ON SS. ANASTASIUS AND COMPANIONS: ANASTASIUS, OR ATHANASIUS, PRESBYTER; AMPODUS, PLACIDUS, FAUSTUS, JANUARIUS, MARTIAL, MARCELLUS AND JUVINIANUS, MARTYRS, MOST PROBABLY SICILIANS,
FROM THE HIERONYMIAN MARTYROLOGIES AND OTHER SACRED FASTI.
CENTURY UNCERTAIN.
CommentaryAnastasius or Athanasius, presbyter, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Ampodus, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Placidus, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Faustus, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Januarius, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Martial, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Marcellus, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
Juvinianus, Martyr, most probably a Sicilian. (S.)
BY C. B.
The uncontracted Hieronymian apograph of Lucca in Florentini reads thus today: [The Martyrs here proposed from the Hieronymian apograph of Lucca, to whose class,] At Acervus in Sicily, of the saints Tanasius the presbyter, Ampodus, Placidus, Faustus, Januarius, Martial, Marcellus; and to these seven holy Martyrs an eighth, who was called Juvinianus, is also joined in the Hieronymian apograph of Corbie, which exists in the same Florentini and likewise in d'Achery, volume 2 of the Spicilegium in the edition of 1723, being equally uncontracted and, as d'Achery says, most ancient; and that this is rightly done, or that Juvinianus truly belongs to the class of Martyrs just now related, I am persuaded, because, when two Hieronymian apographs mention a certain class of martyrs and yet do not agree in their number, then, unless something perhaps persuades the contrary, one should rather stand by the apograph which attributes more martyrs to that class than by the other, which attributes fewer. I judge so not only because the notice of the Hieronymian martyrologies supplied by Gregory the Great, in the words which Sollerius recounts in his Preface to Usuard, num. 22, in some way favours announcements consisting of a greater number of Saints, but also, and most of all, because the copyists who transcribed the ancient Hieronymian martyrologies or other old codices of another kind departed from the exemplars that lay before them through carelessness or drowsiness very frequently by the omission of one or another name or word, but very rarely by addition, as anyone who compares these with the transcripts will easily discover. Juvinianus, indeed, as in the Hieronymian apograph of Lucca in Florentini, so also in the Martyrology of Gellone, which exists in d'Achery in the volume of the Spicilegium just mentioned and is also almost Hieronymian, and even in the most ancient larger or uncontracted Hieronymian apograph of Antwerp in the praised Florentini, is omitted today; but what of that?
[2] In this last, as will appear from what is to be said below, as appears from what is alleged here, the class lurks more than one error; and as to the Martyrology of Gellone, it not rarely happens that in it not just one but even several of the Saints who occur in the uncontracted Hieronymian apographs are passed over. Nor is there any reason for you to object here further that both all the contracted Hieronymian apographs in Martène and Sollerius and some Usuardine Auctaria in the same Sollerius, which today, together with the present Roman Martyrology, likewise commemorate the class of Martyrs here proposed, do not list Juvinianus in it. For those omit some even of the very seven Martyrs mentioned above from the Hieronymian apograph of Lucca. Nor is that all: the present Roman Martyrology and two of the Usuardine Auctaria in Sollerius already praised, namely that of Greven and that of the Lübeck-Cologne edition, likewise do this, but they also plainly indicate that some companions were joined to the three or four Martyrs whom alone they name; and since they do not determine their number, they in no way compel us to believe that the class of martyrs with which we are dealing here consisted of only seven holy Athletes. Wherefore, since this and other things on account of which Juvinianus might perhaps seem to be excluded from it stand, as I have already said, thus, there is surely no reason why he should not be joined to the seven Martyrs mentioned above whom the Hieronymian apograph of Lucca celebrates today.
