ON ST. SARMATA, MARTYR, IN THE THEBAID,
IN THE THEBAID.
IN THE YEAR 357.
SYLLOGE.
Sarmata, M., in the Thebaid. (S.)
BY C. B.
Bolland, in volume 2 of January of our Work, in the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of St. Antony, abbot in the Thebaid, supplies an ample notice of Egypt, or of the soil which the Nile traverses from South to North and fertilises with its annual inundation; What the Thebaid is in which St. Sarmata is announced today: and having said by way of preface at num. 2 that the region situated in Africa which extends from the places neighbouring Syene to the Mediterranean sea is distinguished into three parts, namely Lower, Middle and Upper Egypt, or the Thebaid, he shows that a portion or part of Middle Egypt, which, on account of the seven, in Greek Ἑπτὰ, prefectures, in Greek Νομοῦς, which it comprised, is called by Ptolemy Ἑπτανομὶς, in Latin Heptanomis or Heptanomia, by Athanasius, Palladius and other writers of the fourth century, and by name the prefectures of Memphis, Arsinoe and Aphroditopolis, which belong to the said Heptanomia, or rather (for the word Nomus is also used by the Latins in the same signification in which the word Νομὸς is used by the Greeks)
Nomes, are included by Jerome and Rufinus in Lower Egypt, which is also called the great Delta and Augustamnica, and that the remaining places of the same Heptanomia are numbered with the Thebaid, which in the Life of St. Paul the Hermit is called the lower, he teaches at num. 4, the passages of the same Athanasius, Palladius, Jerome and Rufinus which bear on this being cited. Further, the Lower Thebaid just mentioned, to which the places of the Heptanomia are attributed by these writers, as Bolland says, and not the upper, which Syene and the places of the Tabennesiots close in, is that very Thebaid in which the Saint of whom we are about to treat here is announced at this day by the present Roman Martyrology in these words: In the Thebaid, of St. Sarmata, disciple of blessed Antony the abbot, who was slain for Christ by the Saracens.
[2] situated most probably in this was the monastery called St. Antony's. For this disciple of St. Antony both lived and was slain by the Saracens, as we shall presently see, on the mountain and in the monastery named after this Saint; and that both these places, considering the division of Egypt which, according to what has been said, obtained in the age of St. Athanasius and of the other writers just mentioned, were situated in the Lower Thebaid, or in the part of the Heptanomia which this comprised, is, if not altogether certain, at least most like the truth, as you will understand from what is now to be said. Bolland, in his Commentary on that Life praised above, §2, establishes from Athanasius in the Life of St. Antony two mountains distinguished by the name of St. Antony, of which one, called the outer, adjoined the Nile, and the other, called the inner, was about thirty miles distant from it. The latter, which is not to be distinguished from the Troic mountain of Strabo, Ptolemy and Stephanus, contained the cave in which Antony, sitting, was illuminated with divine visions, the dwelling-place of virtue, or, as it is called by Athanasius in the Life of this saint, the inner archisterium; while the former, which was called Pisper, Pispir or Pispiri, and was not, as appears from what Bolland says in the Commentary just praised again, num. 9, much removed from the village of Troia and the city of the Angyri, comprised the monastery of St. Antony chiefly to be mentioned here, in which his disciples dwelt and to which he himself now and then went from the inner mountain; and now, since in the age of Athanasius, considering the division of Egypt which he and the other writers praised above followed, only three nomes of the Heptanomia, as Bolland teaches in the place cited above, the Memphite, the Arsinoite and the Aphroditopolite, were included in Lower Egypt, the remaining places of it being numbered with the Lower Thebaid, and the village of Troia, together with the city of the Angyri, was situated in none of those three nomes and yet in the Heptanomia, where it is also placed by Ortelius in the ancient Map of Egypt, then undoubtedly, considering the same division of Egypt, these two latter places were included in the Lower Thebaid, and the same is most probably to be said of the monastery of St. Antony in which his disciples dwelt, since it was, as said, not much removed from these.
[3] Bolland certainly, inasmuch as, counting Sarmata, whom he admits both lived and was slain in the said monastery, In this Sarmata, as the things here adduced among the disciples of St. Antony in the Lower Thebaid in his said Commentary on him, § V, judged that it was situated in this. But whether the monastery of which we are speaking here was placed there, or in Lower Egypt, as someone will perhaps contend, because the same Bolland in the same Commentary, num. 6 and 7, places the first desert into which Antony betook himself between the cities of Memphis, Babylon and Aphroditopolis, St. Sarmata at least, as I have already asserted, both lived and was slain by the Saracens in this monastery, which was both called Pispiri and adjoined the Nile, as will become evident from what is now to be said. Jerome in the Chronicle, as it stands published at Leiden in the year 1606 by the work of Joseph Scaliger, first, at the year of Abraham 2372, having narrated the death of St. Antony, writes thus: Sarmata, Amathas and Macarius are held as distinguished disciples of Antony; and then at the next following year, or that of Abraham 2373, subjoins: The Saracens, bursting into the monastery of blessed Antony, killed Sarmata. Bolland, who likewise transcribes these two texts of Jerome in the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of St. Antony, § V, where he treats of the disciples of St. Antony in the Lower Thebaid, then after a little proceeds thus: Cronius in Palladius, chapter 25, below in the Apophthegmata, num. 44, relates that in the monastery of St. Antony which is near the river, his disciples Macarius and Amathas sat, in the place which is called Pisper; and in chapter 26 in the Apophthegmata Macarius seems to have been steward there, or curator of the provisions supplied to guests; whom St. Antony was accustomed to question about their arrival and the condition of their manners, whether they were Egyptians or from Jerusalem; as Cronius observed was done there concerning Eulogius, who had brought by boat from Alexandria a man suffering from elephantiasis, or mutilated, which necessarily happened before the year of Christ 340. For from that year Amathas and Macarius were called to the inner mountain, Sarmata perhaps being left as ruler of the monastery.
