus Marcellinus, bk. XXII, ch. 9., where he had been received on the third day before the ides of December Ibid., ch. 2., of the year 361. Having crossed the strait, passing by Chalcedon and Libyssa, he came from there to Nicomedia. Then through Nicaea he came to the borders of Gallograecia: from where, turning his route to the right, he made for Pessinus. From there he returned to Ancyra and, having traversed the journey, when he had come to the Pylae,

which place divides the Cappadocians and the Cilicians, having received with a kiss the governor of the province, Celsus by name, known to him ever since their Attic studies, and having taken him up to sit beside him in his carriage, he brought him with him to Tarsus. By these routes, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian came to Tarsus Loc. cit., ch. 9.. Setting out then from Tarsus, he entered Antioch when the Adonia were being celebrated according to ancient rite Ibid., therefore in the middle of summer. On the authority of Ammianus, then, Julian came to Tarsus in the year 362, but long before the month of November: nor does he make any mention of a return from Antioch to Tarsus. — This narrative does not agree with Zosimus. For Zosimus says that Julian stayed ten months in Byzantium, then began his journey toward Antioch Historia nova, bk. III, ch. 11.. But at what time of year Julian entered Antioch we do not read in Zosimus. Yet it is clearer than the sun that, if Julian spent ten months in Constantinople, the journey could not have been undertaken before about the middle of October. For if to the third day before the ides of December, on which Julian was received at Constantinople, you add ten months, you will arrive at the 10th or 11th day of October. But if we can so understand Zosimus that he computed not completed months but begun months, Julian, setting out from Constantinople in the month of September, could have been at Tarsus in the month of November. And thus the Acts of Eustochia must be said to agree with Zosimus, as they assign the holy martyr's contest to the kalends of November.

[6] [for according to the narrative of Socrates Julian returns from Antioch to Tarsus,] I confess, however, that so great an error can hardly be admitted in Ammianus Marcellinus. For this reason I think it more prudent to investigate by another way whether Julian can be believed to have been at Tarsus in the month of November: whether, namely, he returned from Antioch to Tarsus while still alive and before the Persian expedition; for he had said that when the war was finished he would winter at Tarsus, to which finally the corpse of the dead man was carried. It is certain indeed that Julian, angered at the people of Antioch, openly declared that he would return to Tarsus. These threats, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, were made when he was on the point of leaving Antioch in the year 363, to begin the Persian expedition. So he writes: And when a promiscuous multitude was escorting him (Julian) as he set out, wishing him a happy going and a glorious return, begging that he might thereafter be placable and milder: his anger, which he had conceived from the taunts and reproaches, being not yet softened, he spoke rather harshly, asserting that he would not see them afterwards. For he said that he had arranged, for the sake of wintering, by a shortcut, the campaign being concluded, to return to Tarsus in Cilicia, and that he had written to the governor Memorius that everything suitable for him should be prepared in that same city. And this happened not long after. For his body, carried back there, was buried with a humble funeral procession in the suburb, as he himself had ordered. And now, the sky growing sunny, setting out on the third day before the nones of March, he came to Hierapolis by the customary marches Ammianus Marcellinus, bk. XXIII, ch. 2.. If no one besides Ammianus had reported these threats, no one could doubt that the talk was of a return to Tarsus after the war was finished. But in fact the matter does not stand so. Sozomen says most clearly that these threats preceded the writing of the Misopogon, and that Julian really prepared a return from Antioch to Tarsus. Here are the words of Sozomen Eccles. Hist., bk. V, ch. 19 (Migne, P. G., vol. LXVII, p. 1272).: Ὁ δὲ τὰ πρῶτα ὀργισθεὶς ἠπείλει Ἀντιοχέας κακῶς ποιήσειν· καὶ εἰς Ταρσὸν μετοικίζεσθαι παρεσκευάζετο. Ὑπερφυῶς δὲ τοῦ θυμοῦ μεταβαλ[λ]όμενος, λόγοις μόνοις τὴν ὕβριν ἠμύνατο

But the emperor at first, inflamed with anger, threatened the people of Antioch that he would punish them severely: and he was already preparing to move to Tarsus; but, the heat of his spirit suddenly changing, he avenged the insult to him with words only. Where one must note that those words: λόγοις μόνοις (by words alone), are opposed to what had been said, namely Ἀντιοχέας κακῶς ποιήσειν (that he would punish the Antiochenes severely): so that Julian, his mind changed, instead of the penal deeds with which he had threatened the Antiochenes, inflicted only penal words, the Misopogon, namely, being written for the disgrace of the city. Concerning the return from Antioch to Tarsus, with which he is said to have threatened the Antiochenes besides, nothing is added. Sozomen can therefore be so understood that Julian, the move to Tarsus being prepared, actually returned to Tarsus. What if we should bring forward an author who affirms that Julian actually returned to Tarsus? That is Socrates, whose words we subjoin Eccles. Hist., bk. III, ch. 17 (P. G., vol. LXVII, p. 425).: Ἐκ τούτων δὴ τῶν σκωμμάτων εἰς ὀργὴν ἐκπεσὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς, διηπείλει πᾶν ποιῆσαι κακὸν τῇ Ἀντιοχέων πόλει· καὶ ἐπὶ Ταρσὸν τῆς Κιλικίας ἐξυποστρέφει· ἐκεῖ τε τὰ ἐπιτήδεια κελεύσας εὐτρεπισθῆναι, ἀπαίρειν ἐσπούδαζεν. Ὅθεν ὑπόθεσιν ἔσχεν ὁ σοφιστὴς Λιβάνιος γράψαι τόν τε πρεσβευτικὸν ὑπὲρ Ἀντιοχέων καὶ τὸν πρὸς Ἀντιοχεῖς περὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως ὀργῆς. Ἀλλὰ τούτους μὲν τοὺς λόγους φασὶ γράψαντα τὸν σοφιστὴν, μηκέτι εἰς πολλοὺς εἰρηκέναι. Ὁ βασιλεὺς δὲ ἀφέμενος ἔργοις τοὺς ὑβρικότας ἀμύνασθαι, τῷ ἀντισκῶψαι τὴν ὀργὴν διελύσατο.

Provoked to anger by these jibes the emperor threatened that he would punish the city of the Antiochenes with evil, and he returns to Tarsus of Cilicia; and when he had ordered necessaries to be prepared there, he hastened to depart. This matter gave the sophist Libanius the occasion of composing two orations: one to the emperor for the Antiochenes, the other to the Antiochenes concerning the emperor's anger. But that sophist is said to have written these orations, yet not to have recited them publicly. And the emperor, having cast aside his earlier plan, by which he had resolved to avenge in deeds the injury done him by his revilers, satisfied his anger with reciprocal revilings and jibes.

[7] other historical writers being silent, but not contradicting. As anyone can see, Socrates says most clearly "and he returns to Tarsus of Cilicia;" and this reading is so reproduced by Nicephorus. Nevertheless Valesius judged that it should be corrected. For that most learned man thought that the question concerned that return with which Julian, in Ammianus Marcellinus, threatens the Antiochenes after the Persian expedition. And for that reason, for ἐξυποστρέφει in the present tense, he directed the infinitive ἐξυποστρέψειν or ἐξυποστρέψειν to be written; and in Latin he rendered not the text of Socrates ἐξυποστρέφει (he returns), but ἐξυποστρέψειν (that he would return), according to his correction. We have adapted the version to the text. For my part I gladly confess that, before I undertook to treat these Acts of St. Eustochia, I had received Valesius's correction with both hands, as they say; but now these very Acts, to which the ancient reading of Socrates corresponds so accurately, have made me doubt, so that I lean toward retaining that ancient reading, which is refuted by no manuscript codex, at least that I know of. — There nevertheless remains and will always remain a difficulty from the opposed narrative of Ammianus and Zosimus; one or other of whom must be in error. For if Zosimus is believed, Julian spent ten months in Constantinople; and he could in no way have come to Antioch when the Adonia were being celebrated there. But he could have come to Tarsus before the kalends of November, and thus the Acts of St. Eustochia do not conflict with the narrative of Zosimus. But, as we have said, we prefer Ammianus to Zosimus. According to Ammianus Julian came to Tarsus, and without staying long hastened to go to Antioch. At Julian's first arrival at Tarsus, therefore, the martyrdom of St. Eustochia has no place. According to Ammianus Julian was present at Antioch on the eleventh day before the kalends of November, when the temple of Daphnean Apollo burned. The mockeries that then followed exasperated Julian: and according to Sozomen he resolved to return to Tarsus (according to Socrates he actually returns), full of threats and breathing vengeance against the Antiochenes. He could therefore have been present at Tarsus on the kalends of November, Ammianus indeed being silent, but by no means denying it. Then, therefore, he may have ordained the rites of Venus at Tarsus, and decreed the killing of St. Eustochia for Christ. Soon, his mind changed, instead of the punishments he had contemplated he plans to write the Misopogon and returns to Antioch, from which, on the third day before the nones of March of the following year 363, he moved into Persia. Thus therefore all things agree, without any violence being done to the Acts or to history.

