ON SS. MARCELLUS AND ADRIAN, AND PERHAPS ALSO ONE OR TWO OTHERS, MARTYRS, MORE PROBABLY AT CHALCEDON,
From the Hieronymian and other Sacred Calendars.
MOST PROBABLY BEFORE THE YEAR 312.
CommentaryMarcellus, M., more probably at Chalcedon. (S.)
Adrian, M., more probably at Chalcedon. (S.)
One or two others, MM., more probably at Chalcedon.
BY C. B.
How many and which of the Martyrs whom the larger Hieronymian Copies in Fiorentini mark today partly at Córdoba or in the Spains, [Of the Saints who are commemorated in today's announcements of the Hieronymians, which are very confused,] and partly at Chalcedon, are to be attributed to the latter city may deservedly be doubted, and there is even one who contends that none of them suffered at Chalcedon. But whether rightly or otherwise I shall discuss below, when I have first transcribed here the various announcements by which the praised Hieronymian Copies do what I have said, so that the studious reader may conveniently compare them with one another, and have then declared how many and which of the Martyrs whom they commemorate I think are to be ascribed to Chalcedon. Those which are read in the Lucca copy in the said Fiorentini run thus: "In the Spains, in the city of Godoba, of Faustus, Marcia. At Calcidonia, the birthday of the saints Adrian, Faustus, Januarius, Marcellus": and from these two announcements, in the first of which Godoba is wrongly written for Corduba and Marciae for Martialis, the two others which the Corbie copy in the same Fiorentini contains do not altogether differ, being couched in these words: "In the Spains, in the city of Córdoba, of Faustus, Martia. At Calcedonia, the birthday of St. Adrian, likewise of Faustus, Januarius, Marcellus": but the Antwerp copy, whose announcements bearing on this are now to be transcribed, assigns the Saints whom it commemorates through them not, like the Lucca and Corbie copies, to two places only, but to three different places, in this manner: "In the Spains, of Faustus, Martial, Adria; and at Calcedonia, of Marcellus; and elsewhere of Faustus, Januarius, Marcellus, Alexander, Athanasius the bishop"; and that this is here very faulty is clear even from the fact that out of the city of Alexandria, where St. Athanasius the bishop is rightly marked by others, it wrongly fashions a Saint named Alexander.
[2] But however much not only the Antwerp or Echternach copy, only the three given above and designated here, but also the Lucca as well as the Corbie Hieronymian copies are faulty and confused in their announcements already given, it is agreed among the learned that in these indeed SS. Faustus, Januarius and Martial are commemorated, who have just above been brought into our Work, and who are further marked today by Usuard and not a few other hagiologists; and since this is so, and all these three suffered together at Córdoba, as is plain from their Acts already given above here, everyone will easily acknowledge that the Lucca and Corbie copies quite wrongly announce in that place only Faustus and Martial without Januarius, Martial whom moreover they wrongly call Marcia or Martia. Nor is there reason why the Reichenau copy, which is reckoned by Sollerius among the contracted Hieronymians, and which, no differently from the Antwerp copy, adds a third to Faustus and Martial, announced by it in Spain, should be thought to excel these two Hieronymian copies; for by this third, whom the former indeed names Andrianus, and the latter Adria, there must necessarily be understood, that the truth may be safe, not Januarius, who suffered in the Spains or at Córdoba, but another, who was truly called Adrian, and fell as a martyr not at Córdoba or in the Spains, but at Chalcedon.
[3] [Faustus, Januarius and Martial at Córdoba, but Adrian and Marcellus at Chalcedon,] For Adrian, who is marked not at Córdoba but at Chalcedon in the Lucca and Corbie Hieronymian copies through the announcements transcribed here above, is thus indicated to have fallen in the latter city, nor do the Acts of SS. Faustus, Januarius and Martial, who suffered together at Córdoba, already given above, anywhere reveal either that the middle one of these was called by another name Adrian, or that a fourth, who was named Adrian, was added to those three Martyrs. Furthermore, of the Martyrs marked today either at Córdoba or in the Spains, or at Chalcedon, through the announcements of the Hieronymians recited above, it appears undoubted that only those are to be ascribed to Córdoba whom the Acts just cited again attest to have suffered there; wherefore, since it is by no means established from the Acts, as has already been sufficiently indicated, that Adrian underwent martyrdom at Córdoba, he must be attributed not to Córdoba but to Chalcedon, where he is placed in the announcements of the Lucca and Corbie Hieronymians transcribed here above. But must the same be said of Marcellus also? So indeed it appears to me by parity of reasoning; and this opinion of mine is supported also by Notker, who expressly records Marcellus today at Chalcedon. The very same is done further also by Galesinius, Ferrari and the author of our Manuscript Florarium. Nor would I dare to assert that this is wrongly done by these and by Notker; for Marcellus, when this is done, does not seem to be confused with Martial, who is nowhere announced at Chalcedon.