[4] So he; and surely, since among the disciples of St. Antony suggest, both spent his life for some time, and in the year who, as Jerome affirms in the former of the two texts already given, were held distinguished, or became famous by the renown of their name, after his death, Sarmata is listed first by this holy writer, it appears not altogether unlike the truth that he dwelt, already at least from the year 340, in the monastery of St. Antony which was called Pisper, together with Macarius and Amathas, whom Bolland teaches in the words just recited were already then living there, and indeed was set over it. However it may be, since many disciples of St. Antony, as Athanasius indicates in more than one place in his Life, published with us in the volume of January cited above, dwelt in that monastery, it surely does not seem that it should be doubted that Sarmata, who himself too, as Jerome clearly testifies in the words just transcribed here, was a disciple of St. Antony and was slain by the Saracens in the said monastery, also spent his life for some time in the same, although meanwhile he perhaps never governed it. Nothing indeed occurs by which the space of years in which he lived there could be determined in any way for certain; but of the year in which our Saint was slain you may think a little otherwise. For the things which I now subjoin seem to suggest that this fell, if not without doubt, at least most probably, in the year 357 of the Christian era. The death of St. Antony the abbot, of whom, according to what has been said, St. Sarmata was a disciple, can by no means be removed, saving the truth, from the year 356, to which it is tied by Bolland in the Commentary on the Life of that most celebrated abbot already rather often praised, as Pagi contends in the Critica at the year 358, num. 2; nor is there reason why we should not embrace this opinion of his, which other learned men too have commonly followed.
[5] in 357 by the Saracens, Wherefore, since Jerome in the Chronicle, at the year which immediately followed the year of the death of St. Antony assigned by him, writes, in the words recited in the immediately preceding number, that the Saracens burst into the monastery of this Saint and on this occasion killed St. Sarmata, it follows that this event, or the slaughter of St. Sarmata, must be tied to the year 357. Jerome in the Chronicle, as it was edited by Scaliger, does indeed expressly refer it to the year 358; but there, at this same year, he notes no less expressly: Great forces of the Alamanni were overwhelmed by the caesar Julian at Argentoratum, a town of the Gauls. But since the victory over the Alemanni by Julian which is mentioned here was won by no means in the year 358, as is noted in the said Chronicle which Scaliger edited, but, as Valois, Rerum Francicarum book 1, page 37, and Laguille, History of Alsace, part 1, page 25, rightly teach, in the year 357, that Chronicle, which besides wrongly puts off the death of St. Antony, certainly, according to what has been said, to be tied to the year 356, to the year 357, must undoubtedly be corrected here. Wherefore, since certainly, in order that this may be done, it is necessary that for the year 357, to which it not rightly ties the death of St. Antony, the year 356, and for the year 358, to which it binds Julian's victory over the Alemanni, the year 357 be substituted, it agrees most greatly with reason that the slaughter of St. Sarmata too, which it cannot indeed be proved is wrongly referred to the same year to which it ties Julian's victory over the Alemanni, be believed to have been perpetrated by the Saracens in this latter year. But who are those Saracens, mentioned in Jerome's Chronicle, by whom it is credible that death for Christ was inflicted on Sarmata, as the announcement of the Roman Martyrology transcribed here above holds?
[6] of whom a notice is given here, At the fourteenth day of January we have already brought into our Work, first SS. Sabbas, Esaias and thirty-six other monks, slain by the Saracens on Mount Sinai in Arabia toward the beginning of the fourth century, and then Theodulus the presbyter and many others likewise monks, likewise slaughtered by the Saracens near the same mountain in the following century, the History of the contest which these latter underwent also being added, described by St. Nilus the monk, who himself beheld it with his own eyes; in which he speaks here, opportunely for our purpose, in the following manner at num. 14 concerning the nation of the barbarians who killed those Saints, who were none other, as is clear from the words of Nilus subjoined in which they are described and from Bolland's annotations on these, than the Saracens: The nation indeed which has been spoken of inhabits the solitude which extends from Arabia to Egypt, bounded on either side by the Red sea and the Jordan; which never practises art, nor trade, nor agriculture, but has only the sword, with which to supply itself with food. For either hunting the wild beasts of the solitude they live feeding on flesh; or driving plunder from those who come upon the roads which they beset, they procure for themselves in any way whatever the things that are necessary for use. But when both of these have failed them and they have laboured under want of necessary things, then they use their beasts of burden (and these are dromedary camels) for food, choosing altogether a bestial and bloody life. For by kindreds or by tent-companies killing one, and softening the hardness of the flesh with a moderate heat of fire, only so that it may yield to their teeth, they are thus (to say it once) fed like dogs. Not knowing God, neither Him who is apprehended by the intelligence nor one fashioned by hands; but adoring the morning star and sacrificing to it as it rises those things which they judge better from the spoils, when from the incursion which is made for driving plunder something fit for slaughter has come to them.
