ON SS. MICHAEL AND THIRTY-SIX COMPANIONS, MONKS AND MARTYRS NEAR SEBASTOPOLIS IN ARMENIA,
PERHAPS IN THE YEAR 782 OR 788.
CRITICAL-HISTORICAL SYLLOGE.
Michael, monk and martyr, near Sebaste. (S.)
Thirty-six companions, monks and martyrs, near Sebaste. (SS.)
BY C. B.
Memory in the sacred Fasti, These thirty-seven holy monks and martyrs, inserted at this day in the Basilian Menology, in the printed Menaea of the Greeks, in Sirmond's manuscript Synaxarion and in the Lives of the Saints published by Maximus of Cythera, Galesini too inscribed in the Martyrology composed by him, and Ferrari in his general Catalogue of the Saints. Baronius, however, although he records those holy Monks crowned with martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical Annals from the Basilian Menology, yet did not mention them in the Roman Martyrology illustrated by him with notes, perhaps for this reason, that they are not announced in the Menology of the Greeks which Sirleto rendered from Greek into Latin: but since several other Saints of the Greeks, of whose holiness no one doubts, are not announced in the Sirletan Menology, it has not seemed good to imitate Baronius's example here, and, adhering to the hagiologists already cited, I grant a place in our Acts to SS. Michael and his Companions the martyrs, whom also Dorgan, Wion and Bucelin, in the sacred Fasti which they printed, numbered among the Saints of their Order, namely the Benedictine; in which, however, I cannot agree with these three hagiologists; and Bucelin I think especially to be censured for this reason, that, whereas he declared in his preface that he would hand down only those Saints of whom it is established by the credit of ancient monuments that they were of the Order of St. Benedict, he nevertheless inscribes in his Menology among the Benedictine saints St. Michael and his fellow monks, of whom, that they were of the Order of St. Benedict, it is not established by the credit of ancient monuments — as is clear even from this, that Mabillon, although otherwise not a little solicitous for claiming Saints for his Benedictine Order, nowhere numbers Michael and his Companions among the Benedictine saints, although beyond all doubt he too had the sacred Fasti of Dorgan, Wion and Bucelin before his eyes, and was thus able to examine the weight of the reasons by which those three cited hagiologists could have been led to ascribe our Saints to his Order.
[2] a eulogy from the Menaea, And so much concerning the memory of the Saints in the sacred Fasti. The Eulogy from the Menaea, with elucidation also added where it is needed, I now subjoin, rendered into Latin by me thus: These Saints, under the emperors Constantine and Irene, dwelt together in the monastery named Zobe, near Sebastopolis. And Alim, ameras (governor of a province or city) of the Agarenes (the Basilian Menology: of the Saracens), having undertaken a military expedition into that region, took the Saints: and they (when the ameras wished, as the Basilian Menology and Sirmond's Synaxarion indicate, that they should deny Christ), those blessed Fathers, strengthened by the power of Christ, resisted, and Michael, the most holy hegumen (abbot or president of the monastery), standing in the midst and instructing his own (exhorting them to constancy, as again the Basilian Menology and Sirmond's Synaxarion hint), led all to meet death for Christ; and first they (the Disciples of Michael), stretching out their necks, were beheaded, and then the most holy Michael also. Before this Eulogy two little verses are moreover set, which, with a Latin interpretation added, I likewise exhibit here:
Τμηθεὶς Μιχαὴλ σὺν μαθηταῖς τρὶς δέκα χορῷ συνήφθη τῶν μοναστομαρτύρων.
Michael with thirty disciples, cut off in the head, or with his head separated from his body, is joined to the choir of monk-martyrs.
[3] The author of the little verses plays here very frigidly the number, wrongly by Baronius on the words τέμνειν, to cut off, divide, separate, and συνάπτειν, to couple, join, in significations fighting with each other; but the number of the Disciples of Michael the hegumen or abbot he expresses only roundly by thirty, the excess over the decades being neglected; for to both the Eulogy and the little verses already transcribed here is prefixed an announcement in which not only thirty but thirty-six Disciples are attributed to St. Michael: here it is: Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων, Μιχαὴλ ἐκ τῆς μονῆς Ζώβης, καὶ τῶν σὺν ἀυτῷ λς᾽ ἁγίων Μοναχῶν, τῶν μαρτυρησάντων ἐν τῇ ἐνορίᾳ Σεβαστουπόλεως. On the same day, of the holy martyrs Michael from the monastery of Zobe, and of the thirty-six holy Monks, his companions, who underwent martyrdom near Sebastopolis. The Basilian Menology, both as it stands inserted in Ughelli, volume 6 of Italia sacra, and as it has been printed in the more recent edition by the zeal and work of the Most Eminent Cardinal Annibale Albani, likewise joins thirty-six Companions to Michael, which Sirmond's Synaxarion also does, so that there is no doubt that the little verses adduced exhibit a number of the Disciples of St. Michael smaller than is right; which would stray still further from the truth if one had to stand by the Eulogy of our Saints as Baronius inserted it from the Basilian Menology in his Ecclesiastical Annals; for in it St. Michael is narrated to have undergone martyrdom with sixty-six Companions.