§ II. Of the monstrousness of the punishments ascribed in the Acts to Julian the Apostate. Of the cult of St. Eustochia.

The difficulty from the character of Julian the Apostate is dissolved The times being thus established, we approach the greatest difficulty of the whole case. For so great is the atrocity of Julian in the Acts that it cannot suit a mild and gentle philosopher: so, namely, the modern eulogists of Julian will judge. Moreover so cruel a kind of death prepared for a virgin, and such bitter torments, do not suit the emperor Julian, whose persecution, as Jerome testifies, was coaxing and enticing rather than driving to sacrifice, and of whom Socrates says Ibid. (P. G., vol. cit., pp. 411, 412).: Ἑωρακὼς γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ Διοκλητιανοῦ μαρτυρήσαντας ὑπὸ τῶν χριστιανῶν τιμωμένους, προθύμως τε σπεύδειν ἐπὶ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι πολλοὺς ἐπιστάμενος, ὥσπερ αὐτῷ τούτῳ τοὺς χριστιανοὺς ἀμυνόμενος, ἐπὶ ἑτέραν ἐπετρέπετο. Καὶ τὴν μὲν ὑπερβαλλοῦσαν ἐπὶ Διοκλητιανοῦ ὠμότητα ὑπερέθετο· οὐ μὴν πάντῃ τοῦ διώκειν ἀπέσχετο. Διωγμὸν δὲ λέγω τὸ ὁπωσοῦν ταράττειν τοὺς ἡσυχάζοντας. Ἐτάραττε δὲ ὧδε· νόμῳ ἐκέλευε χριστιανοὺς παιδεύσεως μὴ μετέχειν.

For when he had seen that those who had undergone martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian were honored by the Christians, and observed that many were striving with eager spirit for martyrdom: as though wishing by this very thing to take vengeance on the Christians, he himself enters on another way. And he declined indeed that excessive cruelty which had flourished in the time of Diocletian: yet he did not altogether abstain from persecution. For I call it persecution, when men living in quiet and peace are harassed in any manner whatever. And he harassed them in this way: he passed a law that Christians should not be instructed in the humane disciplines. Relying on these things, modern authors who have treated of Julian exclude the philosopher Emperor from the number of the persecutors. — What then shall we do with the Acts of St. Eustochia? Apply severe criticism, they will say, and have them banished among the spurious and false. That this art is easy I confess; that it is criticism I deny. For I know that the critical art is occupied in judging and examining cases, in weighing internal and external reasons, in discerning and separating what is true from what is false, but by no means in rejecting any writing whatever for the sole reason that it seems contrary to the sayings of certain men, or does not seem likely. For there are certain true things that do not seem like the truth. Then there are certain things true when they are stated for a definite place and time, which, if you extend them more widely, are shown to be false; there are others which, if they are said universally, are true, to which nevertheless particular facts make an exception. Wherefore, before we deny belief to the Acts of St. Eustochia, on account of the singular atrocity and fury of persecution with which they stain the memory of Julian, we shall inquire from authors immediately following the age of Julian, or contemporary with the emperor himself, what is to be thought of the singular gentleness and wisdom of the philosopher emperor.

[9] from the testimony of Theodoret, about the sorceries carried out at Carrae, Theodoret, Eccles. Hist. bk. III, ch. 21, narrates the following: But after his (Julian's) slaying, the sorceries of his incantations became evident. For the city of Carrae still retains the relics of his impiety. Making his journey through it, that stolid man (for he had left Edessa on the left, as adorned with piety) entered a shrine, which was in honor among the impious,

and when he had performed there certain secret things with the companions of his crime, he barred and sealed the doors, and, soldiers having been posted to watch, forbade anyone to enter before his return. But, his death having been announced, when a pious ruler had succeeded the impious one, certain persons entering come upon the admirable fortitude and wisdom and piety of the emperor. For they see a woman hung by the hair, with her hands stretched out, from whose dissected belly that abominable man had learned, forsooth, of the Persian victory from the liver. And this abomination indeed was laid open at Carrae. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν σφαγὴν αἱ τῆς ἐκείνου γοητείας ἐφωράθησαν μαγγανεῖαι. Κάραι γὰρ πόλις ἐστὶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἔχουσα τῆς ἀσεβείας τὰ λείψανα. Διὰ ταύτης ὁ μάταιος τὴν πορείαν ποιούμενος (τὴν γὰρ Ἔδεσαν ὡς εὐσεβείᾳ κοσμουμένην εὐώνυμον καταλέλοιπεν), εἰς τὸν παρὰ τῶν δυσσεβῶν τιμώμενον σηκὸν εἰσελθὼν καί τινα ἐν τούτῳ σὺν τοῖς κοινωνοῖς τοῦ μύσους ἐπιτελέσας, κλεῖθρα καὶ σήμανθρα ταῖς θύραις ἐπέθηκε, καί τινας ταύταις προσεδρεύειν προσέταξε στρατιώτας, μηδένα εἴσω τῶν θυρῶν γενέσθαι μέχρι τῆς ἐπανόδου κελεύσας. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ θάνατος ἀπηγγέλθη καὶ εὐσεβὴς βασίλεία τὴν δυσσεβῆ διεδέξατο, εἴσω γενόμενοι τοῦ σηκοῦ εἑρον τὴν ἀξιάγαστον τοῦ βασιλέως ἀνδρίαν τε καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις εὐσέβειαν *. Εἶδον γὰρ γύναιον ἐκ τῶν τριχῶν ᾐωρημένον, ἐκτεταμένας ἔχον τὰς χεῖρας, ἧς ἀνακείρας ὁ ἀλιτήριος τὴν γαστέρα, τὴν νίκην δήπουθεν τὴν κατὰ Περσῶν διὰ τοῦ ἥπατος ἔγνω. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἐν Κάραις ἐφωράθη τὸ μῦσος. It is worthwhile to observe that Theodoret hands this down not from uncertain report or rumor, but with a mind conscious of the truth. But where he says that similar abominations were found at Antioch, he changes his language and confesses that he has learned by report what he is about to narrate, ch. 22: But at Antioch they say that several chests were found in the palace filled with the heads of men, and many wells full of corpses: Ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ δὲ πολλὰς μὲν κιβωτοὺς ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις κεφαλῶν ἀνθρώπων πεπληρωμένας εὑρῆσθαί φασι, πολλὰ δὲ φρέατα σώματων ἀνάπλεα νεκρῶν. Τοιαῦτα γὰρ τῶν δυσωνύμων θεῶν τὰ μαθήματα.

