Thraseas

ON ST. THRASEAS, BISHOP AND MARTYR, MORE PROBABLY AT SMYRNA IN ASIA MINOR,

ABOUT THE YEAR 171.

CRITICAL SYLLOGE.

Thraseas, bishop and martyr, more probably at Smyrna in Asia Minor. (Saint)

BY C. B.

The Little Roman Martyrology, or the Old one, today announces at Eumenia, which is a city of Phrygia Pacatiana in Asia Minor, The Saint, who by the martyrologists, now called by the Turks Eixalhisar or Einashisar, St. Thraseas, bishop and martyr, briefly in these words: At Eumenia, of Thrasca, bishop, crowned at Smyrna, who was one of the ancients. The author of that most ancient Martyrology, who is the first of all the martyrologists to mention St. Thraseas (for I do not think him the same as St. Tarsus, assigned to Phrygia in the Hieronymian martyrologies on the 27th of October), most probably drew this announcement from Eusebius as interpolated by Rufinus, whom he very often follows as his guide elsewhere too, book 5, chapter 24; for there, in the letter written by Polycrates, bishop of the Ephesians, to St. Victor I, Pope, in defence of the custom by which the Asians celebrated the Paschal feast on the fourteenth moon, Thraseas the bishop is listed among the most illustrious men who had kept that custom in Asia, in this manner: Likewise also Traseas, bishop at Eumenia, but consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna *. Since these words, as regards their principal substance, signify the same as the announcement of the Little Roman cited above, it is surely most probable that that announcement flowed from them, and hence from Eusebius as interpolated by Rufinus.

[2] Furthermore, not only the author of the Little Roman, but, besides a good many more recent ones, is celebrated today also by the ancient or classical ones, whom it is not worth the trouble to list here, three other older or classical martyrologists besides, namely Ado, Usuard and Notker, likewise celebrate the Saint today; and the first of these does so in a somewhat more extended statement. He noticed, that is, that in Rufinus's Eusebius mention is made of Thraseas not only in the place just cited, but also in book 5, chapter 18, where the following occurs: He (namely Apollonius, in the book written against the Montanists) also mentions a certain martyr Tharseas *, who asserted that he had received, as it were from the tradition of those before him, that the Saviour had commanded His disciples not to depart from Jerusalem before the twelfth year; hence, in place of the shorter announcement which the Little Roman supplies, he substituted this somewhat fuller one: At Eumenia, of blessed Thraseas, bishop, consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna, who, one of the ancients, asserted that he had received, as it were from the tradition of those before him, that the Saviour had commanded His Apostles not to depart from Jerusalem before the twelfth year. But did the martyrologist of Vienne do this on a plan that can be adequately approved?

[3] and that he asserted what he did not assert is related by Ado from Rufinus, By no means: for, deceived by the faulty interpretation of Eusebius made by Rufinus, he wrongly attributes to Thraseas what Eusebius most plainly refers to Apollonius. That the matter may become manifest, let us consult the Greek text itself which this writer supplies, likewise in book 5, chapter 18, when speaking of Apollonius, an ecclesiastical writer, as he says. It runs thus: Καὶ Θρασέα δὲ τινος τῶν τότε μαρτύρων μνημονέυει. Ἔτι δὲ ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως τόν Σωτῆρα φησὶ προστεταχέναι τοῖς ἀυτοῦ ἀποστόλοις ἐπὶ δώδεκα ἔτεσι μὴ χωρισθῆναι τῆς Ιἑρουσαλήμ. To these words surely, as anyone not wholly a stranger and foreigner in the Greek language will confess, there fits not the interpretation which Rufinus adapted to them in the place just cited, but this one: He (namely Apollonius) mentions also a certain Thraseas among the martyrs of those times. Moreover he relates as from tradition that the Saviour commanded His Apostles not to depart from Jerusalem within twelve years; where the assertion about a precept understood from tradition, which the Saviour gave to His Apostles, is most plainly referred to Apollonius, and hence is wrongly ascribed to Thraseas, from the faulty interpretation of Eusebius by Rufinus, by Ado, whom Notker also followed in this matter.