[4] But since among all sensible persons that one Eulogy of our Saints produced by Baronius assigned, as also from the vitiated Eulogy,, in which sixty-six Companions are given to St. Michael, ought to count for less than the other sacred Fasti just cited, in which only thirty-six are attributed, I do not think that more Companions than thirty-six are to be attributed to St. Michael, and I suspect that Baronius had in his hands a corrupt codex of the Basilian Menology, in which the Greek arithmetical figures ξς᾽, 66, had been faultily written for the likewise Greek arithmetical figures λς᾽, 36. This suspicion is increased by this, that the same Eulogy produced by Baronius does not disclose that our Saints flourished under the emperors Constantine and Irene, which, however, all the Greek tables cited in num. 1 do, if you except the one Basilian Menology as it stands in Ughelli; so that even from this the Baronian Eulogy of our Saints may deservedly be held suspect of interpolation, as also that already mentioned which is inscribed in Ughelli in the first half-year part of the Basilian Menology, and which differs indeed from the Baronian Eulogy in this, that it at least mentions Constantine, but agrees with it in this, that, like it, it omits the name of Irene.
[5] But lest anyone, even if he already holds the Baronian Eulogy suspect such as the Ughellian also is,, should perhaps still call into doubt whether those very Greek tables in which the name of Constantine and Irene is inscribed are not rather interpolated than the Eulogy of our Saints in Ughelli, in which Constantine alone, the name of Irene being omitted, is mentioned, it will help to transcribe here from the Preface which the Basilian Menology printed in the more recent edition bears in front the words by which, that we may know what is to be thought in general of the Basilian Menology as it stands in Ughelli, it is opportunely said to our purpose: The first half-year part of the Menology which Ughelli published under the name of Pietro Arcudio we publish corrected, and provided with an almost new interpretation, by the illustrious man Giuseppe Simonio Assemani, beneficed priest of the most holy Vatican basilica, who reviewed the same Oriental codices in the Clementine-Vatican library: for it was very far removed from the Greek text, as is made plain when the collation is made: for many things were wrongly added or passed over by the interpreter; some set forth in a sense altogether other than the text allows; even the names of the Saints corrupted in places; everywhere, finally, a paraphrase rather than a faithful version is to be seen: so that the learned would scarcely believe it to be the genuine offspring of Arcudio, a man most learned in Greek and Latin, had not Ughelli affirmed it. By which words indeed I am altogether persuaded that among the things which are said to have been wrongly passed over here by Arcudio the name of Irene can rightly be counted, so that accordingly I do not doubt that the Basilian Eulogy of our Saints as it stands in Ughelli has been vitiated by interpolation by Arcudio.
[6] the time of martyrdom, which certainly And the name of Irene, as I think, Arcudio omitted here, and kept that of Constantine alone — if indeed both were marked in the Greek exemplar which he was translating into Latin — for this reason, that the one conflicted, and the other agreed very well, with the opinion of Baronius, by whom he saw the martyrdom of our Saints referred to the 16th year of Constantine Copronymus, of Christ 756, and so to a time more than 20 years earlier than the reign of Constantine and Irene. But to Baronius, although a most learned man, who beyond all doubt would have done otherwise had he had before his eyes a genuine exemplar of the Basilian Menology in which the names both of Constantine and of Irene were marked, so much ought not to have been attributed here by Arcudio, especially since the foundation on which the same Baronius seems to have relied in doing so is very weak. For he ties the martyrdom of St. Michael and his Companions to the 16th year of Constantine Copronymus, of Christ 756, solely for this reason (for no other occurs for which he should do it), that in the Basilian Eulogy our Saints are read to have been crowned with martyrdom by the amera of the Saracens, named Alim; but from this he could deservedly conclude nothing at all for determining the year in which our Saints were crowned: for either he wrongly thought that by the Amera of the Saracens their supreme prince is designated, or, as he ought (see Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Greek at the word Αμηρᾶς), only a governor of a province or city: of whichever opinion the most learned man was, it does not appear doubtful to me that, because he did not find in Theophanes or in other writers a prince named Alim who held either supreme or subordinate command among the Saracens while Constantine and Irene were reigning, he thought the martyrdom of our Saints was to be referred not to some year of the reign of Constantine and Irene, but to the 16th year of Constantine Copronymus, in whose reign there then flourished among the Saracens a certain general whom the cited Baronius, citing also Theophanes for himself, names Halim, and who, he writes, raged against Theodore, patriarch of Antioch, with a most harsh exile, and whom accordingly he judged apt to be charged likewise with the death of our Saints.