[10] at which Ammianus Marcellinus hints; That Julian occupied himself at Carrae with incantations and evil arts is not obscurely hinted by Ammianus Marcellinus, bk. XXIII, ch. 3. Staying some days at Carrae, while he prepares necessaries and, according to the rite of the place, offers sacrifice to the Moon, who is religiously worshiped throughout those regions, he is said before the altars, no witness being admitted, secretly to have handed over a purple military cloak to his kinsman Procopius, and to have instructed him to seize the principate with more confidence, if he should learn that he had perished among the Parthians. Here the mind of Julian, as he rested, agitated by dreams, was presaging that something sad was going to happen. Wherefore both he and the interpreters of visions, contemplating present things, pronounced that the following day, which was the fourteenth before the Kalends of April, ought to be observed. Now how detestable the cult of the infernal Moon or Diana, who is called Hecate, was, and how infamous for the sorceries of incantations, is as well known as whatever is best known. Whence it manifestly appears that the narrative of Theodoret is confirmed by Ammianus himself.

[11] [of St. John Chrysostom, about the necromancies of Julian and the slaughter of boys;] But what Theodoret affirms he learned by report about the corpses found at Antioch enjoys a most copious witness in John Chrysostom, who, writing at Antioch against Julian In the oration on St. Babylas, no. 14 (P. G., vol. L, p. 555)., after having adduced many shameful things which we shall presently set before the reader's eyes, says: Therefore I write these things while witnesses are yet alive, lest anyone should think that I, narrating certain old things to those who do not know them, am lying with great license. For of those who saw them both old men and young men still survive: all of whom I ask that, if anything has been added by me, they come forward and refute me. But that I have added anything, they cannot accuse me: that I have omitted something, they can; for the excess of the turpitude cannot be represented in speech. And to posterity, who will not believe, I would say this, that that demon among you whom you call Venus is not ashamed to use such ministers. There is nothing wonderful, therefore, if that wretched man, who had readily given himself over to the mockery of demons, was not affected by shame at those things of which the gods themselves whom he worshiped boasted. Having premised this, then, Chrysostom says: Now who would enumerate the necromancies and the slaughter of boys? For these sacrifices, which before the coming of Christ men dared to offer and after his coming ceased, he set about restoring again; not indeed openly: for even though he was emperor and did all things at his own pleasure, yet the impiety and monstrousness of the deed surpassed the greatness of his power. Yet that they dared to do. Τί ἄν τις λέγοι τὰς νεκυομαντείας, τὰς τῶν παίδων σφαγάς; Αἱ γὰρ θυσίαι ἐκεῖναι, αἱ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας τολμώμεναι, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ κατασταλεῖσαι, ἐτολμῶντο πάλιν, φανερῶς μὲν οὐκέτι· εἰ γὰρ καὶ βασιλεὺς ἦν, καὶ μετ᾽ ἐξουσίας ἅπαντα ἔπραττεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἡ τῆς τῶν δρωμένων ἀνοσιότητος ὑπερβολὴ τῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ μέγεθος ἤλεγχεν· ἐτολμῶντο δὲ οὖν ὁμῶς. From which words of Chrysostom anyone can demonstrate the truth of the rumor that had reached the ears of Theodoret. For no one can have any doubt where the chests filled with men's heads came from, where the wells full of corpses: from men slaughtered, namely, for the use of necromancy.

[12] of St. Gregory Nazianzen, about boys and virgins dissected, and corpses found. Now to Theodoret and Chrysostom let Gregory Nazianzen be added. Gregory, a contemporary of Julian, in Oration I against Julian, no. 92, exclaims: Τίς ἄν μοι, exclaims, δοίη τὴν Ἡροδότου καὶ Θουκυδίδου σχολήν τε καὶ γλῶτταν, ἵνα καὶ τῷ μέλλοντι χρόνῳ παραδῶ τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς πονηρίαν καὶ στηλιτευθῇ τοῖς μετέπειτα τὰ τοῦ καιροῦ διηγήματα; Σιωπήσομαι τὸν Ὀρόντην καὶ τοὺς νυκτερινοὺς νεκροὺς ὃυς τῷ βασιλεῖ συνέκρυπτεν οὗτος, στεινόμενος νεκύεσσι καὶ κτείνων ἀδήλως· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὰ τοῦ ἔπους εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον. Who will supply me with the leisure and the tongue of Herodotus and Thucydides, that I may hand down the wickedness of that man (Julian) to future time also and leave to posterity the history of this time as if engraved on a column? I shall be silent about the Orontes and the nocturnal slaughters which this man, with the emperor's assistance as his partner, concealed, crowded by heaps of corpses and dealing death obscurely. For in this place it would be more apt to use the words of the epic poem. Here Gregory says that so great a multitude of the slain was thrown into the Orontes, which flows past Antioch, that one must use the words of Homer, where the poet, Iliad Φ, v. 214, brings in the river Scamander speaking thus: Ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ . . . . . . . . . . . Εἴ τοι Τρῶας ἔδωκε Κρόνου παῖς πάντας ὀλέσσαι, Ἐξ ἐμέθεν γ᾽ ἐλάσας, πεδίον κάτα μέρμερα ῥέζειν. Πλήθει γὰρ δή μοι νεκύων ἐρατεινὰ ῥέεθρα· Οὐδέ τί πη δύναμαι προχέειν ῥόον εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, Στεινόμενος νεκύεσσι· σὺ δὲ κτείνεις ἀἳδήλως. Ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ καὶ ἔασον· ἄγη μ᾽ ἔχει, etc.

O Achilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If the son of Saturn has granted to you to destroy all the Trojans,

At least when you have gone out * from me, do your arduous deeds across the plain.

For now my pleasant streams are packed with corpses,

Nor can I by any means pour out my waves into the vast sea,

Straitened by corpses: but you are utterly killing all.

Come now, desist; stupor seizes me.

Having indicated this allusion, Gregory continues thus: Παραδραμοῦμαι καὶ τῶν βασιλείων τά κοῖλα καὶ ἀπωτάτω, ὅσα τε ἐν λάκκοις καὶ φρέασι καὶ διώρυξι κακῶν γέμοντα θησαυρῶν τε καὶ μυστηρίων· οὐ μόνον τῶν ἀνατεμνομένων παίδων τε καὶ παρθένων ἐπὶ ψυχαγωγίᾳ καὶ μαντείᾳ καὶ θυσίαις οὐ νενομισμέναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας κινδυνευόντων. I will pass over also the hollow and most remote parts of the palace, and all that in pits and wells and trenches teemed with evil treasures and mysteries, not only of boys and virgins dissected for the evocation of souls and for divination and sacrifices by no means lawful, but also of those who were called into danger for the sake of piety. These three authors, then, learned and wise men, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Gregory (what men and how great! of whom this one was contemporary with Julian, that one nearly so, the other only one century later than Julian, all bishops, Chrysostom and Gregory illustrious in the renowned glory of holiness), reproach Julian with monstrous crimes and nefarious slaughters committed for the sake of superstition. Whence we rightly conclude that atrocious cruelty against the most holy virgin Eustochia is not out of keeping with the character of Julian. Moreover he who, after bitter torments, sentenced to death Juventinus and Maximinus, excellent men, for the confession of Christ, could also have destined Eustochia to death for the same confession.