[7] Such were the barbarians, or, according to what has been said,
the Saracens, by whom, [he was slain; and although they do not seem to have done this out of hatred of the faith,] as St. Nilus relates, the holy monks whom he mentions were slaughtered near Mount Sinai in Arabia; and since these dwelt not only in Arabia, but also between Judaea and the Red sea toward Egypt, as everyone will gather from Bolland's Annotations on the words of Nilus just recited, they could certainly easily burst not only into the lands neighbouring Mount Sinai, where they killed the monks mentioned by St. Nilus in the fifth century, and others, as I indicated above, toward the beginning of the fourth century, but also into Egypt and thence into the neighbouring Lower Thebaid; and since this is so, they were undoubtedly those very Saracens who, dwelling by the Red sea toward Egypt, having made an incursion into this, or into the Lower Thebaid, and into the monastery of St. Antony, according to what has been said, in the year 357, through the tract of land which is cut off between the Red sea and the Mediterranean, killed St. Sarmata, as Jerome testifies in the place cited above. But since those Saracens, as it appears must be concluded from the words of Nilus already recited, were accustomed to burst into the regions neighbouring them only for driving plunder, and therefore from no hatred either of Christ or of His faith, why does the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology transcribed here above expressly note that St. Sarmata, whom Jerome too writes only to have been slain by the Saracens, with absolutely no mention made of a hatred by which, carried away either against Christ or against His faith, they did this, was nevertheless slain by the Saracens for Christ? Why too did those who composed the same Martyrology bring into it as a martyr St. Sarmata, whom besides neither Usuard nor Ado, nor any other hagiologists, whether ancient or more recent, celebrate in the sacred Fasti composed by them?
[8] Sarmata nevertheless not undeservedly, also as a martyr, In the Lives of the Fathers no mention of Sarmata occurs anywhere, and hence chiefly, I suspect, it came about that the ancient martyrologists, whom the more recent afterwards followed, did not give him a place in the sacred Fasti composed by them; but Sidonius Apollinaris, a bishop as most holy as he was most learned, in the Eucharistic poem which he sent to St. Faustus, bishop of Riez in Gaul in the fifth century, while he was still living, lists, among the holy anchorites for imitating whom he greatly praises Faustus, St. Sarmata together with St. Antony, Paphnutius and many others related in the sacred tables both ancient and more recent; and since this is so, it by no means appears that it should be doubted that Sidonius held Sarmata no less than the others whom he mentions with him there as a Saint; and since Jerome too seems likewise to have done this, who, speaking in the place cited above of two disciples of St. Antony, Amathas or Ammon and Macarius, surely most illustrious for Holiness, puts Sarmata before them, there is surely reason why this disciple of St. Antony, although inserted in absolutely no ancient sacred Fasti, or, as they are also called, classical, should be judged to have been deservedly brought into the present Roman Martyrology. Nor is there reason for you to reply that he at least should not have been recorded in it as a martyr.
[9] is celebrated in the Roman Martyrology. For although, as appears, he was not afflicted with martyrdom out of hatred of the faith or of Christ, he was nevertheless slain against right and justice by the barbarous nation of the Saracens while he was living holily in the desert; and not a few formerly, who, although indeed not for the faith, yet unjustly, had been put to death while they were living piously, were, speaking less strictly, numbered among the Martyrs. Thus the monks mentioned by us above, both those who were slaughtered toward the beginning of the fourth century and those of the following century, either on Mount Sinai in Arabia or near it, by the same Saracens by whom St. Sarmata was, are found commonly presented with the title of Martyrs, although meanwhile, as appears, they did not suffer for Christ or the faith. Thus too, to abstain for brevity's sake from the many examples by which the matter could be confirmed, Moses the abbot and six monks, brought into our Work at the 7th day of February, who, while they were living piously and holily in the solitude of Scetis, were slain against right and justice toward the beginning of the fifth century by barbarians bursting into it, are celebrated as martyrs, although meanwhile they too, as appears, did not suffer for the faith or for Christ. Besides, since St. Sarmata was slain by the Saracens on the occasion of the solitary and holy life by which he served Christ in the monastery of St. Antony mentioned above, he can, as appears, not ineptly be said in a sound sense to have been slain for Christ; and since this is so, and he is probably said in the Roman Martyrology to have been slain for Christ in no other sense, why could he not deservedly, speaking less strictly, be commemorated in it not only as a Confessor but also as a Martyr?