[3] Meanwhile Genesius, on account of the reasons And these things, unless I am mistaken, will now suffice for the reader to be able to give his own judgment on this matter; but since the present Roman Martyrology has The Passion of the saints Anastasius the presbyter, Placidus, Genesius and Companions, and so joins Genesius to the class of Martyrs here proposed, which it celebrates in these words, it must now also be investigated here whether he truly belongs to it as well, or whether, besides the companions in martyrdom of SS. Anastasius and Placidus mentioned above, another companion, named Genesius, is to be admitted. Although I have most diligently turned over not only all the Hieronymian apographs, both contracted and uncontracted, in Florentini, d'Achery, Martène and Sollerius, but also the ancient hagiologies and Kalendars, both manuscript and printed, which exist with us in great number, nevertheless nowhere in them did I find Genesius today, either alone or joined with any of the Martyrs mentioned above; and since this is so, I do not think that a Martyr named Genesius existed as their companion in martyrdom. With two of these same Martyrs, indeed, in the Lübeck-Cologne Usuard, and with three in that of Greven, Genesius is announced today; but these two announcements exist only as additions to Usuard, as may be seen in him as illustrated by Sollerius, and since the Lübeck-Cologne Usuard is not older than the year 1490, and Greven's than the year 1515, both are certainly too recent for me to think that, on their authority alone, a Martyr named Genesius who suffered with the Martyrs mentioned above is to be admitted. Nor does either Davila or Baronius move me here to think otherwise.
[4] For although the former affirms, in the Ecclesiastical Theatre of Spain, volume 1, page 299, that the body of St. Genesius is preserved at Villanueva in the kingdom of Murcia among the Reverend Franciscan Fathers, adduced here, he nevertheless in no way indicates whether he is speaking of the Genesius who suffered with SS. Anastasius and Placidus, or on the contrary of another of the same name (for there were several Saints of that name); and it may be that the body of St. Genesius which he says is preserved in the place already named in Spain is that of a Martyr drawn out of the Roman Catacombs and thence, the name of Genesius having been imposed on him at will, into Spain
translated; and as for Baronius, he does indeed, for Anastasius and the companion Martyrs noted today in the present Roman Martyrology, and therefore also for Genesius, cite in his Notes on that Martyrology old manuscripts which he says he had mentioned before; but he neither assigns the place in which he had earlier mentioned the old manuscripts he praises, nor declares what or of what kind they are; so that, since they are entirely unknown to me, they can by no means bring me to count Genesius among the Martyrs of whom we are speaking here. Nor would Rodrigo da Cunha, archbishop of Lisbon, drive me to it; for although in the Ecclesiastical History of the church of Lisbon, part 1, chapter 12, he brings forward a certain martyr named Genesius who was crowned with martyrdom in Lusitania, where, as he says, he has not a few sacred buildings dedicated to his name, he nevertheless makes him, who is not otherwise sufficiently known to me, bishop of Lisbon; and since no one ever dreamed this of the Genesius of the present Roman Martyrology, there is surely no reason why the Genesius adduced by da Cunha should be thought to be this one. This writer does indeed contend the contrary; but in this matter he is not to be agreed with. For the Genesius who appears today in the present Roman Martyrology is joined in it with several Companions with whom he suffered, and by name with SS. Anastasius and Placidus; and although da Cunha likewise joins the Genesius he mentions with several companions too, and by name with SS. Anastasius and Placidus, he nevertheless does not rightly prove that these truly fell for the faith with him.