[13] [Julian's sayings and his known hatred of the Christians served as a decree of persecution:] But Julian passed no decree of persecution against the Christians. As if the known mind and will of a wicked emperor were not, for those wishing to persecute, a decree and a law! Let us hear Gregory Nazianzen on this matter Oration I against Julian, no. 93 (P. G., vol. XXXV, pp. 625, 626).. Ἀλλὰ τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὡς, δήμου τινὸς ἐπιμανέντος χριστιανοῖς, καὶ πολὺν μὲν ἐργασαμένων φόνον, πλείω δὲ ἀπειλούντων, ἐπειδὴ μέσην βαδίζων ὁ τοῦ ἔθνους ἄρχων τοῦ καιροῦ καὶ τῶν νόμων (τῷ μὲν γὰρ δουλεύειν ᾤετο δεῖν, τοὺς δὲ μετρίως ᾐσχύνετο) καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολλοὺς μὲν ἀπαγαγὼν χριστιανῶν, ὀλίγοις δὲ τῶν ἑλλήνων ἐπιτιμήσας, εἶτ᾽ ἀναχθεὶς τῷ βασιλεῖ κατηγορίας γενομένης, ἄτιμος καὶ ἀνάρπαστος περὶ τούτων ἐκρίνετο καὶ τοὺς νόμους προὐβάλλετο, καθ᾽ ὅυς ἐπιστεύθη δικάζειν, μικροῦ μὲν ἀπήχθη τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ· τέλος δὲ φιλανθρωπίας τυχὼν, ἐξορίαν κατακρίνεται; Καὶ ἡ ἀπόφασις ὡς θαυμασία τε καὶ φιλάνθρωπος! Τί γὰρ μέγα, φησὶν ὁ δίκαιος δικαστὴς καὶ μὴ διώκων χριστιανοὺς, εἰ Γαλιλαίους δέκα μία χεὶρ Ἐλληνικὴ κατειργάσατο; Ταῦτα οὐκ ὠμότης περιφανής; ταῦτα οὐ πρόγραμμα διωγμοῦ καὶ πολύ γε τῶν δημοσίᾳ προτιθεμένων ἐναργέστερον καὶ φοβερώτερον; Τί γὰρ διαφέρει τοῦ κίνδυνον προγράψαι χριστιανοῖς τὸ τοῖς διώκταις χριστιάνων ἡδόμενον φαίνεσθαι, καὶ μέγα ἔγκλημα ποιεῖσθαι τὸ μετριάζειν; Τὸ γὰρ βούλεσθαι βασιλέως ἄγραφός ἐστι νόμος, τῷ κράτει συνηγορούμενος, καὶ πολύ γε τῶν γραπτῶν ἰσχυρότερος, τῶν οὐ δυναστείᾳ βοηθουμένων.

But who does not know that, when a promiscuous crowd had furiously made an attack on the Christians, and, having perpetrated an enormous slaughter, was threatening still more, the governor of the people, because, going by a middle way between the times and the laws (for as he thought he should serve the times, so too he moderately respected the laws), having dragged many of the Christians to judgment, he had punished some of the pagans also, an accusation having afterwards arisen, was brought to the emperor and underwent judgment with the greatest ignominy; and when he defended himself by the laws, by whose prescript the province of judging had been committed to him, it came very near to his being dragged off to death: but in the end, by the clemency of the emperor, he was punished only with exile

to be? And how illustrious and humane a sentence! "For what grievous thing is it," says the just judge, who was by no means persecuting Christians, "if one pagan hand has killed ten Galileans?" Is this not plain cruelty? Is it not an edict of persecution, and indeed much more express and formidable than those that are publicly posted? For what difference is there, whether you proclaim and promulgate danger for Christians, or display that you are delighted with the persecutors of Christians, and hold it to be a great crime to use some moderation toward them? For the emperor's will is an unwritten law, fenced by the patronage of rule and power, and indeed far firmer and stronger than written laws that are not supported by power.

[14] which the pagans obeyed with ready will. With what ready will the pagans fulfilled the desire of that most wicked man is manifest both from many passages and especially from those which we shall subjoin from Gregory. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ λέγονται, δεῖ γὰρ ἒν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰπεῖν, φρίκης καὶ τοῖς ἀθέοις ἄξιον, παρθένους ἁγνὰς καὶ ὑπερκοσμίους, ἀψαύστους μικροῦ καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀρρένων, εἰς μέσον προαγαγόντες καὶ τῆς ἐσθῆτος γυμνώσαντες, ἵνα τῇ θέᾳ πρότερον ἐνυβρίσωσιν, εἶτ᾽ ἀνακείραντες καὶ διχάσαντες (ὢ πῶς ἐνέγκω σου, Χριστὲ, τὴν τότε μακροθυμίαν!) οἱ μὲν καὶ ἰδίοις ὀδοῦσι κακῶς ἑστιαθῆναι, καὶ, τῆς ἑαυτῶν κακοδαιμονίας ἀξίως, ὠμῶν τῶν ἡπάτων ἐμφορηθῆναι, καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκείνην τὴν τροφὴν ἄλλην προσενέγκασθαι, τὴν κοινήν τε καὶ νενομισμένην· οἱ δὲ σπαίρουσιν ἔτι τοῖς σπλάγχνοις συώδη τροφὴν ἐπισπείραντες καὶ συῶν ἐπαφέντες τοὺς θερμοτέρους, οἳον ἀγαγεῖν[?] ἐκεῖνο τὸ θέατρον σάρκας ἰδεῖν κριθαῖς συνεσθιωμένας καὶ σπαραττομένας, τροφὴν ἀνάμικτον καὶ τότε πρῶτον ὀφθεῖσαν καὶ ἀκουσθεῖσαν· ἣν θρέψαι μόνον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δαίμονας ὁ τούτων δημιουργὸς ἄξιος ἦν· ὡς μὲν οὖν καὶ καλῶς ἔθρεψεν ἐκ τοῦ αἷματος ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς πληγῆς, ἣν κατὰ τῶν σπλάγχνων ἐδέξατο· κἂν ἀναισθήτως ἔχωσι πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱ δείλαιοι, καὶ μηδὲ τὸ φρονεῖν ἐκ τῆς δυσσεβείας ἔχοντες. For they, to mention one thing out of many, which could strike horror even into atheists, are reported, having brought into the open chaste virgins, more exalted than the world, and who had scarcely ever even come into the sight of men, and stripped them of their garments, so that they might first inflict insult on them through the gaze, and afterwards, having cut them open and dissected them, O Christ, how shall I bear thy patience at that time! partly to have eaten them, chewing them with their own teeth, and, as became their execrable fury, to have gorged themselves with the raw livers, and, having finished that food, to have taken the common and customary food; partly to have sprinkled swine's fodder on the still-palpitating entrails, and, the fiercest pigs being let in, to have exposed this spectacle, so that they might see the flesh torn and eaten together with the barley: a mixed food, seen and heard of then for the first time. With which surely he alone deserved to feed his demons who was the architect of these crimes; just as also, as was fitting, he fed them with that blood and with the wound which he received in the vitals: although wretched men are without feeling toward things of this sort, and through impiety are not even in possession of their mind Orat. I against Julian, no. 87.. And elsewhere Ibid., no. 89. the same Gregory narrates a deed of the same kind: Ἤγετο γέρων ἱερεὺς, ἀθλητὴς ἐθελοντὴς, διὰ μέσης τῆς πόλεως, αἰδέσιμος τὴν ἡλικίαν, τὴν πολιτείαν αἰδεσιμώτερος, πᾶσι, πλὴν τῶν διωκόντων καὶ τυραννούντων· ἤγετο δὲ ἡλικίᾳ πάσῃ καὶ τύχη, οὐ τῷ μὲν, τῷ δ᾽ οὔ· πᾶσι δὲ ὁμοίως, ἀνδράσι, γυναιξὶ, νέοις, πρεσβύταις, ὅσοι τε τὰ πολιτικὰ διῴκουν, καὶ ὅσοι τῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀξίας. Ἀγὼν δὲ ἦν ἅπασιν εἷς, ἀλλήλους ὑπερβάλλεσθαι τῇ περὶ τὸν πρεσβύτην θρασύτητι· καὶ μέρος εὐσεβείας ἅπασιν ἐνομίζετο, ὅτι πλεῖστα ἐκεῖνον δρᾶσαι κακὰ καὶ γέροντα νικῆσαι ἀθλητὴν κατὰ πάσης ἀγωνιζόμενον τῆς πόλεως. Εἱλκετο διὰ πλατειῶν, ὠθεῖτο καθ᾽ ὑπονόμων· τῶν τριχῶν εἴλκετο, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτου μὴ μέρους τοῦ σώματος, μιγνυμένης τῇ αἰκιᾳ τῆς ὕβρεως, παρὰ τῶν ἀξίως ἐν Μίθρου ταῦτα κολαζομένων· παισὶν ἐκ παίδων μετέωρος ἀντεπέμπετο, γραφίσιν ὑποδεχομένων τὸ γενναῖον σῶμα καὶ παίγνιον ποιουμένων τὴν τραγῳδίαν. Πιέσμασι τὰς κνήμας ἐθλιβετο μέχρις ὀστέων αὐτῶν· λίνοις τὰ ὦτα διετέμνετο καὶ τούτων τοῖς στερροτάτοις καὶ λεπτοτάτοις· σαργάνῃ πρὸς ὕψος αἰρόμενος, μέλιτι καὶ γάρῳ διάβροχος σφηξὶ καὶ μελίσσαις ἐξαίνετο, μεσούσης ἡμέρας ἡλίου τὸ φλογῶδες ἐλλάμποντος· καὶ τοῦ μὲν τὰς σάρκας ἐκτήκοντος, τοῖς δὲ θερμοτέραν ποιοῦντος τὴν βρῶσιν τῶν μακαρίων ἐκείνων σαρκῶν, οὐ γὰρ ἀθλίων ἂν εἴποιμι, etc.