[4] wrongly by Usuard and others Usuard, surely more prudently, wholly neglecting that assertion, contracted Ado's announcement thus: At Eumenia, of blessed Traseus *, bishop, consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna. Yet not even so does that martyrologist deserve the praise of complete accuracy. For since he notes the Saint as crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna, he wrongly, following in the footsteps of Ado and the Little Roman, announces him at Eumenia. I show the matter thus. Neither the genuine Eusebius nor the one interpolated by Rufinus, from whom the commemoration of St. Thraseas was first brought into the sacred Fasti already mentioned, anywhere makes mention of an ecclesiastical cult that was at some time paid to him at Eumenia, so that most probably the Saint never at any time enjoyed this sacred honour there, since it cannot be proved from any other source either. Wherefore, since it seems he could fittingly be announced at Eumenia only by reason either of ecclesiastical cult or of martyrdom obtained there, and yet he is noted by Usuard as having suffered at Smyrna, he is surely wrongly announced at Eumenia both by him and by Ado and the author of the Little Roman, whom he had as his lights going before him, and that even if it be established that he had this city as the arena of his contest, as indeed, from what is to be discussed, he perhaps did have.

[5] Nor may you reply that Thraseas could have been announced at Eumenia by Usuard and the martyrologists who preceded him he is placed at Eumenia; because he was bishop of this city; for this, however perhaps not foreign to the truth, cannot, as what is to be said will reveal, be proved consonant with the truth unless it be established at the same time that the Saint suffered martyrdom there; which, although perhaps it too, according to what is to be argued, is not foreign to the truth, nevertheless cannot be reconciled with the other part of the announcement supplied by the said martyrologists, in which Thraseas is noted as crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna. Moreover, the memory of holy prelates is not usually attached by martyrologists to the cities which they governed, unless some other title than this be present. Notker perhaps observed these things, since he announces the Saint at Eumenia after Ado's example, yet does not note that he suffered at Smyrna; perhaps also Baronius and the others, most learned men, who reformed the present Roman martyrology observed them. So I suspect, because in it they commemorate Thraseas without expressing the place to which his memory is to be attached. The words in which they do so are these: On the same day (the 5th of October), the birthday of blessed Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia, consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna. So they, rightly indeed not announcing our Saint at Eumenia; but do they rightly make him bishop of Eumenia, and yet note that he was crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna?

[6] That this is surely done wrongly, and that the Saint more probably obtained at Eumenia neither the crown of martyrdom nor here, as from the words which Polycrates about him nor the episcopate, you will understand from the interpretation that must be fitted to these few Greek words about Thraseas supplied by the Polycrates praised above (for the other ancient writers suggest nothing further that is sufficiently to the point) in Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24, and in Nicephorus Callistus, book 4, chapter 37: Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, ὃς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται· which, being of quite ambiguous meaning, I find rendered in Latin in four different ways by Langus, who made Callistus Latin, and by three interpreters of Eusebius, namely Rufinus, Christophorson and Valesius. The first of these four writers offers this interpretation: Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia, and likewise martyr, who died at Smyrna; the second, that one: Thraseas, bishop at Eumenia, but consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna; the third, this one: Thraseas, bishop and martyr, born at Eumenia, who departed this light at Smyrna; and the fourth, finally, proposes the following: Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia and martyr, who rests at Smyrna.

[7] Of these four interpretations the Rufinian displeases supplies, with various interpretations, first of all for this reason, that it renders in Latin the former part of Polycrates's words, which have already been transcribed here, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, thus: Thraseas, bishop at Eumenia; which manner of interpreting, since it does not include a Latin word answering to this Greek μάρτυς, is beyond all doubt not exact enough. Moreover, as will be plain to one who considers what is to be said, it labours under the same defect on account of which I now prove that the interpretation which Langus fashioned must likewise be rejected: it makes Thraseas bishop of Eumenia, or at Eumenia, in such a way as to signify openly at the same time that he was a martyr, or underwent martyrdom, not there but at Smyrna. But in fact, since of these words of Polycrates already transcribed here, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, the last two, ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, refer equally to the word μάρτυς, in Latin martyr, as to the word ἐπίσκοπος, in Latin bishop, it is certainly necessary that, if you wish it to be signified by them from Polycrates that Thraseas was bishop of Eumenia, or held the episcopate at Eumenia, you admit that it is signified by the same words from Polycrates that he also underwent martyrdom there. Who then would admit as legitimate (the same of number 5 of the present Roman given