[5] For to this end he alleges only the Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter, being excluded, in which Anastasius, Placidus, Genesius and their companions are said to have undergone an illustrious martyrdom together under Julian at the year 353; but since that Chronicle was not composed by Dexter, who flourished in the fifth century, but, as I shall show at more length below, was forged by Jerónimo de la Higuera, who lived only in the century just past, surely no prudent man will admit that that matter, which, if it were true, would have taken place several centuries before Higuera's age, is rightly proved by da Cunha with that Fictitious chronicle alone. Now then, since this is so, and therefore the Genesius whom da Cunha says shed his blood for Christ in Lusitania is to be thought neither to have suffered with SS. Anastasius and Placidus and their companions, nor therefore to be one and the same with the Genesius of the present Roman Martyrology, the things I have adduced above continue to require that we believe that he does not belong to the class of Martyrs with which we are dealing here, or, what comes to the same thing, is not to be joined to SS. Anastasius and Placidus and their companions. Castellan today, in his Universal Martyrology, by a little note added in the margin, insinuates that for Nigasius, who is placed before the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology related above both in it and in the Lübeck-Cologne Usuard and in Greven's, Negesius was first wrongly written and then Genesius, and that this last name afterwards crept into the class of Martyrs with which we are dealing here through a repetition unskilfully made by a copyist; but whether this was done in that way or by any other means whatever, it certainly does not appear at all likely that Genesius, who, as I have already noted, is found nowhere in the Hieronymian apographs, belongs to the said class of Martyrs, which was undoubtedly brought from these into the present Roman Martyrology, or is to be joined to the Martyrs mentioned above; and since this is so, I am of the opinion, with Castellan just praised, that he is to be struck out of the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology transcribed here above.
[6] and on the contrary to Anastasius or Athanasius in the same, which, even though But the praised Martyrologist also insinuates, by the little Note just cited, that the names of Tharacus and Probus, which had already been related, are likewise wrongly repeated in the same announcement, corruptly expressed by the words Anastasius presbyter, and that therefore Anastasius does not belong to the class of Hieronymian Martyrs here proposed, or cannot be numbered among the Martyrs named above; but I cannot agree with him in this matter. For although it might perhaps not have happened with difficulty that a copyist took the name Probus in the exemplar he was copying as an abbreviation of presbyter, and so also transcribed it, yet there is so great a difference between the names Tharacus and Anastasius that he would seem to have been about to write the latter for the former only with the greatest difficulty. Besides, Anastasius is announced today with the title of presbyter in almost all the Hieronymian apographs, in some of which, however, he is called Athanasius, or even, the initial letter of this latter name having been omitted through the copyist's carelessness, Tanasius or Tanasus. Wherefore, just as Genesius, because he is found in no Hieronymian apographs at all, does not belong to the class of Hieronymian Martyrs with which we are dealing here together with the present Roman Martyrology, and is therefore to be erased from it, so, for the contrary reason alone, it appears beyond doubt that Anastasius or Athanasius, who besides is also commemorated today in some Usuardine Auctaria in Sollerius, and likewise in the Additions to Bede of St. Cyriacus, of the Vatican, of the Barberini, of Tournai and of Arras, in our edition before volume 2 of March, although in the two latter of these the title not of presbyter but of bishop is wrongly attributed to him, belongs to the same class of Hieronymian Martyrs, and is therefore not to be struck out of the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology related above, but on the contrary to be left both in it and in the Hieronymian apographs in which he is mentioned.
[7] Anastasius or Athanasius, indeed, does not appear today in the most ancient uncontracted Hieronymian apograph of Antwerp or Echternach in Florentini; in the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach, here, as is shown, but in absolutely all the other Hieronymian apographs, likewise uncontracted, in the same Florentini and d'Achery, and even in nearly all of the contracted ones themselves in Martène and Sollerius, since he is passed over in the one of these alone which Martène exhibits, that of Murbach, he is noted today; and one must stand by so many Hieronymian apographs agreeing among themselves rather than by the single one of Echternach or Antwerp (for that of Murbach, as I said, being only contracted, need not be much regarded here), especially since that one is here faulty, and its not including Anastasius or Athanasius was done solely through the copyist's carelessness, as appears from what I shall now subjoin, having first transcribed here the faulty announcement in which it omits him. In Florentini this consists of the following words: At Anazobori (at Anazarbus should have been written) in Cilicia, the birthday of Taracus, Probus and Andronicus the presbyter, Ampodus, Placidus, faustus, Januarius, Martial, Marcellus. So, as I said, the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp; but since it gives Andronicus the title of presbyter, and joins to him as companions in martyrdom Ampodus and the others whom it lists after him in the announcement just given, and yet Andronicus, as is plain from the genuine and select Acts of him and of Tarachus and Probus which we are to give below, was neither a presbyter nor had in martyrdom the companions whom, as I said, the praised Hieronymian apograph joins to him, everyone must surely admit that it is here faulty, and indeed on more than one count.