[4] [to whom perhaps of those mentioned here, Marcus, and likewise Faustus and Januarius,] But Galesinius, Ferrari and the author of our Manuscript Florarium add to Adrian and Marcellus, marked by them, as has been said, at Chalcedon, also a third, whom they call Marcus; and there will perhaps be someone who, since Faustus and Januarius are marked with Marcellus at Chalcedon in the announcement of the Corbie Hieronymian given above, and moreover are joined today with the same Marcellus in the metrical Martyrology of Wandelbert, will think that it should here be called into doubt whether Januarius and Faustus, different from the Januarius and Faustus who suffered at Córdoba in Spain, as we have seen, are not commemorated in the announcement just praised and by Wandelbert, and consequently whether they are not, equally with Marcus, whom Galesinius, Ferrari and the author of our Manuscript Florarium add to Adrian and Marcellus, marked by them, as has been said, at Chalcedon, to be joined to these. And indeed that this can deservedly be doubted appears even from the fact that Wandelbert, who at the 28th day of September announces Faustus and Januarius with Martial, today likewise commemorates Faustus and Januarius with Marcellus, and thus seems himself to distinguish the latter from the former.
[5] But everyone knows that all the Hieronymian copies are foully corrupted and dislocated by the carelessness of the copyists by whom they have very often been transcribed, who are different from the two namesakes just mentioned, and that it not seldom happens either that the same Martyrs are repeated in them, or that some are placed in a place not their own, or that those who are marked in one of these copies, with even the arena in which they contended determined, are in another either altogether omitted, or commemorated with a disfigured name, or finally, ineptly repeated, are announced even in two different places. What if, then, the same Faustus who is marked in all the Hieronymian copies cited above either at Córdoba or certainly in Spain is then, ineptly repeated in the Lucca and Corbie copies, attributed to Chalcedon? What if, further, Januarius too, who should have been marked at Córdoba, was, placed in a place not his own, likewise ascribed to Chalcedon in these two latter Hieronymian copies? For indeed this could easily have happened, and consequently I do not think that the Faustus and Januarius attributed to Chalcedon in the same two Hieronymian copies, who are perhaps not different from the Faustus and Januarius who suffered martyrdom at Córdoba, are certainly to be joined to Marcellus and Adrian, who are announced at Chalcedon in the same copies. Nor would I dare to pronounce for certain that Marcus is rightly added by Galesinius, Ferrari and the author of our Manuscript Florarium to Marcellus and Adrian, marked by them, as has been said, at Chalcedon.
[6] For just as Martia or Marcia is faultily written for Martialis in the Lucca and Corbie Hieronymian copies, one or another ought to be joined, are to be ascribed, so also the name of Martial could in another Hieronymian copy have been corruptly changed into the name Marcus, and at the same time under this appellation that Saint whom the Echternach or Antwerp Hieronymian copy expressly places in the Spains could have been transferred thence to Chalcedon. There will perhaps be someone who now
contends that the very same must be said of the name of Marcellus; but the first six letters with which the name Martialis is written constitute the whole name Martia, and even for this reason alone the far greater difference which exists between the names Martialis and Marcellus persuades me that these two Saints are distinct from each other; so that, although the former of them suffered at Córdoba, the latter may nevertheless deservedly be thought to be joined to Adrian, marked at Chalcedon by the three hagiologists just praised again. Everything, therefore, having now been diligently weighed, of these three Saints, Faustus, Januarius and Marcus, of whom the first two are announced today at Chalcedon in the Corbie and Lucca Hieronymian copies, and can thus seem distinct from the Faustus and Januarius who suffered at Córdoba, while the last is joined by Galesinius, Ferrari and the author of our Manuscript Florarium to Adrian, who suffered at Chalcedon, I persuade myself that perhaps indeed one or another, but certainly Adrian and Marcellus, truly underwent martyrdom there.