announcement let judgment be the same) the interpretation fitted to Polycrates above by Rufinus and Langus, by which Thraseas is related to have been indeed bishop at Eumenia, or to have held the episcopate there, yet to have undergone martyrdom not there as well, but at Smyrna?

[8] and chiefly indeed those which Valesius And let these things said for disapproving the interpretations of Rufinus and Langus suffice; let us now discuss those which Valesius and Christophorson composed. The Greek words of Polycrates recited just above, if they are taken by themselves, can surely be turned not unfittingly into the Latin tongue in two different ways, of which the one, which Valesius followed, runs thus: Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia and martyr; while the other, which Christophorson preferred, is couched in these words: Thraseas, bishop and martyr, born or originating at Eumenia. So I judge, if only from this, that both these ways have a foundation in Eusebius himself: the former in book 5, chapters 16 and 19 of the Ecclesiastical History which this writer composed, whose Greek words Ἰουλιανὸς ἐπίσκοπος ἀπὸ Άπαμείας, and Ἄιλιος Πούπλιος Ἰούλιος ἀπὸ Δεβελτοῦ κολονείας τῆς Θράκης ἐπίσκοπος are rendered in Latin by absolutely all interpreters, as regards their substance, thus: Julian, bishop of Apamea, or at Apamea, and, Aelius Publius Julius, bishop of Develtus, a colony of Thrace; the latter in book 5, chapter 16 of the same Ecclesiastical History, towards the end, whose Greek words Καὶ ὃτι τοῦτο ἀληθὲς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων χρόνων ἐν Ἀπαμεία τῇ πρὸς Μαιάνδρῳ τυγχάνει γεγενημένον, ἐν τοῖς περὶ γάἳον καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον ἀπὸ Ἐυμενείας μαρτυρήσασι πρόδηλον sound thus in Latin, word for word: And that this is true, and was done in our times at Apamea, which is situated on the Maeander, is manifest in Caius and Alexander, born at Eumenia, who suffered martyrdom.

[9] and Christophorson fashioned, both to that as one of those, Moreover, no less among any other Greek writers whatever than here in the examples adduced from Eusebius, a place-name expressed in the genitive case, preceded by the preposition ἀπὸ, where motion is not denoted, either signifies the place where someone was born, or at any rate attributes to the substantives, whether one or several, to which it refers, a denomination taken from the very place whose name it is. Since, therefore, the two ways of interpreting which Valesius and Christophorson here used are fashioned according to this norm of the Greeks, there is surely no reason why either should be held without doubt to be unfit, if, that is, as I have said, these Greek words to which they answer, already transcribed here at number 6 and again at number 7, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, are taken by themselves; but if, as they ought, they are considered together with those which immediately follow them in Polycrates (see number 6), ὃς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται, only the way of interpreting, or, to speak more briefly, the interpretation, employed by Christophorson seems admissible. For the Greek words just transcribed here more probably signify that St. Thraseas met his last day not at Eumenia, as the Valesian interpretation has it, but at Smyrna, as the Christophorsonian has it, as I shall show below, after I have noted some things conducive to that end. The verb Κοιμᾶσθαι, like the verb to sleep which answers to it, can be taken either properly or in a transferred or metaphorical sense. Taken in the former way, it signifies to take sleep or to compose oneself for taking sleep; in the latter, it signifies to be dead, or to enjoy the rest proper to the dead, that is, the sleep of death, or also (let it be permitted to use these and similar phrases here from now on) to pass from life to that sleep; for since, just as those who sleep are free from labours and, after a delay, awake or are awakened from sleep, so also those who are dead are free from labours and are at length to be awakened from death through the resurrection of the flesh, death can not undeservedly be likened to sleep; and hence the verb Κοιμᾶσθαι, which properly signifies to take sleep or to compose oneself for taking sleep, can be employed in a transferred or metaphorical sense for that very thing which signifies either to be dead, or to enjoy the rest proper to the dead, that is, the sleep of death, or also to pass from life to it; and in fact, in this signification both that verb and also the verb to sleep are very frequently used among sacred or ecclesiastical writers.