An old priest, a voluntary athlete, was being led through the middle of the city, to all except the persecutors and executioners venerable for his age, and more venerable for the probity of his life. He was led moreover by all, of every age and condition and fortune, all urging on equally, men, women, youths, old men, both those who administered public business and those endowed with honors and dignities. And this one contest was proposed to all, that they might surpass one another in the monstrousness of their fury against the old man, and it was seen by all as a part of piety to afflict him with as many evils as possible and to overcome the old boxer contending against the whole city. He was dragged through the streets, was thrust through the sewers, by the hair and by any other part of the body, insult, of course, being mingled with torment, he was hauled by those who are justly tortured with punishments of this kind in the rites of Mithras. He was sent back, hanging, from boys to boys, who received that noble body on their styluses and treated this tragedy like a game. By torments also his shins were crushed to the very bones; his ears were cut off with linen threads, and those the thinnest and strongest. He meanwhile, lifted on high in a basket, drenched all over with honey and garum, was stung by bees and wasps at midday, the sun shining most fiercely, and melting the flesh for the latter, and for the former making the bite sharper on that blessed flesh, for I would not call it wretched. From all of which one may conclude that no cruelty is imputed to Julian in the Acts of St. Eustochia which does not suit the character of the man.

[15] The facts which surround the martyrdom But if we weigh certain circumstances of persons and times written down in these Acts, and in the Acts, to the narrative of Theodoret, compare what history hands down about the same, it will certainly come about that it will occur to no one to deny that these Acts of St. Eustochia display the genuine face of that time. — The occasion of the martyrdom of St. Eustochia the Acts relate thus: In the six hundred and fifty-seventh year from the founding of the city, the emperor Julian ordered that all who were in his palace should sacrifice to the goddess Venus; and he himself established a great festival, and heralds cried through the whole city that all men and women, young men and virgins, boys and girls, rich and poor should assemble. And the whole city was assembled at the temple, and the sound of singers was carried through the whole city. And there was a great madness in that same city, and the priests of the temples were clothed in splendid garments, and rather early the king came into the temple, took incense, and sacrificed: and when the king had sacrificed, the whole city sacrificed likewise. But St. Eustochia refused to sacrifice, saying: "What are the errors in which you err, all you who forsake the living God? And in your error you sacrifice to dead gods, who are without soul." And the prefect, hearing this, reported to the king, saying: "The virgin Eustochia has refused to sacrifice, and by occasion of her many men have refused to sacrifice." The king, hearing this, was greatly angered, and ordered her to be seized and brought, etc. We have here the concourse of the people, the tumult of the city, insane songs resounding through the whole city, altars kindled in honor of the gods, smoke, reek, pagans raging in the manner of the Corybants, and Christians refuting the error, in almost the same way in which Theodoret speaks, describing the unhappiness of the times of Julian Eccles. Hist., bk. III, ch. 3 (P. G., vol. LXXXII, pp. 1091, 1092).: Ἰουλιανοῦ δὲ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀσέβειαν ἐκκαλύψαντος, αἱ πόλεις στάσεων ἐνεπλήσθησαν. Ἀναθαρρήσαντες γὰρ οἱ τῇ τῶν εἰδώλων πλάνῃ δεδουλωμένοι, ἀνέῳξαν μὲν τοὺς τῶν εἰδώλων σηκοὺς, τὰς δὲ μυσαρὰς ἐκείνας καὶ λήθης ἀξίας τελετὰς ἐπετέλουν. Καὶ ἥπτον * μὲν τὸ ἐπιβώμιον πῦρ, τὴν δε γῆν τῷ αἵματι τῶν θυμάτων μιαίνοντες, ἐμόλυνον κνίσσῃ καὶ καπνῷ τὸν ἀέρα· ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν θεραπευὸμένων βακχευόμενοι δαιμόνων, λυττῶντες καὶ κορυβαντιῶντες τὰς ἀγυιὰς περιέθεον, βωμολοχίαις τε καὶ κωμῳδίαις κατὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἐχρῶντο, καὶ λοιδορίας τε καὶ πομπείας οὐδὲν εἶδος ἀπῆν. Οἱ δὲ τῆς εὐσεβείας θιασῶται, φέρειν τὰς τούτων μὴ δυνάμενοι βλασφημίας, ἀντελοιδοροῦντο καὶ τὴν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων πρεσβευομένην διήλεγχον πλάνην. Χαλεπαίνοντες δὲ οἱ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐργάται, καὶ θρασύτητος ἐφόδιον ἔχοντες τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος προσγενομένην παρρησίαν, πληγὰς αὐτοῖς ἀνηκέστους ἐπέφερον. But when Julian uncovered his impiety, the cities overflowed with seditions. For those enslaved to the error of idols, taking courage again, opened the shrines of the idols and performed those execrable mysteries worthy of perpetual oblivion. They kindled fire on the altars, polluted the earth with the blood of victims, contaminated the air with reek and smoke; and, roused by the demons they worshiped, they ran about the streets raging in the manner of the Corybants, assailing the saints with scurrilous and stage-style abuse and abstaining from no kind of insult and reproach. And when the devotees of piety could not bear their curses, they repaid reproaches and refuted the error they followed. Taking this ill in their turn, the artisans of impiety, whose audacity was aided by the liberty granted by the emperor, punished them in an unworthy manner.

[16] of Gregory Nazianzen, Who would not recognize Julian sacrificing to Venus and kindling the altars for burning incense in the following words of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 2 against Julian, no. 22 (P. G., vol. XXXV, p. 689).? Τὰς δὲ φυσήσεις τε καὶ ἀντιφυσήσεις, ἅς ὁ θαυμάσιος ἐκεῖνος καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα διασύρων, τοῖς γραἳδίοις ἀντεπεδείκνυτο, τὸ ἐπιβώμιον πῦρ ἀνάπτων, ποῦ λόγου θήσομεν; Ἦ * καλόν γε τοῦ Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τὰς γνάθους ὁρᾶν ἀσχημονούσας, καὶ γέλωτα πολὺν παρεχούσας οὐ τοῖς ἔξωθεν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῖς οἶς ταῦτα ποιῶν ἀρέσκειν ᾤετο. Τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν δὲ οὐκ ἤκουε, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεὸν, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς αὐλοῖς κατηράσατο, οἴς ἐνασχημονοῦσαν ἑαυτὴν κατεμάνθανεν, ἀντ᾽ ἐσόπτρου χρησαμένη τῷ ὕδατι. Τὰς δὲ προπόσεις τε καὶ φιλοτησίας, ἃς δημοσίᾳ ταῖς πόρναις προὔπινέ τε καὶ ἀντιπροὐπίνετο, ὑποκλέπτων τὸ ἀσελγὲς μυστηρίου προσχήματι, πῶς οὐ θαυμάζειν ἄξιον; Now the blowings and counter-blowings, which that admirable man, the disparager of our doctrine, displayed in rivalry to the little old women, kindling the fire of the altar, in what place of my speech shall we finally put them? For it was surely an illustrious thing to see the cheeks of the Roman emperor unbecomingly puffed out, and arousing great laughter, not in outsiders only, but even in those whom he thought to please by this means. But he did not listen to Minerva, his goddess, who is said to have cursed the pipes, after, with the waters of a mirror

used in place, she saw that they were a disgrace to her. But the toasts and cups, with which he openly and publicly challenged prostitutes and was challenged by them in turn, veiling his petulant lust under the pretext of a mystery, who would not attend with praise and admiration?