[7] [and Tamayo, who thinks the contrary and places Adrian and Marcellus at Castulo in the Spains,] But Tamayo here opposes himself to this opinion, contending today in his Spanish Martyrology that Marcellus and Adrian, whom he calls Hadria, were afflicted with martyrdom not at Chalcedon but at Castulo in Spain together with Marcus and Faustinus or Faustus, and consequently that none of the Martyrs whom the Hieronymians announce today suffered at Chalcedon, and charging Galesinius, who hands down the contrary, with error. But let us see whether the reasons by which he is impelled to do this are valid. Flavius Dexter, he says, in the Chronicle in Bivar at the year 66, num. 7, fol. 127, has thus: "In Spain, in the city of Castulo, at the river Tagus flowing past that city, at the entrance of Baetica, the holy Martyrs killed for the name of Christ, Marcus and Hadria." So indeed the praised Chronicle in the place cited; but all the learned now know that it deserves plainly no credit, and consists almost entirely of fictions devised by Higuera. Nor can what it hands down in the words just recited concerning Marcus and Hadria, killed for the faith at Castulo in Spain, be established in any way from Bede, whom Tamayo also cites. For although the Martyrology published under the name of Bede by the Plantin press does indeed today record Marcus and Hadria together with Faustinus in the Spains, it does not add that these were killed there at Castulo.
[8] in vain alleges for his opinion Bede and the Toledo Moreover, that Martyrology is not a true offspring of Bede; so that, although it does what I have said, yet Bede is not to be thought to do it. Nor indeed does the genuine Martyrology of Bede, or at least that which is more purged of additions from eight ancient Manuscript codices and which is prefixed to tome 2 of March of our Work, make mention today of Marcus, Adria and Faustinus, killed for the faith in Spain, and, as Tamayo would have it, different from the martyrs Faustus, Januarius and Martial, killed at Córdoba. Hence I am persuaded that today's announcement of the Martyrology falsely ascribed to Bede, as I have already indicated, by which Marcus, Hadria and Faustinus are attributed to Spain, was taken from no other source than from the faulty and corrupt announcement of some Hieronymian copy, such as that by which the Echternach or Antwerp Hieronymian copy in Fiorentini today commemorates Faustus, Martial and Adria, and, the name Marcialis being changed into the name Marcia, was thrust into the said Martyrology falsely ascribed to Bede. But Tamayo, in order to defend his opinion, here calls to his aid an ancient Toledo Breviary, written, as he says, on parchment tablets, in which a single lesson is proposed, which he substitutes for the Acts of SS. Marcus, Hadria, Faustinus and Marcellus. But let us examine whether he thus makes his case.
[9] from which the Lesson bearing on this is exhibited here to the reader, That lesson is couched in these words: "When the persecution against the worshippers of Christ, which had long since begun in the western parts in the time of Nero, the most monstrous prince of the Romans, was being pursued more extensively by his public edicts, there were found at the most celebrated city of Castulo, among others, Marcus, Hadria, Faustinus and Marcellus, following the faith of Christ, whom the profane hand of attendants at once led to the tribunal of the judge. He took care to bring them to the worship of idols, first by blandishments, afterwards by the straits of torments. The holy Martyrs, persevering in the faith they had received, could neither assent to the words of the judge nor be terrified by blows; therefore, at the judge's command, received by the executioners, having suffered most grievous tortures, at last, their heads cut off, they are crowned with martyrdom." Hear now also what Tamayo observes on this lesson. "Behold," he says, "the structure of the lesson, by which the Passion of the holy Martyrs is recounted in a brief reckoning; from which I observe first of all that the holy Martyrs were four, not three, as our writers set forth less well, believing that Faustinus is one and the same as Marcellus, whom they called two-named. Secondly I observe also that the passion of these Martyrs took place in the western parts, not at Chalcedon, as Pietro Galesini wrongly dreamed, who, reading the ancient Manuscripts corruptly, where Castulone was written, perhaps not knowing the site of this city, put Chalcedone instead, as Bivar and M. Rus Puerta and our other countrymen have noted." So he; and indeed he would not be thought to speak thus altogether ineptly, if only one could stand safely enough by the Lesson of the Toledo Breviary which he supplies. But I persuade myself that this cannot be done, for the reason that what is related in it cannot be confirmed by the testimony of any other sufficiently ancient monument or writer whatever.
[10] Tamayo indeed calls the Toledo Breviary from which that Lesson is taken ancient; [the Breviary, as one which is not of sufficient antiquity to prove so ancient a matter,] but that it is so ancient as to suffice for establishing credit for things done even in the first century of the Christian era, such as are those which are commemorated in its said and already given Lesson, he neither proves, nor could he have proved it in any way. For our Papebroch, in his Response to article XVII of the Exhibition of errors, which is entitled On Breviaries, num. 5, having stated beforehand that the name of Breviary in the sense in which the Church takes it is not very ancient, and much more recent in so far as Lessons on the Saints for the Night Office are contained in it, and that consequently a great presumption for the truth of some very ancient fact cannot be formed from the great antiquity of Breviaries, teaches, from the testimony of Mabillon, who had brought that book from Monte Cassino to Paris, that the most ancient of all ecclesiastical books found under the title of Breviary was written no earlier than the 11th century, and had no Lessons inserted in it for the Night Office either of the season or of the Saints, presently adding also in num. 6 those things from which it is understood that Lessons on the Saints were inscribed in Breviaries only in the 14th and 15th centuries, whereas before they were only read aloud in choir from Legendaries or other books destined for that purpose.