[10] Moreover, a perfect tense of whatever mood, formed from the verb Κοιμᾶσθαι employed in a transferred or metaphorical sense, capable of being taken in various ways, can be taken either figuratively or according to the ordinary force of signification that belongs to a past tense; if it is taken figuratively, it is very often put in speech for the present by Enallage; thus, to adduce at least one example of the many relevant here, in these words of Christ in John, chapter 11, verse 11, Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν κεκοίμηται, the perfect indicative κεκοίμηται, formed from the verb κοιμᾶσθαι employed in a transferred sense, is used for the present by enallage, and signifies in Latin exactly the same as rests or sleeps, that is, enjoys the rest proper to the dead, or the sleep of death, as will be plain to one who considers the Latin text of sacred Scripture which answers to the Greek just recited, together with the other texts placed immediately after it; but if the perfect is taken according to the proper force of signification that belongs to a past tense, it is used for the very time which it implies by its nature; thus in the author of the Works which circulate under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 7, the perfect participle κεκοιμημένοι, formed from the verb κοιμᾶσθαι taken in a transferred sense, is frequently used according to the proper force of signification that belongs to a past tense, that is, for the time which it implies by its nature, and signifies in Latin exactly the same as those who have slept, that is, who have ended their life or departed this light, or also who have enjoyed the rest or sleep of death, or at any rate can be fittingly so explained. These things premised, let us now proceed to the matter itself. Our Sollerius, on Usuard's announcement for today, in which Thraseas is commemorated, in the Usuard he illustrated, observes thus: Whether the words of our text are exact enough to the sense of Rufinus is not altogether clear; for in Eusebius Polycrates speaks otherwise, not asserting that Thraseas was consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna, but that he rests or has rested, κεκοίμηται, where Rufinus simply translates consummated. So he; who, since Polycrates, speaking of Thraseas in Eusebius in the place cited above, takes the verb κοιμᾶσθαι in a transferred or metaphorical sense, here without doubt understands by the verb to rest exactly the same as is understood by the verb to sleep, likewise taken in a transferred or metaphorical sense in the meaning already given. But what of this observation of his transcribed here? Polycrates, it must be confessed, does not expressly assert that Thraseas was consummated by martyrdom at Smyrna; but does he not also teach that this our Saint, whom he indeed makes a martyr, died at Smyrna?