[8] Now then, since this is so, what if the copyist who wrote the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp being faulty, had before his eyes a more correct exemplar of it, in which there was read an announcement couched today in these words, or in words not much unlike them: At Anazarbus in Cilicia, the birthday of Taracus, Probus and Andronicus; and elsewhere, or, as most Hieronymian apographs truly have, At Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, of Anastasius the presbyter, Ampodus, Placidus, Faustus, Januarius, Marcial, Marcellus, and transcribed it, but with both the name of Anastasius and the words at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, expressing the arena which he obtained together with the companions joined to him, omitted through carelessness or drowsiness? That the matter truly happened so appears, if not certain, at least likely, if only from this: that, when it is asserted to have happened so, it is conveniently understood how the announcement transcribed here above, which the praised Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp supplies, wrongly or by error, as we have seen, presents Andronicus both as a presbyter and as having been a companion in martyrdom of SS. Ampodus and the others who suffered with him. But now let us also refute the remaining things which make in any way for rejecting Anastasius or Athanasius, so that it may thus become more clearly evident that he, although omitted in the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach, must nevertheless, for the very reason that he is mentioned in most other Hieronymian martyrologies, be retained in the class of Martyrs with which we are dealing here.
[9] Those Hieronymian martyrologies place our Martyrs at Acervus in Sicily, for the middle word of which Acernus is written in d'Achery, both in the most ancient Hieronymian apograph praised above [is omitted, yet is mentioned in most other Hieronymian martyrologies, nor from these,] and in the Additions to Wandelbert; and since no place of Sicily called either Acervus or Acernus is found among the chorographers of that island, it can not undeservedly be doubted whether the praised Hieronymian apographs do not express falsely the place at which they note St. Anastasius or Athanasius and his companions in martyrdom today, and therefore whether they do not likewise err in announcing Anastasius or Athanasius as well. So those who will wish him struck out of the Roman Martyrology, or out of the class of Martyrs with which we are dealing here, will perhaps further argue. And Giorgi indeed not only doubts about the matter which I have already mentioned, but even affirms for certain, in his annotations on the Martyrology of Ado, that in his Ottoboni Martyrology, which he says belongs to the class of Hieronymian martyrologies, At Acervus in Sicily, the birthday of saint Tanasius the presbyter, Placidus and Faustus is read today most corruptly for At Anazarbus in Cilicia, the birthday of saint Taracus the presbyter, Andronicus and Probus; and he does this, unless I am mistaken, for the reason that, although the three martyrs Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus, the first of whom it here wrongly adorns with the title of presbyter, as everyone will determine from their Acts to be given below, are mentioned today in the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp, yet today they are passed over in the Ottoboni Martyrology which he praises, and they consummated their martyrdom at Anazarbus in Cilicia, as we are to say in the case of those three holy martyrs below.
[10] also in the way that pleased Giorgi But since Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus had already been noted in the same Ottoboni Martyrology on the 13th day of May, as Giorgi himself presently adds in his said annotations, what wonder that they are not commemorated in it again today? Those three martyrs indeed, who, as I have just noted again, are celebrated today in the Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp, had nevertheless likewise already been noted in it at the 13th day of May; but why could it not have happened that he who wrote the Ottoboni Martyrology judged that the Antwerp one was not to be followed by him here, or that Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus, already celebrated by him earlier, were not to be repeated today, but others
martyrs distinct from these were to be commemorated? Certainly those who wrote two other Hieronymian apographs, namely that of Lucca, which Florentini exhibits, and that of Corbie, which both he and d'Achery exhibit, the latter calling it most ancient, judged that they should do so, and in actual fact did so (for no one would easily say that Anastasius or Athanasius, or even, as it is written in the Lucca copy, Tanasus, Ampodus and the five or six other companions whom they join to these are mentioned by them falsely or by error in place of Taracus, Probus and Andronicus); and since this is so, and Taracus, Probus and Andronicus are therefore not to be substituted for Anastasius or Athanasius and his Companions in martyrdom, whom both those two Hieronymian apographs and the Ottoboni Martyrology praised by Giorgi mention today, I do not see clearly enough either why at Anazarbus in Cilicia must necessarily be put back in place of at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, where these place them.
