ON ST. ELEUTHERIUS AND COMPANIONS, MARTYRS AT NICOMEDIA IN BITHYNIA,
AT NICOMEDIA IN BITHYNIA.
In the year 303.
SYLLOGE.
Eleutherius, at Nicomedia in Bithynia. (S.)
Companion martyrs, at Nicomedia in Bithynia. (SS.)
BY C. B.
The little Roman Martyrology today announces Eleutherius and other innumerable Martyrs in this manner: Memorial in the sacred Fasti, the elogium At Nicomedia, of Eleutherius and innumerable others, whom the enraged Diocletian, on account of the burning of the palace, slew with various torments out of hatred for the Christian name. Ado, Notker and Usuard also announce them, to whom, however, whatever Baronius and Florentinius may think otherwise in the annotations to the Roman and the Hieronymian Martyrology, you would only wrongly add the Venerable Bede as well, since the genuine Martyrology of Bede is empty on this day. Let the same judgment be passed on the Hieronymian Copies as regards the second part of the announcement: for these commemorate, most briefly, not Eleutherius with innumerable other Martyrs, but Eleutherius alone, omitting also the time and the kind of martyrdom; they add only that the acts of St. Eleutherius are extant; which, however, Rabanus, although following the example, or rather the authority, of the Hieronymian ones, he commemorates Eleutherius alone without the Companion Martyrs, probably passed over in silence for this reason, that he had nowhere found the acts of our holy martyr Eleutherius which he might suspect to be those designated in the Hieronymian ones. Certainly I, whatever diligence I have also applied, have not been able to find such or any other acts of St. Eleutherius, nor further do I think that they are to be found anywhere, unless, as will perhaps please someone, you choose to call acts of St. Eleutherius the elogium of our Saints which is inscribed in most Martyrologies on the present day. That was composed by Ado, and the whole of it almost word for word, excepting only those things which pertain to St. Eleutherius in particular, and whence these became known to Ado you would enquire in vain, is drawn from chapter 6 of book 8 of Eusebius as interpolated by Rufinus, as whoever compares the cited chapter of Rufinus with Ado's elogium of our Saints will very easily perceive; and for that reason too it will be helpful to have transcribed it here.
[2] Here it is: At Nicomedia, the heavenly birthday of St. Eleutherius, martyr under Diocletian, from Ado in whose time it happened that some part of the palace (Diocletian's palace at Nicomedia) was consumed by fire. The emperor, on a false suspicion, presumed this to have been done by the Christians: whereupon, inflamed with inestimable fury, he orders all the Christians, gathered together in heaps, some to be cut down with the sword, others to be burned with fire. The first of these, and the one who exhorted all to lay down their lives bravely for Christ, was Eleutherius. Finally, when the attending officers asked each one whether perchance they wished to be released on condition of sacrificing, both men and women would not even suffer themselves to be questioned, but of their own accord either rushed into the flames, or vied with one another in offering their necks to the striking swords. And when now to those very spectators
the excess of cruelty was causing horror, the ministers of crimes cast a part of the people into little boats, carried them out into the middle of the sea, and there, as they persisted in the profession of the faith, hurled them into the deep. So far indeed did the rage of cruelty blaze up among them, that the royal pages (the servants of the palace, against whom they had already raged before), who had been made martyrs, when they had been committed to burial according to the order of humanity, they dug up anew and threw their bodies into the sea, saying: Lest perchance they be made gods of the Christians. But blessed Eleutherius, long tortured with most savage torments, since he himself was rendered stronger through each several torment, completed the martyrdom of his victory, tried like gold in the fire; whose relics the Christians, carrying them off by stealth, laid to rest at Nicomedia in venerable burial.
[3] The present-day Roman Martyrology and Usuard hand down almost the same things in abridgement; and in the present-day Roman, from which the latter, however, differs from the former and from Ado in this, that he makes no mention of the burning of Diocletian's palace, on the occasion of which our Saints were crowned with martyrdom; but this is peculiar in him, that, contrary to what I observe is done in all the other sacred Fasti, he attributes to St. Eleutherius the title of soldier. Wherefore, since, the difference between Usuard and the present-day Roman having already been assigned, it will easily come about that from the one it becomes known what is to be thought of the other, I subjoin only the words of the present-day Roman, which are these: At Nicomedia, of St. Eleutherius, soldier and martyr, with innumerable others, who, when the palace of Diocletian had been consumed by fire, being falsely accused of this crime, at the command of the same most savage emperor were slain in heaps: of whom some were cut down with the sword, and others were burned with fire, others were hurled into the sea: but the first of these, Eleutherius, since, long tortured, he was rendered stronger through each several torment, completed the martyrdom of his victory, tried like gold in the fire. Many more recent martyrologists have likewise inserted our Saints, with an elogium not dissimilar, into the Martyrologies they composed; but since they supply nothing which they did not learn either from Ado, Usuard or the present-day Roman, I do not judge it worth the trouble to review them here.