[11] the cause of truth demands, the signification, The matter, which Sollerius seems also to call into doubt by the words recited, would surely be entirely so if, of these Greek words of Polycrates about Thraseas, ὃς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται, the third-person perfect κεκοίμηται had necessarily to be translated in Latin, after the example of Valesius, taking the perfect for the present by Enallage, rests or sleeps, that is, takes the rest or sleep of death; but it can also, as Sollerius too hints, the perfect being employed according to the ordinary force of signification that belongs to it, be fittingly explained as rested or slept, and that indeed in such a way that this singular third-person perfect slept does not necessarily signify only the same as enjoyed the rest proper to the dead, or the sleep of death, since, as you will easily gather from what has been premised, it can fittingly signify also passed to the sleep of death, or departed this light, in the way in which, for example, in these words of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, which you will find transcribed in Du Cange's Glossary at the word dormire: Promoted to the clergy after baptism, let him remain in the clergy if she (namely his wife) shall have slept, and after baptism he has not had intercourse with her, the perfect or future dormierit signifies exactly the same as shall have departed this light. And indeed I think the perfect κεκοίμηται, in the case of which we treat here, is in fact more probably to be taken in this latter signification, and hence the words of Polycrates just recited again, ὃς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται, to be interpreted thus: Who ended his life, or departed this light, at Smyrna; for in order that they could either be translated, Who rests at Smyrna, or be so taken as to signify only that the Saint enjoyed at Smyrna the rest proper to the dead, or the sleep of death, it would be altogether necessary, strictly speaking, for the truth of either interpretation, that the body of St. Thraseas should have lain buried or laid up at Smyrna either at the time when Polycrates wrote to Victor or at least at some time before; and although, that I may at length show what I promised, our Saint was, according to what is to be said, more probably buried immediately after his death in the cemetery of the Ephesian church near Smyrna, yet that he was ever laid up in the city of Smyrna itself can, so far as I think, be proved by no probable reason; so that the perfect κεκοίμηται, about which we chiefly dispute here, is more probably to be translated in Latin departed this light, or in another way of equivalent signification which, as appears, does not require that, and hence that it is more probably signified also by the words of Polycrates just transcribed here, even when the very truth which no one will deny to be in them is regarded, that the Saint died at Smyrna.

[12] and also to the very Nor do I judge that anything else is signified by them when the mind of Polycrates also is regarded: for this bishop of the Ephesians, in that very passage of Eusebius cited above in which he once speaks of St. Thraseas in his letter to Victor with the singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται, uses this very singular third-person perfect four more times while speaking of others; and on each of those four occasions on which he does this there, Valesius himself explains that singular third-person perfect in Latin either by died, or departed this light, or by the third-person perfect of another verb that has an equivalent signification, and Christophorson does the same too; and why should we doubt whether both these interpreters of Eusebius have here reached the mind of Polycrates? Moreover, on the first of the said four occasions on which, not speaking of St. Thraseas, he uses the singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται, Polycrates speaks in this manner: Κατὰ τὸν Ἀσίαν μεγάλα στοιχεῖα κεκοίμηται, ἅτινα ἀναστήσεται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου· and of these words Valesius rightly, as appears, interprets the third-person perfect κεκοίμηται together with its nominative μεγάλα στοιχεῖα in Latin by a somewhat allegorical phrase, Certain great lights have been extinguished; wherefore, since from the sense of this phrase, and from the very Greek words which I have just transcribed here, as in Latin word for word

sounding: in Asia great lights have been extinguished which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, nothing else seems to be signified than that great men have died or ended their life, Polycrates surely seems, on the first of the four occasions mentioned, on which there is no talk of Thraseas, to wish to signify by the singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται exactly the same as is understood by a similar perfect formed from to die or another verb of equivalent signification.

[13] Furthermore, since on the three remaining occasions on which, not speaking of Thraseas here, the mind of Polycrates he uses the same singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται, he reckons among those great lights extinguished in Asia, or men who had ended their life, of whom he had earlier spoken generally in the words just recited, by name first Philip the Apostle, then John, likewise an Apostle, and thirdly Sagaris, bishop and martyr, he likewise seems to wish to signify by that perfect which he uses in doing so exactly the same as is understood by a perfect formed from to die or another verb of equivalent signification. In his letter to Victor, then, already praised more than once, or rather in the Fragment of it, he uses the singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται in the same signification that ended his life or departed this light has, on all four occasions on which he does not speak of Thraseas; and since this is so, it appears scarcely probable that Polycrates, in that very short writing in which he does this, should take this same singular third-person perfect in another signification on that one occasion only on which he undertakes to speak of Thraseas, especially since he adds no indication whatever by which he might in any way betray that he is doing so, and since he also numbers Thraseas among those great lights, or men extinguished in Asia, of whom he had earlier spoken generally. So these Greek words, already transcribed here more than once, ὃς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται, more probably signify, whether the very mind of Polycrates or the truth that is in them be regarded, that the Saint died, or departed this light, at Smyrna. Hence, further, it now follows that the interpretation fitted by Valesius both to these and to the words of Polycrates immediately preceding them (see number 6), Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἑυμενίας, since according to it St. Thraseas died at Eumenia and only rests or lies buried at Smyrna, seems to be rejected, and that accordingly only that which Christophorson gives is to be admitted as legitimate.