[17] and of John Chrysostom This same Julian, conducting solemn processions through the city with male lovers and prostitutes, Chrysostom exposes On St. Babylas, against Julian and the pagans, no. 14 (P. G., vol. L, p. 555).: Καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς στρατηγοὺς μὲν καὶ ἄρχοντας παρεπέμπετο καὶ οὐδενὸς ἠξίου λόγου, ἄνδρας δὲ ἡταιρηκότας καὶ τὰς ἀπὸ τέγους γυναῖκας ἀναστήσας ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκημάτων ἐν οἶς προεστήκεσαν, μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν περιῆγε καὶ τοὺς στενωπούς. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἵππος ὁ βασιλικὸς καὶ οἱ δορυφόροι πάντες ὄπισθεν ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ διαστήματος εἵποντο· πορνοβόσκοι δὲ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες προαγωγοὶ καὶ πᾶς ὁ τῶν ἡταιρηκότων χορὸς τὸν βασιλέα κυκλώσαντες εἶχον ἐν μέσῳ, διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς βαδίζοντες καὶ τοιαῦτα φθεγγόμενοι καὶ οὕτως ἀνακαγχάζοντες ὡς τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἐργασίας ἐκείνης εἰκὸς ἦν. Ταῦτα δὲ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι τοῖς μεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γενησομένοις ἄπιστα εἶναι δόξει, διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀτοπίας ὑπερβολὴν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἰδιώτην τῶν εὐτελῶς καὶ αἰσχρῶς βεβιωκότων ἑλέσθαι τοιαῦτα δημοσίᾳ ἀσχημονεῖν. Ἀλλὰ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἔτι ζῶντας οὐδενὸς δέομαι λόγου· οἱ γὰρ παρόντες καὶ θεασάμενοι ταῦτα γινόμενα, οὗτοι καὶ λεγόμενα ἀκούουσι νῦν. Διὰ γὰρ τοι τοῦτο τῶν μαρτύρων ἔτι περιόντων γράφω, ἵνα μή τίς με τὰ παλαιὰ διηγούμενον ἐν οὐκ εἰδόσι μετὰ πολλῆς ψεύδεσθαι τῆς ἐξουσίας νομίζῃ. Τῶν γὰρ ταῦτα θεασαμένων ἔτι καὶ γέροντες καὶ νέοι περίεισιν, οὓς ἀξιῶ πάντας, εἴ τι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ προστέθειται, προσιέναι καὶ διελέγχειν.

And the emperor dismissed generals and prefects and held them as nothing, but male lovers and prostitutes, led forth from the brothels where they plied their trade, he took around with him through the whole city and the alleys; and the imperial horse and all the praetorians followed far behind; pimps and procuresses and the whole company of lovers, surrounding the emperor placed in their midst, walked through the forum, tossing about such words, pouring out such guffaws, as befitted men of workshops of this kind. We know moreover that posterity will think these things incredible because of the magnitude of the absurdity; for not even a private man of those who have led a base and shameful life would wish to act so indecently in public. But to those who are still surviving no speech is needed: for those who were present and saw such things are now about to hear them. For this is why I write these things while witnesses are still alive, lest anyone should think that I, narrating certain old things to those who do not know them, am lying with great license. For of those who saw them both old men and young men still survive: all of whom I ask that, if anything has been added by me, they come forward and refute me. From which things it follows that that scene of the city of Tarsus, stirred up to offer sacrifices to Venus, which the Eustochian Acts set forth, is recognized as conformed to history; whence the veracity of the Acts cannot but be commended.

[18] are fully in accord. No less in agreement with history is the excellent answer of the martyr to Julian interrogating her thus: "What are these things that I hear about you? That you have not obeyed the order of my imperial power?" The saint answered: "I have not rejected the order of your imperial power, but you have rejected the order of almighty God. And you have made yourself reprobate. For when you worshiped God, your creator, I too with all obeyed your command. But now, you being in error, you order today that all men should adore idols: I do not consent to your order, etc. — From which it is understood that Eustochia with the rest believed that the emperor Julian had for some time followed the Christian rites. And in fact it is known from history that Julian, having gained the empire, for some time feigned to be a Christian. For according to Theodoret: Παραλαβὼν δὲ ὅμως τὴν δυναστείαν, ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἔκρυψε τὴν ἀσέβειαν· διαφερόντως γὰρ ἐδεδίει τοὺς στρατιώτας τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας εἰσδεδεγμένους μαθήματα. Nevertheless, having obtained the empire, he long concealed his impiety; for he greatly feared the soldiers who had received the doctrine of piety Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., bk. III, ch. 1 (P. G., vol. LXXXII, p. 1087).. And a little later Ibid., ch. 2.: Ταῦτα Ἰουλιανὸς σαφῶς ἐπιστάμενος, τὸ δυσσεβὲς τῆς ψυχῆς οὐκ ἐπίδηλον εἶχεν. Εἰς εὔνοιαν δὲ ἅπαντας ἐφελκόμενος, καὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ Κωνσταντίου τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἐξελαθέντας ἐπισκόπους καὶ τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς οἰκουμένης οἰκοῦντας, εἰς τὰς οἰκείας ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκκλησίας προσέταξε. Since these things were known to Julian, he did not betray the impiety of his mind. And seeking the good will of all, he ordered the bishops expelled from their churches by Constantius, who were living on the farthest shores, to return to their churches.

[19] St. Eustochia was martyred under Julian, a true persecutor. All these things being considered, we do not dare to banish among the apocryphal and spurious these Acts of St. Eustochia, displaying so genuine a face of those times in which the event is said to have occurred. We acknowledge that St. Eustochia was afflicted with horrendous punishments by the most impious Julian the Apostate and at last destined to death for her constant confession of the faith; and we number her with the holy martyrs who suffered under Julian. Of whom Ruinart reviews a sufficiently great series, the Acts of the martyrdom of many Acta Martyrum sincera et selecta, (edit. II, Amsterdam) p. 577.. We fully agree with him when he says: That Julian, surnamed the Apostate, is to be reckoned among the persecutors of the Christians, scarcely anyone can deny. For although, to use the words of Gregory Nazianzen, oration III, he retained for himself the parts of persuading and enticing, yet by allowing force and tyranny to the popular crowd and to the cities, he stirred up a greater storm than if he had persecuted the Church with open slaughters. But we think it should be added (what is manifestly clear from what has so far been adduced by us) that not by persuading only and enticing, but by applying force, and by inflicting torments and death, Julian was a persecutor of Christians. But we dissent far from the modern French writer Victor Duruy, who affirms Histoire des Romains, vol. VII, ch. 79 (edit. 1885), p. 376. that in the deeds of Julian the name of persecution is not to be pronounced, but that all is contained in a course of action sometimes devoid of prudence and counsel and in words uttered rather harshly. Nor will all the explanations by which Rendall Ibid. in note. defends Julian's fame erase from the shameless brow of the Apostate the mark of persecutor. But how another present-day author, Naville Ibid. in note., could write that it must be acknowledged and confessed that the reign of Julian is among those under which freedom of religion was held most sacred, I confess I do not know, unless, in the custom and manner of the impious of our time, he proclaims religion free only when the true religion of Jesus Christ can be pressed and harassed with impunity by any scoundrel. Jerome may indeed have said in the Chronicle: A coaxing persecution (of Julian's), enticing rather than driving to sacrifice, in which many of ours fell by their own will: yet he does not deny that Julian was a persecutor, whom elsewhere he reckons among rabid dogs and the most hostile enemies of Christ. And indeed what Jerome said can truly be said: If you compare the acts of Julian with the fury of Diocletian and of other persecutors and the frequency of their monstrous torments, in the face of so great a savagery and so great a number of Christians killed by the sword, fire, suffocation, beasts, after punishments of incredible ferocity, the persecution of Julian was coaxing, but a persecution: enticing rather, while yet often driving also to sacrifice.

