ON ST. JULIA, VIRGIN AND MARTYR, IN SYRIA,
Perhaps at the beginning of the fourth century.
SYLLOGE.
Julia, virgin and martyr, in Syria. (S.)
BY C. B.
Although out of all the more contracted apographs of the Martyrology of Jerome edited by us before volume VII of June, The Saint, who in the more diffuse Hieronymian and other sacred Calendars, and others, which have been published by the benefit of print either by Florentinius or by others, only one or another is found which celebrates St. Julia today, yet the very ancient Martyrology of Gellone in d'Achery, volume XIII of the Spicilegium, and the three more diffuse apographs of the same said Hieronymian Martyrology which exist in the praised Florentinius, namely that of Echternach or Antwerp, that of Lucca and that of Corbie, mark that holy Virgin and Martyr on this day (the Antwerp one, however, wrongly presenting Tullia for Julia), and they do this in one and the same announcement in which they commemorate SS. Sergius and Bacchus, who have already been treated. The same, further, is done in the little or old Roman, and also in Ado and Notker; but since
Julia, from what is to be said, underwent martyrdom neither on the same day as either Sergius or Bacchus, nor under the same judge as both of them, why is she joined with them under one and the same announcement in all the sacred Calendars praised? Ado, in the elogium of SS. Sergius and Bacchus recited in numbers 6 and 7 of the Commentary preliminary to their Acts, records thus: But a short time having intervened (namely after the martyrdom of St. Sergius), raising up the blessed Bacchus also from the place where he had been buried, they laid him in a place honourable for martyrs beside St. Sergius (at Resapha or Rosapha). Where also the virgin Julia, who consummated her martyrdom under the governor Martianus, rests buried in fellowship with the Martyrs.
[2] That the holy virgin Julia, then, is joined today with SS. Sergius and Bacchus under one and the same announcement seems to have come about from this, that it seemed fair that this Saint, who lay buried in the same sepulchre with the holy martyrs Sergius and Bacchus, [and indeed, not unfittingly, she is announced today joined with SS. Sergius and Bacchus,] should receive veneration on the same day also as they. So, nearly as to substance, says Florentinius in his Annotations on the Hieronymian Martyrology for today, and rightly indeed, in my opinion. For no more apt reason seems able to be given why the Saint is joined today with Sergius and Bacchus. It can indeed be said that this is done because Julia, no otherwise than Sergius and Bacchus, was crowned with martyrdom in the province which is called Augusta Euphratensis; but besides that it is not certain, from what is to be said, that the Saint suffered there, all the martyrs who have obtained one and the same province as the wrestling-ground of martyrdom are not for that reason usually joined under one and the same announcement in the sacred Calendars. This being so, it appears more probable that our Saint is joined today with Sergius and Bacchus under one and the same announcement in the sacred Calendars praised above solely for the cause alleged. But although this is so, and this conjunction is assuredly not made wrongly in them, yet Usuard is by no means on that account to be censured, who separated Julia from Sergius and Bacchus and made two articles out of one, in one of which he celebrates these two Saints alone (see the Commentary preliminary to their Acts, already given on this day, number 5), while in the other he announces St. Julia, virgin and martyr, likewise alone, or separated from Sergius and Bacchus, in this manner: Likewise in the same province (namely of Augusta Euphratensis), of the holy virgin Julia, who consummated her martyrdom under the governor Marcianus.
[3] and yet she is more aptly presented separated from them in Usuard and others, Nor indeed did the later martyrologists, who, when they composed sacred Calendars for recounting all the Saints, or at least the chief ones, had before their eyes the Martyrology put together by Usuard, think that he was to be carped at for that reason; for whoever (and they are not few in number, though I do not think it worth the trouble to enumerate them all) brought both St. Julia and SS. Sergius and Bacchus into the sacred Calendars put together by them, did so by the example of Usuard in two distinct articles, in one of which they comprised Julia alone, in the other Sergius and Bacchus alone; and those most learned men who reformed the present Roman Martyrology also followed them, announcing Julia today in it, separated from Sergius and Bacchus, in nearly the same words in which this is done in Usuard: Likewise at Augusta Euphratensis, of the holy virgin Julia, who consummated her martyrdom under the governor Marcianus. And assuredly they did this not without reason; for although St. Julia, because she lay buried in the same place as Sergius and Bacchus, could not unfittingly, as I have shown above, be celebrated with them under one and the same announcement in the sacred Calendars praised before, yet the things which Ado himself, and Notker following him, supply bring it about that she can still more aptly be announced separated from Sergius and Bacchus in a distinct article proper to herself alone. For according to these, Julia underwent martyrdom neither under the same judge nor, so far as appears most probable, even on the same day as Sergius and Bacchus. For these, as their Acts just now given relate, suffered under Antiochus, duke of Augusta Euphratensis or of the East; but Julia, as the said martyrologists relate, consummated her martyrdom under the governor Marcianus; and hence it also follows that it is assuredly, as I have already said, most probable that our holy Virgin and Martyr did not obtain the palm of martyrdom, by blood shed for Christ, on the same day as Sergius and Bacchus either.