[7] But besides that the general of the Saracens who drove Theodore, patriarch of Antioch, into exile with the reign of Constantine and Irene, but from various is named by Theophanes, whom I indeed have before my eyes, not Halim but Salem, in Greek Σαλὴμ, it is very likely that under the emperors Constantine and Irene there existed several ameradae of the Saracens, that is, of provinces
or cities, governors, who — although this is by no means made known from the historians, since they do not always enumerate all the names of the generals who flourished at the time of which they write — were nevertheless called by the name Alim or Halim, a name, namely, very common in that nation, and who could have inflicted death on our Saints on the occasion of a hostile invasion; so that for this reason there would be no need to have recourse to Halim or Salem, who flourished in the reign of Constantine Copronymus, and the argument by which those tables of the Greeks in which the name of Irene is inscribed in the eulogy of our Saints could be held suspect of interpolation loses all its force. Wherefore, relying on these, I hold as indubitable — if anything can yet be held indubitable which is known only on the credit of the Menaea or similar Greek monuments — I hold as indubitable, I say, that our Saints were crowned with martyrdom under the emperors Constantine and Irene, that is, in that interval of time which lies between September of the year 780 and October of the year 790, within which bounds Pagi and all the other writers with unanimous consent include the ten years which Theophanes attributes to the reign of Constantine and Irene. And so indeed, Baronius being refuted, the martyrdom of our Saints has been fixed to a far more certain, but at the same time also more spacious, interval of time; and that it may be fixed to a narrower one too, the irruptions of the Saracens into the Roman empire under the emperors Constantine and Irene, since one of them, as is clear from the Eulogy recited in num. 2, offered our Saints the opportunity of martyrdom, must be examined, so that with the year of the irruption on the occasion of which we shall find it more likely that our Saints were slain, the year of the martyrdom too may become known, if not certain, at least more likely.
[8] Among the irruptions by which the Saracens afflicted the reign of Constantine and Irene of the Saracens in Abulpharagius, Elmacin, the more memorable is that which Harun al-Rashid, son of al-Mahdi or Almodhius, the supreme prince of the Saracens, undertook by his father's command, and which Gregory Abulpharagius, in the compendious History of the Dynasties at the year of the Hegira 165, which runs from the 28th of August of the year of Christ 781 to the 17th of August of the year 782, describes in this manner: In the year one hundred sixty-five Almodhius sent his son Alrashid to make war on the Greeks; who advanced until he came to the gulf of Constantinople. At that time the Lady of the Greeks was Irene, wife of the emperor Leo, because namely her son was a minor, his father having perished while he himself was still in the bosom (of his mother). The woman, then, fearing the Moslems (Saracens), asked peace of Rashid, concerning which it was agreed between them that a sum of money should be paid, and that guides of the way should be provided for them, and markets of saleable things (to be arranged) along the way; for he had come there by a narrow and dangerous way, on one side of which was a slippery mountain, on the other the river Sagaris: to which when she had assented (and the sum of the tribute was seventy thousand gold pieces, to be paid yearly), he withdrew from her; whereas, if she had been of prudent mind, she could easily have prevented the Moslems from returning and given them to destruction. The same irruption of the Saracens into the Roman dominions Elmacin relates in book 2 of the History of the Saracens at the year of the Hegira 164, and therefore probably Pagi tied it to the year of Christ 781, which from the 1st of January to the 27th of August coincides with the year of the Hegira 164. But it does not appear likely to me that the Saracens — who on the first occasion on which, Constantine and Irene already reigning in their first year, in the month of June or even later, and so, as it is right to gather from the preceding number, in the year 781, they had tried to invade the borders of the Roman empire, had been repulsed with great slaughter, as Theophanes relates — undertook, one or two months after receiving that slaughter (which yet, as will be clear to one considering it, must be maintained on Elmacin's opinion), such an expedition as we have already transcribed here from Abulpharagius. Wherefore here I agree not with Elmacin but with Abulpharagius, who, tying it to the year of the Hegira 165, by no means prevents its being deferred, as seems to be required, to the year of Christ 782.