[20] The character of this persecution Socrates relates That Socrates pronounced on Julian in the same sense will be doubtful to no one who has read the context of the discourse, which let the reader eager to know the truth receive here Eccles. Hist., p. III, ch. 12.: When he saw that those who had undergone martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian were honored by the Christians, and observed that many were striving with eager spirit for martyrdom: as though wishing by this very thing to take vengeance on the Christians, he himself enters on another way. And he declined indeed that excessive cruelty which had flourished in the times of Diocletian, yet he did not altogether abstain from persecution. For I call it persecution, when men living in quiet and peace are harassed in any manner whatever. And he harassed them in this way: he passed a law that Christians should not be instructed in the humane disciplines, lest, "if they had sharpened their tongue, as he said, they should answer the dialecticians of the pagans more readily." From this one may judge what historical good faith Victor Duruy used, where he dared to write: It has been said, but in error, that Christian boys were forbidden to attend the public schools. They should rather have been impelled, if it could have been done, to attend them: for in those schools pagan professors taught Op. cit., p. 372 in note.. He nevertheless affirms, from the very Socrates whom he praises Op. cit., p. 376 in note., that Julian abstained from inflicting torments and punishments on the Christian people. But in the same place Socrates affirms what Duruy denies on no authority, as is plain from the words of Socrates adduced by us to everyone reading with his eyes. Socrates then continues by enumerating the vexations which Julian inflicted on the Christians, namely that they should not serve in the palace, unless they had cast away the Christian religion: that Christians should not undertake to govern provinces: that many moreover were driven by blandishments and gifts to sacrifice: that a great quantity of gold was extorted, a monetary fine being established against those who refused to sacrifice; then attacks of the pagans on the Christians, gatherings of philosophers, and boys below the age of puberty of both sexes sacrificed through nefarious mysteries Bk. III, ch. 13.. The savagery of the governor Amachius, who ordered Macedonius, Theodulus and Tatian, kindled with zeal for the Christian religion, tortured with every kind of torment, at last to be placed on a gridiron and burned with fire set beneath Ibid., ch. 15.. Finally, on account of psalms chanted by the Christians, he who earlier boasted himself a philosopher could contain himself no longer. But easily stirred to wrath, says Socrates Ibid., ch. 19., by the reproaches of those psalms I have spoken of, he was preparing to inflict on the Christians those punishments which once Diocletian had inflicted on them. This care he entrusted to the prefect Sallust, who afflicted the youth Theodore with various punishments. From which things it is clearly evident in how true a sense Socrates spoke of a persecution set in motion by Julian against the Christians, and how ineptly Victor Duruy appealed to Socrates to remove from Julian the mark of persecutor.

[21] in accord with our acts. From the same words of Socrates can be confirmed what we established above, that the martyrdom of St. Eustochia accords with the circumstances of persons and times. For about the same time, namely when Julian was contemplating the Parthian expedition, he was, according to Socrates, preparing for the Christians those punishments which Diocletian had inflicted. Nothing therefore is to be wondered at, if so cruel a punishment was inflicted on a Christian virgin by an emperor breathing blood and fire.

[22] Bossuet does not contradict this. With equal good faith with which he praised Socrates, Victor Duruy praised Bossuet, as having called Julian's government equitable and just Op. cit., p. 276 in note.. Here for you are the words of the most learned bishop. "Here appears Julian's against the emperor

rebellion, the apostasy from the faith, the death of Constantius, the reign of Julian, his equitable administration, and the new kind of persecuting by which he afflicted the Church Discours sur l'hist. unio. Epoque XI, an. 361.." Bossuet therefore did not exempt Julian from the number of the persecutors, but pronounced him a persecutor above all. And that he called him equitable and just in administering the state, he set Julian against Constantius, whom a little before he had rightly and deservedly accused of neglect of the state. — This is the equity and good faith of those men who in our time have taken up the patronage of the most impious Apostate. Whose attempts and impious efforts will not shake the columns of ignominy which, for the perpetual abomination of that most wicked man, the highest Christian minds, I mean Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, have erected by their writings.

[23] Mention is made of St. Eustochia in the martyrologies The cult of St. Eustochia or Eustochius is manifest from the martyrologies. Maurolycus: At Tarsus of Cilicia under Julian, of St. Eustochius, virgin and martyr. The Roman Martyrology: At Tarsus in Cilicia, of St. Eustochia, virgin and martyr, who under Julian the Apostate, after dire torments, gave up her spirit in prayer. Here Baronius notes: Of her Peter in the Catalogue, bk. 10, ch. 10, where he reports her Acts, summed up in a few words. His compendium we add here: Eustochium, virgin and martyr, suffered at Tarsus of Cilicia under the emperor Julian. When he, being in that same place, had sacrificed to the gods of the pagans with all the people, he first had Eustochium, who refused to sacrifice, beaten with buffalo sinews, then ordered her to be clawed with the horns of roe-deer and her flesh to be cut up with combs *. Then her head to be flayed with the hair and nails to be driven in. And when she had most constantly borne all these things and the emperor had pronounced sentence that she be cut limb from limb and roasted in a frying pan, praying to the Lord she gave up her spirit. And she was buried by her own mother in a most hidden crypt, on the 4th day before the nones of November.

[24] On the fourth day before the nones of November. St. Eustochius is mentioned by Arturus in the Gynaeceum in almost the same words as the Roman Martyrology, and in a note he repeats Peter's compendium almost to the letter. It is worthy of note that the memory of St. Eustochia is kept in the martyrologies on the fourth day before the nones of November, although it is evident from the Acts that the blessed virgin flew to her heavenly crown on the kalends of November. I should suppose that Peter de Natalibus read the fourth day before the nones of November in his exemplar of the Acts, and that from his compendium the same day came down to the martyrologists as the day of the death of St. Eustochia.

* P. G. ἀσέβειαν.

* edit. exegeris.

* in P. G. edit. ἧττον.

* edit. Ἢ

* so it seems it should be read; edit. princeps 1483 and Lyons 1514 partibusque.

PASSION OF ST. EUSTOCHIA.

Eustochia, virgin and martyr, at Tarsus. (S.)

BHL Number: 2775

We edit the Acts of St. Eustochia from the Brussels apograph of Vatican codex no. 1190, collated with other exemplars. The series of the four exemplars is this. — 1. The Brussels apograph from Vatican codex no. 1190 (which is found in the Bollandian collections of the Royal Library of Brussels, nos. 8930 – 31). — 2. Codex IV of the Strozzi Library (from there transferred to the Laurentian, at Florence). Of parchment, in large folio, of the fifteenth century. — 3. An apograph from the Böddeken codex, which is found in the Bollandian collections of the Royal Library of Brussels, nos. 8930 – 31. — 4. Codex 663, 2 of Vallombrosa (from there transferred to the Laurentian, at Florence). Of parchment, in large folio, of the thirteenth century.

On the same day, of St. Eustochia, virgin [* In 3 (of Böddeken); Incipit passio sanctæ Eustochiæ virginis, cujus festum colitur in Calendis-Novembris.].