[4] But, that we may now determine in some way the time, or century, in which this happened, she suffered perhaps at the beginning of the 4th century, who was that governor Marcianus under whom the Saint was crowned? In the Acts of SS. Julian, Basilissa, Celsus and Companions, already edited by us on the 9th day of January, a governor Marcianus occurs, under whom these obtained the palm of martyrdom, and indeed, as appears more probable from what was said in §2 of the Commentary preliminary to them, in Egypt. What if, then, St. Julia was likewise crowned with martyrdom under this very governor? Since nothing at all occurs anywhere by which I may determine with sufficient safety either the time in which the Saint suffered or who is the governor Marcianus under whom this is related in the Martyrologies to have been done, it is permissible to believe, until something more certain is brought forward, that our Saint was crowned with martyrdom under the same governor Marcianus under whom Julian, Basilissa, Celsus and their companions were, although meanwhile not even the Acts of these can be held as approved in every respect, as is now agreed among all the learned. Further, since Julian, Basilissa, Celsus and their companions underwent martyrdom in the dire persecution stirred up against the Christians in Egypt under Diocletian and Maximian, as is established by us in §2 of the Commentary preliminary to their Acts, that is, at the beginning of the fourth century, it appears credible that Julia also shed her blood for Christ at that time, and hence it is that above, in the margin, I have written Perhaps at the beginning of the 4th century.
[5] But from the fact that we determine that the Saint shed her blood for Christ under the same governor Marcianus and this, not certainly in Egypt, but in the province under whom Julian, Basilissa, Celsus and their companions, who more probably suffered in Egypt, as has been said, underwent martyrdom, it may further seem necessary that we admit that she too suffered in Egypt; yet since it may be that Marcianus, who acted as governor in Egypt when Julian together with Basilissa and companions was crowned with martyrdom there, also at some time discharged the same, or at least the office of a lower judge, in Augusta Euphratensis, it is not a consequence, from the fact that Julia is determined to have suffered under Marcianus, that this happened in Egypt. And indeed Peter de Natalibus, in the Catalogue of Saints woven together by him, adorns St. Julia on the present day of October with a brief elogium, in which he relates not obscurely that she was crowned with martyrdom not in Egypt, but in the province of Syria which is called Augusta Euphratensis. It pleases me, in the very great penury of ancient monuments concerning St. Julia from which we labour, to transcribe it here entire. It runs thus: Julia, virgin and martyr, suffered in the Augustan province, which is called Euphrateia. Being seized by the most impious governor Martianus, she is ordered to sacrifice to the idols, and when she had scorned to sacrifice, after divers kinds of torments inflicted upon her, at last by order of the same governor she is slain with the sword, and thus she consummated the course of a glorious martyrdom on the Nones of October, as Ado says in his Martyrology. Such is the brief elogium with which, as I have already noted, Peter de Natalibus celebrates the Saint today, teaching clearly indeed not only that she suffered in the province which is called Augusta Euphratensis, but also by what kind of death she consummated her martyrdom.
[6] [called Augusta Euphratensis, it more probably took place; that a city of the same name] But since by what form of martyrdom the Saint fell is found handed down to memory by absolutely no other writer apt to create certain and undoubted belief, and Peter de Natalibus is not ancient enough to make certain the things he narrates of the Saint, I would not dare to assert without doubt that Julia consummated her martyrdom by the sword, as he says, although meanwhile I would think it more probable that she was crowned with martyrdom not in Egypt but, as he asserts, in the province of Syria which is called Augusta Euphratensis, because she was buried at Resapha, a city of Augusta Euphratensis, or at least lay laid up there in the eighth century or in the age of Ado, as this martyrologist himself testifies in the words given above. But however these things may stand, Peter de Natalibus rightly makes the place where he notes that Julia suffered not a city but a province. Florentinius indeed doubts, in his Annotations on the Hieronymian Martyrology for today, whether Augusta Euphratensis is one and the same with Augustopolis, the city in which the Basilian Menology of the Greeks wrongly determines, as I have already shown on this day in the Commentary preliminary to their Acts, that SS. Sergius and Bacchus were crowned with martyrdom; and so he seems to recognize a city of this name, such as you would seek in vain among the ancient geographers; which Baudrand also does in his Geographical Lexicon together with Niger. And for these indeed two councils could be cited, namely that of Seleucia and that of Chalcedon, in the former of which, held in the year 359, in Harduin, volume 1 of the Councils, column 726, Augustus, bishop of Euphratesia, appears, and in the latter, held in the year 451, in Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 788, Augustus Eufrasiensis.
[7] existed, is not proved from the councils of Seleucia and Chalcedon. But in Harduin, at the place cited, in the same Council of Seleucia there also occurs Leontius, bishop of Lydia, and yet no city named Lydia is found among the ancient Geographers; and since this is so, and Leontius therefore seems to have been only a chorepiscopus of the province of Lydia, I think that Augustus likewise, who subscribed the council of Seleucia in Harduin, was only a chorepiscopus of the Euphratensian province, and this Harduin too, as appears from the Index of bishoprics added by him to the Councils, believed. But as regards the Augustus Euphratensis who subscribed the council of Chalcedon in Labbe at the place cited, besides that he is named not Euphratensis but only Eufrasiensis, I think that in that place, through the carelessness of copyists, Augustus Eufrasiensis has been wrongly written for Augustæ Eufrasiensis. And this opinion is settled with me, first, because Augustus Eufrasiensis alone is written, without the title of bishop added; and then, because the bishops who subscribed the Council of Chalcedon are listed in Labbe under the titles of the various provinces to which they belonged, and nowhere does the title of the Euphratensian province occur, although meanwhile after the words Augustus Eufrasiensis various bishops of the Euphratensian province appear, as whoever consults Labbe at the place cited will find.