[9] and Theophanes Further, Theophanes records two other expeditions besides, undertaken by the Saracens into the Roman empire under the emperors Constantine and Irene, one maritime, which happened in the year of Christ 790; the other by land. The land one, which Pagi and others join with the year of Christ 788, he describes in these words: In this year, in the month of September, the battle-lines of the Arabs (Saracens) prepared for plunder made an irruption into Romania, and penetrated into the theme of the Anatolics to the place whose name is Copidnadus. And the generals of the Romans, having gathered their forces into one, contending with them in battle, were routed. Whence very many perished, and not a few also of the squadrons of the exiles: and Diogenes, turmarch of the Anatolics, a vigorous man, and the generals of the Opsikion fell. And the maritime one in these: Meanwhile the fleet of the Arabs (Saracens) undertook an expedition against Cyprus: which when the empress (Irene) had perceived beforehand, she likewise gathered all the Roman ships and drew them up against them. And when both generals had come to Myra, having passed the promontory of the Chelidonian islands, they sent the fleet into the gulf of Attalia. And the Arabs, setting sail from Cyprus, a calm having arisen, were wandering on the sea. And when they began to see land, at once the commanders of the fleet saw them sailing up: wherefore, the fleet having been drawn up for battle, they joined battle. He then adds the constancy in the faith of Theophilus, general of the Cibyrrhaeots, who, taken by the Saracens in that expedition, was led to Harun their emperor, and, since he could be torn from the faith of Christ neither by threats nor by promises, at length, struck with the sword, obtained the palm of martyrdom.
[10] the expeditions related, with the year of Christ Perhaps many other Christians in the same expedition of the Saracens met death for Christ most bravely; but I do not think that St. Michael and his Companions were among them; for these in the often-cited tables of the Greeks are said to have suffered martyrdom near Sebastopolis; and no city which is named Sebastopolis presents itself either in Cyprus or in the regions adjacent to Cyprus, against whose inhabitants the Saracens could then have raged with fire or sword. Cellarius indeed, in the Ancient Geography, from Ptolemy, Strabo, Stephanus and other ancient geographers, assigns to the island of Eleusa a town named Sebaste, which is situated not very far from Cyprus, and which could thus then have been exposed to the ferocity of the Saracens. But that town, whatever it was, I find named Sebastopolis neither among the ancient geographers cited by the aforesaid Cellarius nor among any other writers whatever: so that there is nothing to be had hence on account of which the martyrdom of our Saints may deservedly be attributed to this maritime expedition of the Saracens. Nor is there reason for you to say that any city whatever which is called Sebaste comes indiscriminately among geographers also under the name of Sebastopolis, or the reverse; for that this is foreign to the truth we shall soon say, when we come to treat of the arena of our Saints. It must now be further inquired to which of the other mentioned expeditions of the Saracens the martyrdom of St. Michael and his Companions best fits.
[11] To the expedition which I briefly mentioned towards the end of num. 8 fits more probably with 782 or 788., and which the Saracens undertook in the first year of the reign of Constantine and Irene, in the month of June, it most probably does not fit, since they were then kept back with disgrace from the borders of the Roman empire, having received a defeat. Wherefore it is necessary that it fit one or the other of the two remaining: but which, I cannot declare for certain, so that it is defined only that our Saints probably underwent martyrdom either in the year 782 in that more memorable expedition of the Saracens which I set out in num. 8, or in the year 788 in their land expedition, which I likewise exhibited from Theophanes in num. 9. But there will perhaps also be someone who will contend that St. Michael and his Companions suffered martyrdom neither when the Saracens undertook an expedition into the Roman empire in the year 782, nor when in the year 788, for this reason, that in that former expedition they roamed only through those provinces which lie between the river Sagaris, the Mediterranean sea and the Aegean; and in the latter only through the Anatolic Theme, or that division of the Roman empire in which, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, On the Themes, book 1, Phrygia Salutaris and Pacatiana, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, Pisidia and Lycia are contained; from all which regions Armenia, in which we place below the arena of our Martyrs, is too far distant for the Saracens to have been able to burst into it then. But why could not, the chief part of the army of the Saracens being occupied either at the Sagaris or in the theme of the Anatolics under the principal general, another part, consisting chiefly of skirmishing troops or light-armed soldiers, have burst under inferior generals into Armenia, although somewhat distant, to take plunder and to distract the enemy's forces? And if that displease, it at least cannot be denied that the Saracens could then have invaded Armenia when, undertaking the expedition of either the year 782 or 788, they made their march through Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, which two provinces have Armenia bordering on them; so that it always remains credible that the irruption of the Saracens into Armenia, of which the Eulogy of our Saints in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks speaks, happened either in the year 782 or 788, and thus that Michael and his Companions obtained the palm of martyrdom in one or the other year. Now I proceed to determine the place in which our Saints entered the glorious contest for the faith.
