ON SS. FELIX AND EUSEBIUS, AT TERRACINA IN CAMPANIA,
AT AN UNCERTAIN TIME.
CommentaryFelix, martyr at Terracina. (S.)
Eusebius, martyr at Terracina. (S.)
BY H. D.
[1] From the Passion of SS. Caesarius and Julian, These martyrs, whose names the Hieronymian codices pass over in silence, are announced in a few words by the old Roman martyrology: At Terracina, of Felix the priest and Eusebius the monk. A more prolix elogium of them is woven by Bede, Rabanus, Ado and Usuard, expressed in almost the same words. Let us hear Ado alone for all. In the city of Terracina in Campania, the natal day of Saints Felix the priest and Eusebius the monk, in the times of the emperor Claudius. This Eusebius, namely, when he had buried the holy martyrs Julian and Caesarius, and, praying and fasting at their tombs, was converting many to the faith, whom Felix the priest baptized, both were seized by Leontius, son of Leontius the consular, chiefly for this reason, that Caesarius had made his father a Christian; and, led to his tribunal and not overcome, they were then shut up in prison, and that same night, since they would not sacrifice, were beheaded and thrown into the river. Their bodies came all the way to the sea and were cast back onto the shore, and were found by a certain priest of Capua named Quartus. He soon put them on a vehicle, brought them to his house, and, searching carefully, found the heads too, and, joining them to the bodies, buried them beside St. Caesarius D. Giorgi, Martyrologium Adonis (Rome, 1745), pp. 563–64..
These things are taken word for word from the Passion of SS. Caesarius and Julian, as it was published at the 1st of November from the Florentine codex Acta Sanctorum, November vol. I, pp. 118–20; BHL., 1513.. If you except a very brief epitome of the same narrative BHL. 1515., under every form of it exactly the same facts, though in somewhat different phrasing, are set forth about the two saints [Of Saints Felix and Eusebius there is passing mention in the menaea of the Greeks at the 7th of October, where Saints Julian and Caesarius are treated. Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, p. 118.].
[2] which is not credible, A single document, then, which is the source of all the others, must be considered, namely the Passion of SS. Caesarius and Julian, about which one of our predecessors discoursed with such fullness that I should gladly make an end of speaking here, did I not think it necessary to speak a little more closely about its historical credibility. The whole question, namely, turns on this, whether out of the four or five recensions of the Passion of Caesarius at least one can be designated which flowed in some way from older authentic Acts or from historical sources. And this indeed was held to be affirmed by the one who wrote the commentary on St. Caesarius Acta Sanctorum, November vol. I, p. 86, n. 12.. But you would look in vain for solid arguments for this opinion; indeed, the whole structure of those Acts appears to be that which is to be found in so many merely fictitious narratives, from which, if you take away the names of certain illustrious saints, and the fact that they suffered death for Christ and were buried in such a place, you would retain nothing but fable. These things have been said so often when we were treating other similar matters that it is tedious to unfold them again [On the Acts of Caesarius consult also Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. II, pp. 172, 573; R. De la Blanchère, Terracine, Essai d'histoire locale (Bibliothèque des écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, XXIV), pp. 148–53.].
[3] whatever is taken In the same rating as the whole Passion must be held that part which treats of today's saints Felix and Eusebius, and it is most certain that everything narrated about them was devised by the compiler. That one was a priest, by what right it is believed, I do not see; that the other was a monk is certainly false, since there were no monks at that time. Nor is it worth the trouble to discourse about the time at which they underwent martyrdom. For in similar Passions any emperor hostile to Christians is brought in at pleasure. Add that you would try in vain to reconcile the chronology of the Acts of Caesarius with the Acts of Domitilla; and if you say that the dates of the latter are not accurate, I shall reply the same with equal right about the Passion of Caesarius.
[3] is narrated about SS. Felix and Eusebius. However much our Acts are destitute of historical credibility, we have not on that account denied that St. Caesarius himself existed in the nature of things. For we have certain arguments, from the cult shown to him from antiquity, that he fell as a martyr and was given burial at Terracina. Would that a similar tradition were available about Saints Felix and Eusebius. But neither in the memory of the peoples nor in the ancient fasti has a record of them been preserved. Nor let there be set against this
the martyrologies which we cited at the beginning. For whatever they have about our saints is borrowed from the Passion of Caesarius itself, whose author is therefore the only witness to be heard. Now, as it is customary with the hagiographers of the middle age to intermingle in their narratives not only deeds devised by themselves but also invented names of men who play their parts in the action, so a doubt always remains when we have no testimony from elsewhere about any saints. Besides Saints Felix and Eusebius, the compiler brought into the appendix of the Acts of Caesarius a certain other, of whom presently, namely Quartus of Capua. Since he did not invent him, as will be shown, but drew him from authentic fasti, we may suspect that Felix and Eusebius were derived from a similar source, though one inaccessible to us. We must be content with this slight indication by way of argument. I do not deny that the people of Terracina are today persuaded that under the high altar of the cathedral church rest the bodies of the holy martyrs Caesarius, Julian, Felix and Eusebius Cf. Acta Sanctorum, November vol. I, p. 95, n. 51.. But what has been handed down to us about the relics of Terracina is so uncertain, as will be manifest to one reading the commentary on the relics of SS. Caesarius and Julian Ibid., n. 50–56., that experts will readily concede that one must refrain from bringing forward such proofs.