[14] together with some, But, someone will say, St. Jerome, who also supplies, in the book On the Illustrious Writers of the Church, chapter 45, the Fragment of the letter written by Polycrates to Victor, cited above from Eusebius, interprets in Latin as rests the singular third-person perfect κεκοίμηται which Polycrates uses when speaking of Thraseas. I confess it, so it reads: but what then? St. Jerome perhaps knew that our Saint lay buried at Smyrna, or rather near that city, in the age of Polycrates, and hence, speaking less accurately, and not so much according to that writer's mind as according to the signification which he knew to be also in the verb κοιμᾶσθαι, interpreted the perfect κεκοίμηται in Latin as rests or sleeps, that is, enjoys the rest proper to the dead, or the sleep of death. Certainly that Jerome did not use the utmost accuracy in translating the words of Polycrates about our Saint is clear if only from this, that he made these words, ὂς ἐν Σμύρνῃ κεκοίμηται, Latin in this manner, the relative ὃς not being expressed and the pronoun eadem, which is absent from the Greek text, being added: In the same Smyrna (namely Thraseas) rests. But suppose for a while that St. Jerome rendered the perfect κεκοίμηται rightly, and according to the mind of Polycrates, when there is talk of Thraseas in him, in Latin as rests or sleeps; even so it will be more probable that our Saint was crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna and not at Eumenia. For, this being granted, these earlier words of Polycrates transcribed here at number 6, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, will be determined no more to the one than to the other of the interpretations which Valesius and Christophorson fit to them above, and accordingly, as will be plain to one who considers it, will leave it doubtful whether the Saint underwent martyrdom at Eumenia or elsewhere.

[15] to the contrary Moreover, in order that Polycrates could have written the truth, it will be necessary that St. Thraseas lay laid up or buried at Smyrna in his age; wherefore, since it cannot happen that Thraseas, if he suffered martyrdom at Eumenia, lay buried at Smyrna in the age of Polycrates unless he had been translated there from Eumenia either then or before, and since such a translation is not proved from anywhere, and indeed both the distance of Smyrna from Eumenia, at least forty French leagues, and the time, then troubled by most savage persecutions against the Christians, seem to be opposed to it, it will surely be more probable that St. Thraseas was crowned with martyrdom at Smyrna and not at Eumenia, if St. Jerome here interpreted the perfect κεκοίμηται in Latin as rests rightly and according to the mind of Polycrates, as we have granted for a while; so that, since indeed the perfect κεκοίμηται can, from what has been said, also signify died or departed this light, the Christophorsonian interpretation of Polycrates's words given at number 6, whatever may also be the case with the Hieronymian, ought more probably, as has already been said, to be admitted as legitimate and the Valesian rejected. Nor may you say that Jerome interprets these words of Polycrates, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, as Thraseas, bishop and martyr, of Eumenia, and so hints that the Saint was crowned with martyrdom at Eumenia; for since (see numbers 8 and 9) ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, added to the Greek words Θρασέας καὶ ἑπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς, does not necessarily signify anything other than born at Eumenia, why should of Eumenia, added in Jerome to these Latin words, Thraseas, bishop and martyr, necessarily signify anything other than born at Eumenia?