[11] The names of Cilicia and Sicily are indeed so similar that they could not with difficulty have been altered and confused; not to be altered, but it is not proved that this was done in actual fact, and what prevents us from believing that it was done is the difference between the words Acervus or Acernus and Anazarbus, which is so great that no one would readily seem to have been about to write the first for the latter. Nor is there any reason for you here again to object the most ancient Hieronymian apograph of Echternach or Antwerp, which is produced by Florentini. For although this places not only Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus, but also Ampodus and the other Martyrs mentioned in the Ottoboni and the remaining Hieronymian apographs just praised, at Anazarbus in Cilicia, yet in the very announcement in which it does this it labours under more than one error, as I have already shown above, and it is therefore unfit for defining the matter of which we are speaking here, or, to speak more clearly, it cannot bring it about that the words at Anazarbus in Cilicia should be believed to be substituted for the words at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, by which the arena of St. Anastasius or Athanasius and his companions in martyrdom is expressed in most Hieronymian apographs. And indeed, that the former neither ought to be nor can be substituted for the latter, the contracted Hieronymian apograph of Reichenau in Sollerius is no weak argument, by the following announcement which it supplies today: At Antioch, of Eradius. Elsewhere, of Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus; and in another place, of Tanasius the presbyter, Ampodus, Placidus, Faustus, Januarius, Marcial and Marcellus.
[12] For since Taracus, Probus and Andronicus, or to be corrected, who certainly, as we shall show in treating of them below, underwent martyrdom at Anazarbus in Cilicia, are thus most clearly reported to have suffered in another place than Anastasius and his companions in martyrdom, it follows that these were not crowned with martyrdom at Anazarbus in Cilicia, and that therefore the words at Anazarbus in Cilicia neither ought to be nor can be substituted for the words at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, expressing the arena which they are asserted in most other Hieronymian martyrologies to have obtained; and although that contracted Hieronymian apograph is not of a nature to render the matter altogether certain by its authority alone, it nevertheless makes it most like the truth, especially if account is also taken of the other things bearing on this which I have alleged above. But although this is so, and therefore most probably at Anazarbus in Cilicia is not to be put back in place of at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, where the arena of St. Athanasius or Anastasius and his companions in martyrdom is placed by the Hieronymian apographs praised above, it can nevertheless deservedly, as already said, be called in doubt whether, of the words at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, the middle one has not been falsely written in these. This must altogether be admitted, if only because truly no place in Sicily named Acervus or Acernus is found among the chorographers of that island, as I discovered after making a most diligent search. But what of that? Not even if it were altogether certain and beyond doubt that the word by which the arena of St. Anastasius and his companions is expressed in the said Hieronymian apographs is wrongly written, could it deservedly be concluded from this that he is to be erased from them.