[4] and by other martyrologists, whether a general Further, our Sollerius asserts in his Usuard that here probably all those most valiant athletes who were crowned with martyrdom at Nicomedia on the occasion of the famous burning of Diocletian's palace are celebrated under one announcement. Tillemont agrees with Sollerius: for he says in tome V of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 25, that today a general commemoration of the Nicomedian Martyrs who suffered on the occasion of the burning of Diocletian's palace is instituted by Usuard, Ado and the present-day Roman Martyrology. This Ado indeed most clearly intimates in words not at all doubtful; but not so Usuard and the author of the present-day Roman; for the former joins to St. Eleutherius absolutely all the Christians who suffered at Nicomedia on the occasion of the said fire, whereas the latter, from the little Roman Martyrology, which is more ancient than Ado, Usuard and the present-day Roman, perhaps correcting Ado, join to St. Eleutherius only an innumerable multitude of them. Wherefore, since less can be conveyed by an innumerable multitude of things or persons than by the whole number of the same, it is by no means certain to me on every side that today not only a huge multitude of the Nicomedian Martyrs, but also the whole number of them, is celebrated by the little Roman, and by Usuard and the present-day Roman, which probably followed the little Roman here. For if that were done, since among the Nicomedian Martyrs there is also reckoned Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, surely more illustrious than Eleutherius, it would indeed be strange that in the little Roman, and something more still in Usuard and the present-day Roman, the name of Eleutherius alone should be expressly recorded, as the chief and standard-bearer of the rest. For as to the fact that Ado, although he institutes a general commemoration of all those who underwent martyrdom at Nicomedia on the occasion now so often mentioned, nevertheless speaks of Eleutherius as of a person more eminent among them, I think this probably arose from this, that this martyrologist judged that by Eleutherius and the innumerable Martyrs whom he saw announced today by the little Roman, absolutely all the Christians slain for the faith at Nicomedia on the occasion so very often mentioned (which, however, the words of the little Roman did not require) were most certainly to be understood, and that therefore whatever he found written generally in Rufinus concerning the Nicomedian Martyrs who followed Anthimus was to be applied to St. Eleutherius and his companion Martyrs, not noticing that this opinion of his agreed ill with the dignity of Anthimus, bishop of the Nicomedians, to whose prejudice he calls Eleutherius the first, and the one who exhorted all.
[5] of all the Nicomedian martyrs But, someone will say, if today in the Martyrologies not all the Nicomedian Martyrs generally are announced, which of them then are announced? Firmianus Lactantius, in the book On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chapter 15, describes the butchery exercised by Diocletian at Nicomedia against the Christians after the second burning of the imperial palace in such a manner that he sufficiently intimates that all those most valiant athletes who were crowned in it did not suffer on one and the same day, and affords a handle for distributing them into three different classes: to the first of which would belong the eunuchs and others who discharged the chief offices in Diocletian's palace itself, against whom, as being more suspected of having kindled the fire, it is very probable that fury was first vented; to the second the presbyters and other ministers of the Church, among whom therefore is to be reckoned Anthimus, bishop of the Nicomedians, concerning whom Eusebius, book 8, chapter 6, having narrated the martyrdom of Gorgonius and Dorotheus and very many others who ministered in the palace, writes thus: Then also Anthimus, bishop of the church of Nicomedia, was beheaded for the confession of Christ in the same city (of Nicomedia); and finally to the last, the promiscuous and innumerable multitude of the people, against whom fury was vented only in the last place. Let us hear Lactantius himself: The emperor therefore raged, he says in the place cited, now not only against his household, but also against all … the once most powerful eunuchs were slain, through whom the palace and he himself (Diocletian) had formerly stood. Behold the first class of Nicomedian Martyrs intimated by Lactantius; the second he designates in these words, which he subjoins immediately to those already cited: The presbyters and ministers were seized and, without any proof, condemned upon confession, and were led off with all their households; and then, a few things intervening, he defines the last in these: Nor did the persecution fall less violently upon the rest of the people. For judges, dispersed through all the temples, compelled everyone to sacrifices. The prisons were full.