[12] In the List of Saints prefixed to this day I marked St. Michael and his thirty-six Companions Where and which was as near Sebaste, deceived by the example of the interpreter of the Basilian Menology, of Galesini, Ferrari and Arcudio; but afterwards, namely in the title of this Sylloge, near Sebastopolis. For, the matter having been better examined, I found that Σεβαστουπόλιν, near which city in the tables of the Greeks our Saints, the irruption having been made by the Saracens, are said to have contended, is not also to be called Sebaste or Sebastia, but solely Sebastopolis, as Baronius rightly called it. For since I nowhere find Myrina named Sebastopolis by the writers of the middle age or those more ancient, and since it does not appear likely that the Saracens under the emperors Constantine and Irene made a hostile irruption either into Colchis, as being distant by a much longer space than Armenia, of which the preceding number speaks, from the regions which they then invaded, or into the parts neighbouring on Samaria, as being then held by them in peaceful possession, it follows that by Sebastopolis, into whose neighbourhood the Eulogy of our Saints discloses that the Saracens burst, there is designated neither Myrina, formerly a city of Aeolis, which, on the testimony of Pliny, also called itself Sebastopolis; nor Samaria, if perchance this too is anywhere named Sebastopolis; nor finally Sebastopolis, in Pliny and Ptolemy a city of Colchis. From which, since besides these cities and Sebaste mentioned in num. 10 — all of which can be called by the name of Sebastopolis only doubtfully, Sebastopolis of Colchis alone excepted, of which, however, we have already seen that it is not treated here either — there occurs moreover in Armenia a city which is certainly called Sebastopolis, it further follows that this very city is most probably designated in the Eulogy of our Saints, and was the arena of their Martyrdom.
[13] the arena of martyrdom. And this city, both by Pliny and the other ancients and by the geographers of the middle age, is most constantly called by the sole name of Sebastopolis, so that doubt
there is none for me that it cannot be called indiscriminately now Sebasta, now Sebastopolis: for that could perhaps be done only if at least one author of good note had taught it by his example, which I, after long and diligent examination, could not find. And indeed, if that city were so called indiscriminately, it would be most incongruous: for since there is found in Armenia besides another city, which in the Notitiae of the Greek bishoprics at the end of Codinus On the Offices is the head of Armenia Prima, and holds the eleventh place among the metropolitan churches, and has Sebastopolis as its first suffragan, called in turn most constantly by the name Sebasta or Sebastia, if Sebastopolis were called indiscriminately by the name of Sebaste, or Sebaste by the name of Sebastopolis, from the name of Sebaste or of Sebastopolis alone, without a mark of distinction, which however I see nowhere employed by the writers, it could not be understood whether the discourse was being held by them of the Sebasta or Sebastopolis which is the metropolitan church, or of the Sebasta or Sebastopolis which is only a suffragan. And although nothing altogether certain can be drawn from this for the appellation of Sebastopolis or of Sebaste, it is clear at least that Sebastopolis is more fitly called by the sole name of Sebastopolis, and Sebaste by the sole name of Sebaste; nay, since our Saints in the announcement which is set before the Eulogy of the Menaea, and elsewhere, are indicated to have been crowned with martyrdom ἐν τῇ ἐνορίᾳ Σεβαστουπόλεως, that is, in the neighbourhood of Sebastopolis, it does not seem doubtful either that they are announced more suitably to the Greek text as near Sebastopolis than as near Sebaste.