[13] For although not rarely the arenas of other Martyrs too are falsely written in the Hieronymian apographs, and in particular the arena of SS. Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus is corruptly expressed in the very frequently praised apograph of Echternach or Antwerp by At Anazobori in Cilicia (for at Anazarbus should have been written), ought to be erased, being retained, Juvinianus also belongs yet no one would say that for that reason either those martyrs are to be struck out of the Hieronymian apographs in which they are found, or Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus out of that of Antwerp. Besides, since the said Hieronymian apographs note Placidus, Ampodus, Faustus, Januarius, Martial and Marcellus as well as St. Anastasius at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, it would follow that, if Anastasius had to be struck out of them because of the arena being wrongly expressed, Placidus and his companions in martyrdom already enumerated would also have to be erased from the same for the same cause, which no one would admit. And since these things are so, Anastasius or Athanasius is certainly not to be erased from the Hieronymian apographs in which he is mentioned for the reason last adduced here; and since, as anyone will readily gather from what has already been said, this need not be done for the other things alleged above either, what I laid down at num. 6 remains fixed and unshaken, namely that Anastasius or Athanasius belongs to the class of Hieronymian Martyrs with which we are dealing here, and therefore, contrary to what Castellan praised above insinuates, is not to be struck out of the present Roman Martyrology, or out of its announcement transcribed here at num. 3, which undoubtedly flowed originally from the Hieronymian apographs, but on the contrary to be retained in it no less than in them. Further, as the Roman Martyrology rightly celebrates Anastasius or Athanasius today, as is clear from what has already been said, so, because the place at which both he himself and his companions, namely Placidus, Ampodus, Faustus, Januarius, Martial, Marcellus and finally Juvinianus, who also belongs to their class, as I showed above, suffered in Sicily, according to what is to be said, is known neither from the chorographers of this island, as already insinuated, nor from elsewhere, it also rightly announces him without any mention of the arena he obtained, which is also done by Maurolico and in the two Usuardine Auctaria in Sollerius praised above.
[14] by no means, as Higuera in the Dexter and Julian forged by himself, But since he and the companions whom he had in martyrdom are thus fixed to no certain place, Jerónimo de la Higuera, who in the century just past forged pseudo-chronicles under the lying names of Dexter, Liutprand, Haubert, Heleca and other ancients, and likewise spurious Adversaria under the false name of Julian, being intent on every occasion of enriching his country with any Saints whatever, whether hitherto unknown or fetched from elsewhere, drew St. Anastasius and his companions into Spain, yet in such a way that he set them down in one place of this region in the Chronicle of Dexter and in another in the Adversaria of Julian, most probably so that it might thus appear less easily that both the latter and the former had flowed from the pen of one and the same impostor. Hence most of those who, relying at the beginning, before the substitution of that rubbish had yet been detected, on the Pseudo-Chronicle of Dexter and the fictitious Adversaria of Julian as documents of proved trustworthiness, believed that St. Anastasius and his Companions suffered in Spain, noted these Martyrs there at Madrid (Mantua of the Carpetani), because they thought that one should adhere rather to Dexter, who places them in this place, than to Julian, who places them at Rutinium in Celtiberia. Nor was Bivar, who illustrated with a commentary the Chronicle of Dexter, forged, as I have already noted, by Higuera, content to have done this; he composed besides a remarkable and lengthy elogium of St. Anastasius and his companions in martyrdom, drawn, as they say, from proper sheets of antiquity, once again most eloquently ascribing those holy Martyrs to Spain.
[15] But since that writer took the supposititious Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter for that author's genuine offspring, with a facility at once astonishing and blameworthy in a learned man, and Bivar in the elogium he composed for our Martyrs, teach that in Spain, who would not suspect that he still more easily, carried away even so by some zeal for favouring his country (for, as the title prefixed to the Commentary just praised shows, he had been born at Madrid), took only recent and spurious sheets, in which he saw the martyrdom of St. Anastasius and his Companions noted at Madrid, for ancient documents of the best credit? Besides, since Bivar himself complains, in the Commentary praised above, page 383, that the Acts of SS. Anastasius and his Companions have perished, and nevertheless sets out in detail those Martyrs' manner of life, the kinship of blood by which they were related to one another, their native soil, pursuits, virtues, and the occasion, manner and arena of the martyrdom they endured in Spain, and other things which either accompanied or followed it, it is very greatly to be feared, if only for that reason, that almost all the things which he hands down in that elogium, for which he does not even allege tradition, proceeded originally from licence of invention alone. And since the matter stands so, surely, to believe that SS. Anastasius and Placidus and their companions in martyrdom met death for Christ in Spain, we ought to be moved by an elogium of this kind no more than by either the Pseudo-Chronicle of Dexter or the spurious Adversaria of Julian.