In the six hundred and fifty-seventh year from the founding of the city, All sacrificing to the goddess Venus, the emperor Julian ordered that all who were in his palace should sacrifice to the goddess Venus; and he himself (et i.)i. quoque 3. established a great festival, and heralds cried through the whole city that all men and women, and omits 3. young men and virgins, boys and et 3. girls, rich and simul et 3. poor should assemble. And the whole Tunc omnis 3. city was assembled at the temple Veneris adds 3., and the sound of singers canticorum 2, vociferantium 3. was carried through the whole city. And enim 3. there was a great madness in that same city, and the priests of the temples were clothed in splendid garments (spl. e. v. i.) splendidis vestimentis erant induti 3.; and rather early the king [(et m. r.) Igitur r. m.; Et rex præfatus, Julianus videlicet impiissimus, ut insaniæ populi satisfaceret, m. 3.] came into the temple, took et accepit 2; et accipiens 3. incense, and sacrificed (et i.) immolavit diis 3.: and when the king had sacrificed, the whole city sacrificed likewise (et-imm.) et una cum eo. o. c. immolavit 3..

[2] St. Eustochia reproaches their error, and spurns Julian's threats. But St. Eustochia refused to sacrifice (i. n.) n. sacrificare 3., saying: What are the isti adds 2. errors in which you err, all vos adds 2., who forsake the living verum 2. God? And in your error you sacrifice to dead gods, who are without soul. And omits 3. the prefect, hearing this hoc 3., reported to the king, saying: The virgin Eustochia has refused to sacrifice diis adds 2, 3., and by ejus 3, 4. her occasion occasionem 4. many men have refused voluerunt 4. to sacrifice. Hearing this the king was greatly angered, and (A. h. r. v. i. e. et) Tunc iratus valde Julianus 3. ordered her to be seized comprehendere 2, 4. and brought into his presence conspectum suum 3.. And when the blessed Eustochia had been brought, she stood before King Julian (Cumque-Julianum) omits 3.. He said (Q. d.) dixitque 2, 3, dixit 4. to her: What are these things that I hear about you? That you have not obeyed obaudisti 3, 4. the order præceptis 2. of my imperial power? St. Eustochia answered: I have not rejected the order præcepto 4. of your imperial power, but you have rejected the order of almighty God: and you yourself (i. t.) teipsum 4. have made yourself reprobate. For when you worshiped God, your creator, I too omits 3. with in 3. all obeyed [obaudiebam 3, 4. From here on we omit the variant readings of codex 4 (Vallombrosa 663), which scarcely differs from the text except through the copyist's errors.] your command imperium tuum 4.. But now, you being in error, you order today that all men should adore idols: I do not consent to your order more than to the order of almighty God; for all of us men ought to magnify God, who has granted us this power [(errante-potestatem) errantem te nullatenus volo sequi, sed adhærere Deo meo, a quo tu miserrime recessisti 3.]. Julian said: By the fortune of my gods I swear that, if you do not sacrifice today, I will kill te adds 3. you omits 3. with various punishments. The blessed Eustochia answered: For I rejoice that (e. u.) si 3. we may attain to his ad ejus 2, 3. palm by a good confession pertingam 3., who has crowned his saints in the heavens (i. c. c.) coronat in cœlis..

[3] [She bravely bears most atrocious torments, and in prayer gives back her spirit to God.] Julian said: Beat her with ox Bubalinis 3. sinews. And when (Et c.) Cumque 3. she was being beaten, she cried with a loud voice, saying: How sweet are the blows by which eternal life is purchased! Julian, hearing this, was greatly angered, and (audiens-et) Julianus 3. said: Claw her with the horns of roe-deer (c. c.) ferreis uncinis quoadusque consentiat vobis 3.. And when St. Eustochia was being clawed, she cried, saying: I will confess to thee, O Lord, for [(Cum-quia) Sancta igitur Eustochia cum diutius ungularetur, suspiciens in cœlum dixit: Gratias tibi ago, Domine Jesu Christe, qui 3.] thou hast held me worthy, and (h. e.) omits 3. hast made me omits 3. bear these punishments for thy name (s. p.) p. s. 3.. But itaque 3. Julian, when he had seen her enduring in pœnis adds 3., wondered how she despised such great punishment (quomodo-contemnebat) valde 3.: and he ordered that they cut up her limbs particulatim adds 3. with combs omits 3.. St. Eustochia answered dixit 3.: I have heard our omits 3. Savior and Lord meum Dominum Jesum Christum 3. saying in his holy Gospel (s. s. E.) E. suo 3.: "If anyone loses his soul for my sake, he shall find it; and if anyone finds his soul in omits 2. this time, he shall lose it in the time to come." And now (E. n.) Nunc ergo 3. whatever you wish to do (v. a.) a. v. 2. to my body, you have the power; but over my soul in anima 2, 3. mea 2, 3. you will be able to have (p. p.) poteris potestatem 3. no power. Julian said: Let her head be flayed with the hair. St. Eustochia said: O ruined beast, you eat and (O b. p. comedes et) O perdita bestia, quæ 3. violate these things ea 3, omits 2. that you have established non constituisti 2, 3.. Devise as many Igitur quantas 2. punishments as you can excogita 3.: but I will not be persuaded to sacrifice to idols without soul, which are known to have neither sight nor smell; for these * and (quia hi et) quæ cum his 2. those who worship them (quia-colent) quorum cultores 3. shall be condemned to perpetual punishments (in p. p.) perpetuis pœnis 2.. Julian said: Bring nails and fix defigite 3. them in her head, so that henceforth no one (d. n.) n. d. 3. may resist præsumat 3. our power (n. p.) p. n. 2, n. resistere p. 3.. St. Eustochia answered: Your punishments are weak and your fury (et f.) furorque 3. shameless, and your tortures have been reduced to nothing. And autem adds 3. Julian wondered omits 3. at her through all the punishments that (p o. q.) in omnibus quas 3. she bore immobilem et invictam adds 3.. Julian said to her: In these punishments, in which you see yourself placed, do you persevere? The blessed (ei-beata) ad eam: Nonne sentis, infelix, tormenta quæ pateris? Sancta 3. Eustochia answered: From the day on which my mother bore me, I have not seen such omits 3. a day of joy and gladness (g. et l.) tantæ lætitiæ et gaudii 3.. Julian said (Julianus admiratus-lætitiæ Julianus dixit) omits 2.: Bring a frying pan and fill it with oil, and atque 3. cut up concidentes 3. her body, and

put (et m.) m. illud 3. her into it sartaginem 3., that I may remove the despiser of the gods from the midst of this people. Hearing autem 2,igitur 3. this sentence, which was pronounced against her illam 2., St. Eustochia, gratulabunda adds 3. prayed to the Lord, saying: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living omits 2. God, I adore thee (t. a.) omits 3. and with my whole heart I beseech thee (e. t. c. d.) omits 2; d. te ex t. c. 3.; because qui dignam 2. thou hast held me in the glory gloriam 2. of this crown, which thou hast established for all thy saints. And now I beseech thee, Father of my Lord Jesus Christ (quia-Christi) omits 3., receive the spirit of thy handmaid et annumera me in claritate regni tui cum sanctis et electis tuis adds 3.. And thus hæc ea perorante 3. her spirit was stripped of the body susceptus adds 3.; and ab 3. angels angelis 3. from heaven (de c.) in cœlum 3. received her (s. e.) s. eum 2; omits 3.. And her mother Eustochia stole her body (R. a. c. e.) Cujus corpus rapuit 3. secretly by night, and buried her omits 3. in a most suitable abditissima 3. crypt in a new sepulcher. And the venerable Eustochia of God omits 2. was martyred in the city of Tarsus virgo Christi 3. of Cilicia Siliciæ 3; omits 2. under Julian Caesar, on the day of the kalends of November, while truly omits 3. our Lord Jesus Christ was reigning, to whom be honor and glory omits 3. unto the ages of ages. Amen.

* at the end of the preceding Life one reads on the day of the kal. of Nov.

* so it seems it should be read; in place of partibus.

* perhaps for concidis.

* apogr. hii, perhaps for hæc.