[6] And this indeed is probably the order in which, as will be plain to one who considers it, Lactantius indicates that the Nicomedian Martyrs, after the burning of Diocletian's palace, a commemoration is made, were put to martyrdom; and if he conformed it exactly to the order in which they were truly crowned, then not only were these Nicomedian Martyrs rightly distributed into three different classes, but they also suffered on at least as many different days. Now I come to the matter. I strongly suspect that only the last class of Nicomedian Martyrs, which did not suffer on the same day as the two former, is designated by Eleutherius and the other innumerable Martyrs announced today in the Martyrologies; for thus everyone will understand that Eleutherius alone, by express name, could most rightly be set down by the little Roman as the chief among those with whom he was crowned with martyrdom, without any prejudice to Anthimus, bishop of the church of Nicomedia; nor is there reason why anyone should perhaps contend that the Martyrs of that last class suffered on the same day as Anthimus, bishop of the Nicomedians, and are therefore also announced so in the Martyrologies, from this, that Rufinus, book 8, chapter 6, having narrated the martyrdom of Anthimus, presently subjoins: Him, however (Anthimus), as a truly good shepherd going before on the way of martyrdom, almost the whole multitude of his flock follows; for besides the fact that Martyrs who suffered on the same day are not always announced on the same day in the Martyrologies, it can rightly be said that almost the whole multitude of the flock followed its shepherd Anthimus in martyrdom, although it poured out its blood for Christ not on the same day as he, but only one or two days after, or even later.
[7] Further, since the discussion has slipped onto the time at which our Saints underwent martyrdom, what the time of the martyrdom is, I am led by the fitness of the matter to determine it now as nearly as can be done, although meanwhile no one assigns for certain the month, no one the day, of the martyrdom of our Saints. For the present day, on which they are announced in the sacred Fasti, is probably not the one on which they contended for the faith with the shedding of their blood, but the one which those to whom it belonged chose at their discretion. For the Nicomedian Martyrs slain by Diocletian on the occasion now very often mentioned, of whom our Saints also were a great part, all consummated their martyrdom, as is openly gathered from chapters 14, 15 and 16 of the cited Lactantius, in the time which intervenes between the burning of Diocletian's palace and Diocletian's departure from the city of Nicomedia towards Rome; and since that fire, as again is drawn out of chapters 12, 13 and 14 of the cited Lactantius, happened in the year 303, the winter not yet having passed, while Diocletian's departure towards Rome most probably took place before October of the same year had begun, for Diocletian's haste (see again Lactantius, chapter 17) to the vicennalia, to be celebrated at Rome that year on the 20th of November, does not permit it to be deferred so long, it follows that our Saints were crowned with martyrdom in the year 303 before the month of October; indeed, that they were crowned some five months earlier still appears from Eusebius. For he, in book 8, chapter 6, having narrated the martyrdom of St. Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, and of almost the whole of his flock, presently subjoins: And these things indeed were done at Nicomedia at the very beginning of the persecution; from which words, since the persecution of Diocletian, as all now everywhere admit, took its beginning on the 23rd of February in the year 303, it becomes probable that St. Anthimus and almost the whole of his flock, and therefore also our Saints, underwent martyrdom either towards the end of March or in the month of April, for you would not equally rightly call the later months the beginning of a persecution begun in February; the very same thing is urged also by Diocletian's headlong fury in punishing the Christians after the burning of the palace.
[8] and which Eleutherius it is whom alone they name. However, Tillemont, in the Persecution of Diocletian, article 9, page 25, believes that St. Eleutherius, who is announced today in the Martyrologies of the Latin Church, could have been that Eleutherius who is inscribed on the 4th of August in most of the sacred Fasti of the Greeks; Baillet judges the same in the Lives of the Saints at the 2nd of October; but this opinion, as also seemed already before to our Predecessors at St. Eleutherius who is venerated on the 4th of August, the Acts of our Eleutherius and of that one, even cursorily inspected, overthrow, so that it is not necessary to confute it at greater length. Hence further it follows that that church of a certain Eleutherius, martyr, which, as may be seen in Du Cange in Christian Constantinople, book 4, page 123, existed at Constantinople, and indeed only a single one, was not that of our Eleutherius, although it may truly have been that of the Eleutherius who is venerated by the Greeks on the 4th of August, as our Janning contends it was, in tome 1 of June, page 395, with whom Tillemont in the place just cited does not disagree; but on the contrary Papebroch at the 18th day of April, and then Boschius in tome 1
of August, page 320, have rightly claimed the said church for St. Eleutherius, bishop and martyr, who is celebrated by the Greeks on the 15th of December and by the Latins on the 18th of April; and that very opportunely for our purpose, since it hence becomes certain that the said church of Constantinople can in no way be attributed to our Eleutherius, even if, contrary to what has been said, he were the same as the Eleutherius who is venerated on the 4th of August, which otherwise would have had to be investigated by a longer and more laborious examination.