[16] Meanwhile, whoever is delighted by fables or invented little tales or even, as da Cunha will have it, in Lusitania, can read the aforesaid elogium, and the Epitaph of SS. Anastasius and his Companions added to it as a crowning piece, which was found in a manuscript codex of poems among the epigrams of Aulus Halus, likewise a masked author, in the Spanish Martyrology which Tamayo put together from Dextrine and other fictions of similar bran, at this day. There, further, he will likewise find that the body of one of St. Anastasius's Companions, namely Placidus, is said still to be preserved in the town of Alcaudete in the diocese of Jaén in Spain, as also that the arena of the holy martyrs of whom we are speaking here is noted, not in Spain, but either at Lisbon or at Scalabis in Lusitania, by Rodrigo da Cunha in the Ecclesiastical History of the church of Lisbon. But besides the fact that the body of St. Placidus, even if he had undergone martyrdom elsewhere than in Spain, could have been translated thither to the said town from the place in which he had suffered, the things alleged by Tamayo by no means compel us to believe that the body of Placidus, not of another but of ours, is still preserved in Spain, and therefore cannot bring it about that we admit that he and the Companions whom he had joined to him in martyrdom suffered there. And as for da Cunha, he does indeed propose a certain martyr, whom I have already mentioned above, named Genesius, who underwent martyrdom either at Lisbon or at Scalabis, as the tradition of each of these cities holds; but since that Genesius, as I showed above, does not belong to the class of Martyrs with which we are dealing here, or was not crowned with Anastasius, Placidus and their Companions, surely, even if it were in every respect
certain, contrary to how the matter stands, that a certain Genesius fell for the faith in Lusitania, it could not be concluded from this that they likewise underwent martyrdom there.
[17] [but most probably in Sicily, although meanwhile Athanasius and Placidus are also announced elsewhere,] Nor indeed, I think, would either da Cunha have so readily noted the arena of St. Anastasius and his Companions in Lusitania, or Higuera, under the lying names of Dexter and Julian, in Spain, if both had had before their eyes the things which I am now about to adduce in order to show that they suffered in Sicily. Most Hieronymian apographs, as I have already noted more than once, place the arena of SS. Anastasius or Athanasius and his Companions in martyrdom at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily; and although, because no place in that island distinguished by the name of Acervus or Acernus is found among the chorographers of Sicily, it can not undeservedly be called in doubt, as already said before, whether they express that word correctly, the matter nevertheless stands otherwise as regards the word Sicily. For an island distinguished by this name is met with everywhere, not only among the Geographers but also among very many other writers, both ancient and more recent; and although, as I further observed above, the words Cilicia and Sicily are so akin that the latter could have been written for the former without very great difficulty, yet nothing presents itself here on account of which it should be believed that this was actually done, or even that it should be doubted whether it was not done. Now then, since this is so, and nothing else besides occurs on account of which credit should seem to be denied here to the Hieronymian apographs, most of which, as I said, place St. Anastasius and his Companions at Acervus or Acernus in Sicily, and therefore in Sicily, it is all but certain, or, if the matter is otherwise, at least appears most like the truth, that they actually underwent martyrdom in this island, although in what place of it cannot meanwhile be defined, as follows from what was said above about the name Acervus or Acernus. But now, someone will perhaps still say, the Additions of Arras and Tournai to the Martyrology of Bede, which with us stands prefixed to volume 2 of March, record SS. Anastasius and Placidus today together with Heraclius at Antioch, a place of which name is found nowhere in Sicily. I admit it is so; but those Additions yield much, in authority and age alike, to the Hieronymian apographs, which, as I have already shown, ascribe St. Anastasius and his Companions in martyrdom to Sicily.