[11] Now, since this is so, it follows [alleges, and since one should rather trust the most ancient Hieronymians, none of which marks those two Saints at Castulo,] that the Toledo Breviary praised by Tamayo, since it had the Lesson on the Saints recited above inscribed in it, was not older than the 15th, or certainly the 14th century, and that consequently, since from it no great presumption, to speak after the manner of Papebroch, can be formed for the truth of the things which it relates in that Lesson as done in the 1st century, it is alleged in vain by Tamayo for confirming his opinion. It may indeed be that the same Lesson, having first been inscribed in a Legendary, was afterwards brought thence into the praised Breviary, and thus was older than it; but since neither the time at which nor the writer by whom it was composed is known, how can we safely trust it? I indeed do not see how; nay rather I persuade myself that it is by no means to be trusted, even for this reason, that in the arena which it assigns to SS. Marcellus and Adrian, distinguishing the latter by the name Hadria, it conflicts with the most ancient Hieronymian copies in Fiorentini, by which one should rather stand here. For none of these records either Marcellus or Adrian at Castulo, as it does. The Echternach copy indeed places Adrian, whom it names Adria, in the Spains; but that in this matter it is faulty, since it moreover expressly puts Marcellus not at Castulo but at Chalcedon, is suggested by the two other Hieronymian copies in the same Fiorentini, namely the Lucca and Corbie ones, which most clearly mark both Adrian and Marcellus not at Castulo but at Chalcedon.
[12] [against Tamayo, who also wrongly carps at Galesinius as one who out of ignorance put Chalcedon for Castulo,] Let the studious reader now also consider whether Galesinius, as one who, having found Marcus, Marcellus and Hadrian, announced by him today, marked at Castulo in the ancient Manuscripts that lit his way, substituted Chalcedon for this city because he perhaps did not know where it was situated, is to be thought deservedly carped at by Tamayo in the words transcribed here above and by other Spanish writers. That martyrologist indicates in his Notes for today on the Martyrology composed by him that he drew what he commemorates of SS. Marcus, Marcellus and Hadrian not from several but from a single Manuscript book; and that these, who, as has been said, are placed at Castulo in no Hieronymian copies at all, were nevertheless marked at that place in that book, and that Galesinius substituted Chalcedon for that city for the reason alleged by Tamayo, appears to me indeed foreign to every appearance of truth, not to say certainly false; but on the contrary I think it most likely that the author of the Lesson adduced by Tamayo from the ancient Toledo Breviary, or certainly of the Legend from which it was brought into it, since he had found SS. Marcellus and Adrian or Hadria, and likewise Faustus and Marcus, announced in some Hieronymian copies, faultily written in almost the same manner as the Echternach copy today, in Spain, but in others at Chalcedon, and nevertheless believed, or certainly wished it to be believed, that these suffered in Spain, substituted for Chalcedon, because he knew no city of this name in Spain, Castulo, a city formerly most celebrated in that kingdom, about which Bivar discourses much in his Commentary on the spurious Chronicle of Dexter, page 132 and following, and wrote that those whom he commemorates suffered there.
[13] It is concluded that Adrian and Marcellus truly suffered at Chalcedon. It may indeed be replied that, if these were taken from the Hieronymian copies alone, it seems to follow from this, and yet that this cannot agree with the truth, since in them no mention at all is made of Nero, under whom the author of the Lesson, or of the Legend from which it was drawn, says they suffered; but what prevents him from being believed to have marked the Martyrs commemorated by him, whom he found marked in the Hieronymian copies without the tyrant under whom they suffered being expressed, as under Nero nevertheless, because, impelled by tradition or some other reason, he believed that very many others underwent martyrdom under him in Spain? Nothing
of the kind indeed do I find; and since this is so, I persuade myself that Adrian and Marcellus were truly drawn by the author of the Lesson given above from the Hieronymians alone, and that, as is indicated in the Lucca and Corbie copies of these, they suffered at Chalcedon, not at Castulo, as Tamayo would have it; but just as this appears to me, on account of what has been said, more likely than the contrary, so whether the matter took place under Nero or later appears very uncertain, on account of the little credit which, from what has been said, the Toledo Breviary cited by Tamayo deserves in placing it under Nero. Hence, speaking indefinitely for the reason alleged in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of SS. Faustus, Januarius and Martial, I have indicated by the numerical Notes already placed above in the margin that they most probably underwent martyrdom before the year CCCXII.