[16] But there will perhaps also be some who, going further, (with the arguments) making for it, maturely and studiously weighed, in order to prove in some way or other that St. Thraseas was translated from Eumenia to Smyrna, either in the very age of Polycrates or before, and hence was probably crowned with martyrdom in the former of these two cities, as the Valesian interpretation has it, will oppose to what has been said St. Pionius, priest and martyr, and will contend that these words of his, in our volume 2 of January, in the Life of St. Polycarp, number 20: And carrying out the body of blessed Bucolus to the cemetery of the basilica called the Ephesian, situated near Smyrna, they laid it there, where now a myrtle grows after the translation of the body of St. Thraseas, martyr, are to be understood of a translation by which St. Thraseas was carried from a place remote from Smyrna, where he had first been committed to the earth, to the cemetery of the Ephesian basilica near Smyrna, when, some time having elapsed after his death, the savagery of the persecutions was abating. But, to answer this in a few words, why could the recited words of Pionius not also be understood of a translation by which St. Thraseas was carried from Smyrna, or from the very place where he had undergone martyrdom, to the aforementioned cemetery, to be buried in it, immediately after his happy departure from the living? Certainly Tillemont, volume 2 of the Mémoires, page 441, thought they were to be so taken, nor do I see how this opinion of his can be refuted. Add that St. Pionius, since he was put to martyrdom about the year 251 (see volume I of February, page 39), is somewhat remote from the age of St. Thraseas, who, from what will shortly be proved, ended his life by shedding his blood for Christ about the year 171; so that, even if he expressly asserted the translation of our Saint taken in the former of the two senses already given, it would not on that account become certain and altogether undoubted; nor, even if it became certain, would it rightly be concluded from it that the Saint had Eumenia as the arena of his contest, since, even this being granted, he could have been translated afterwards to the cemetery of the Ephesian basilica near Smyrna, if not from Smyrna (in which city, as I have already said, he never, and hence not immediately after his death, seems to have obtained a tomb), at any rate from another place different from Eumenia, where he had first been committed to the earth.

[17] Therefore, although, all things now being maturely weighed, it appears more probable (where) he suffered martyrdom, it is not improbable that St. Thraseas underwent martyrdom at Eumenia, yet it appears more probable that he was crowned with it not there but at Smyrna. Further, it was near this city too that he obtained a tomb immediately after his death, if only Pionius notes rightly in the words transcribed here in the preceding number, and they are to be understood in the sense which I gave in the latter place. I say, if Pionius notes rightly, because that very thing which Pionius teaches in the same words about the myrtle which sprang up in the Ephesian cemetery near Smyrna after the translation of St. Thraseas to it is indicated, on the 6th day of February, in the new Anthologion of the Greeks published by Arcudius, with which the Menaea agree, as having happened soon after the time when St. Bucolus, who ended his life about seventy years before Thraseas, was committed to the earth in the same cemetery. The words, rendered into Latin from the Greek, in which this is done in the said Anthologion and Menaea, are these: But before (St. Bucolus) departed this life, he consecrated blessed Polycarp in the same city (namely Smyrna) as shepherd and teacher of the rational sheep, and at length he himself departed from among men. And when his body had been entombed (namely in the cemetery of the Ephesian basilica near Smyrna), God caused a plant (Pionius calls it a myrtle) to spring up, which until now affords healing to very many diseases. So the praised Greek Fasti: but whether assent is to be given to them, who perhaps also treat of a different event from that of which Pionius treats, or, as I rather think, to Pionius, as regards the time at which the plant or myrtle arose, prodigiously health-giving, in the cemetery of the Ephesian basilica near Smyrna, this writer at any rate, if he is understood in the way I said, seems rightly to indicate that our Saint was entombed there. For since, as I have shown, he more probably suffered martyrdom at Smyrna, he was more probably also buried not far from this city, according, that is, to the custom commonly used in antiquity, by which the bodies of the dead were wont to be committed to the earth not in the cities themselves but in cemeteries situated near them.

[18] or also held the episcopate, Nor do we learn only, from the place where Thraseas more probably underwent martyrdom, the place just assigned where he was likewise more probably buried; but also whether he held the episcopate at Eumenia. For since, as I have shown above, it cannot be signified by Polycrates in these Greek words, Θρασέας καὶ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυς ἀπὸ Ἐυμενίας, that Thraseas held the episcopate at Eumenia without its being signified at the same time by the same words that he also underwent martyrdom there; and since Thraseas, as I have likewise already shown, more probably underwent martyrdom not at Eumenia but at Smyrna, when the other Greek words of Polycrates which are placed immediately after those just recited (see number 6) are regarded, it is more probable also that by those words which are put before them, and which have just again been