[18] and Januarius and Marcellus likewise elsewhere, suffered, Besides, in the Hieronymian apograph of Labbe in Sollerius, Placidus and Athanasius, or, as it is written there, Tanasus, are announced together with Eraclius or Heraclius and some others besides, without the arena they obtained being expressed; and since Heraclius, as we have already said above when we gave him, suffered at Antioch, and those who added the mentioned Additions to Bede from the said Labbe apograph, or from another Hieronymian apograph like it, had this clearly understood, hence they most probably persuaded themselves that SS. Athanasius or Anastasius and Placidus also suffered at Antioch, and for that reason noted them there together with Heraclius. But since they proceeded thus wrongly (for when Martyrs are announced jointly, with no arena expressed, it does not follow from this that they died in one and the same place) and rashly, those Additions, in which Athanasius and Placidus are placed at Antioch contrary to the credit of most of the Hieronymian martyrologies, cannot bring it about that these are believed to have fallen for Christ there and not in Sicily. Nor yet ought the Hieronymian apograph of Augsburg in Sollerius to move anyone to think that Januarius and Marcellus suffered at Tours; for in the same way, already explained, in which it happened that SS. Athanasius and Placidus are wrongly noted at Antioch in the Additions to Bede just adduced, in almost the same way it also came about that Januarius, or, as it is written in the said Hieronymian apograph, Genuarius, and Marcellus, who are announced together with St. Venantius and some others, without the arena they obtained being expressed, in another Hieronymian apograph in the same Sollerius, namely that of Labbe, and who certainly did not suffer at Tours, are nevertheless not rightly placed at Tours, where St. Venantius the abbot is noted in several sacred fasti, in the Augsburg Hieronymian apograph which I have praised.
[19] Ottavio Gaetani most probably turned his mind to the chief things which I have just adduced for attributing the arena of our Martyrs to Sicily, [and since they are nevertheless distinct from the MM. of Mylae in Sicily of the third century,] and hence, when he expressed in writing the plan of the Work he was meditating on the Sicilian Saints, he brought into the Sicilian Martyrology which he added to it, at this day, the Martyrs of Mylae in Sicily, mentioned with us in volume 2 of May, page 778, in the Greek Acts of SS. Alphius, Philadelphus and Cyrinus, num. 18, without a day of passion, judging, namely, that they were not different from our Martyrs SS. Anastasius or Athanasius and his Companions in martyrdom, whom he saw inscribed today in several Hieronymian apographs. But in the said Acts of SS. Alphius, Philadelphus and Cyrinus not a few other martyrs of both sexes are also commemorated, with the names by which some of them were called also expressed; and since this is so, and yet none of these, nor even SS. Alphius, Philadelphus and Cyrinus themselves, whose Acts those are, stand inserted in the Hieronymian apographs, it surely does not appear likely that the anonymous martyrs of Mylae have been brought into these at this day under the names of SS. Anastasius, Ampodus, Placidus and their Companions in martyrdom, and that therefore these are not distinguished from those.
[20] [the epoch of their martyrdom, since it cannot be determined from elsewhere either, is uncertain.] This Gaetani himself at length observed, as appears, when he composed his larger Work on the Sicilian Saints, which I have praised above. For in the Alphabetical list in which he sets out in that Work the name, country, time and day sacred to the memory of each of them, he by no means assigns the day sacred to the memory of the Martyrs of Mylae, but filled with dots the place in which this should have been done; and since he thus insinuated that it was not known to him, and yet he had understood perfectly well from the Hieronymian martyrologies that the memory of St. Anastasius or Athanasius and his Companions is commemorated on the 11th day of October, this is surely a very strong argument that he then judged these to be different from the martyrs of Mylae. For the rest, since our Saints, as appears from what has just been said, are in actual fact different from the Martyrs of Mylae, it surely cannot be inferred, from the fact that these, who nevertheless (see the Passed Over at this day) perhaps never existed in the nature of things, are commonly stated to have undergone martyrdom in the third century, that our Saints likewise fell for the faith then; and since this is so, and nothing else occurs from elsewhere from which the epoch of their martyrdom may be elicited, whether it is to be fixed in the said third century or in another is altogether uncertain and doubtful.