transcribed here, it is not signified by Polycrates that the Saint held the episcopate at Eumenia, although meanwhile, just as perhaps, according to what has already been argued, he was crowned with martyrdom in this city, so too he perhaps discharged that sacred office there. For the rest, since it cannot be sufficiently proved, either from ancient monuments or from writers other than Polycrates, whether our Saint was bishop, or held the episcopate, at Eumenia or elsewhere, and since, as I have shown, he more probably ended his life by martyrdom at Smyrna and his body also lies near this city, it follows from this and from all that has already been said, first, that for the announcements of St. Thraseas from the Little or Old Roman, from the present Roman, and likewise from Ado and Usuard, adduced above, this one could more safely be substituted: At Smyrna, of St. Thraseas, bishop and martyr; and then, that the place where the Saint held the episcopate can by no means be declared for certain.

[19] which about the year But although this is so, the time at which, crowned with martyrdom, he laid it down can at any rate be defined approximately with sufficient safety; which accordingly, since enough and more than enough has already been said of the arena of his martyrdom and of the place where Thraseas was bishop, must now be done. The letter which Polycrates sent to St. Victor, Pope, and which I have already praised several times, is by the common consent of almost all the learned established to have been written about the year 196, so that St. Thraseas, since he is mentioned in it as one who had ended his life, was crowned with martyrdom before this epoch. But how much earlier did this happen? Eusebius, in the interpretation of Valesius, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 18, towards the end, hands down to memory as follows: But this same Apollonius in the same book (namely the one written against the Montanists) testifies that at the time when he wrote these things it was the fortieth year since Montanus had devised that adulterous prophecy. He adds moreover that that Zoticus, of whom mention was made by the former writer, coming upon Maximilla when she was already feigning to prophesy at Pepuza, undertook to confute the demon by which she was driven; but that he was restrained by others who were of the same mind as she. He mentions also a certain Thraseas, who was a martyr about these times; or rather, since the Greek has Καὶ Θρασέα δὲ τινος τῶν τότε μαρτύρων μνημονέυει, he mentions also a certain Thraseas, who was then a martyr.

[20] Thraseas, then, as seems to be gathered from these words of Eusebius about Apollonius, about the year 171, under Marcus Aurelius, crowned with martyrdom, he laid down. was put to martyrdom at the very time when Maximilla, one of the false prophetesses of Montanus, first began to put forth her feigned prophecies; and that insane woman undertook this immediately at the very beginning of the impious heresy of the Montanists or Cataphrygians, which, as Tillemont rightly teaches in volume 2 of the Mémoires, Note 1 on the Montanists, page 666, more probably broke out of its hiding-places about the year 171; so that it is also more probable that St. Thraseas obtained the palm of martyrdom about the same year 171. Hence it further follows that this happened both about twenty-five years before the letter of Polycrates to Victor and under the emperor Marcus Aurelius, since he governed the reins of the Roman empire from the year 161 up to the year 180. For the rest, that I may at length put an end to this Sylloge, the time at which the Saint underwent martyrdom having been determined in this manner, it is still to be noted that the letter of Polycrates to Victor, so very often praised, cannot be turned to the reproach of St. Thraseas, although in it he is reckoned among those who celebrated Easter on the fourteenth moon; for to do this was not yet, in the age in which the Saint flourished, forbidden to the faithful by the Church, as it afterwards was in the first Council of Nicaea; indeed, since in the same letter, as I have already said, he is numbered by Polycrates among the most illustrious men who had then ended their life in Asia, in the second place after the Apostle John, and immediately after St. Polycarp, the most celebrated bishop and martyr of the Smyrnaeans, this redounds greatly to his praise; the same must also be said of the letter or book of Apollonius mentioned in the words transcribed here from Eusebius in the preceding number; for since this was written against the Montanists or Cataphrygians, the mention which is made in it of St. Thraseas seems to be made for no other reason than that he contended against those heretics for the Orthodox faith.

* consummatus

* Thraseae

* Thraseae