ON ST. ASCLEPIADES, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH,
TOWARDS THE YEAR 217.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
His memory in Eusebius and in the Martyrologies. In which and in how many years St. Asclepiades held the see of Antioch.
Asclepiades, Bishop and Martyr, at Antioch. (S.)
B. B.
Few things concerning this saint have come down to us. Eusebius of Caesarea Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XI. records his election, Summary of what is to be said. commending the virtues of the one elected in few but weighty words; and Ibid., chapter XXI. he relates that Philetus succeeded Asclepiades on his death. (For so it is commonly written; others write Philitus, others Philip; Eutychius, but by no means accurate, calls him Philemon.) From the Eusebian source drew all who afterwards wrote of our holy Prelate, whether Historians or Martyrologists. The present Commentary of ours would therefore be finished in a few words, were it not for the pledge given by our predecessors that the whole matter would in its place, as Du Sollier has it Martyrology of Usuard, in the Observation at the 18th day of October, p. 609., be examined afresh and more accurately, namely whether St. Asclepiades suffered under Decius or under Macrinus. Our Bosch has the same in the Patriarchs of Antioch [Acta Sanctorum, volume IV of July, Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch, no. 53, p. 14.]. First, therefore, we shall gather what occurs in the Historians concerning St. Asclepiades: then we shall examine the Martyrologies; finally we shall weigh the chronological question, that is, in which and in how many years he held the see of Antioch. We take our beginning, as is fitting, from Eusebius, who, as he is the most prolix of all, so also is the first of all (whose writings have come down to us) to make mention of Asclepiades.
[2] Eusebius on St. Asclepiades; He says, therefore: But at Antioch, Serapion having died, Asclepiades took up the episcopate of the church; who, having confessed the faith of Christ in the time of persecution, had won the greatest glory. Alexander makes mention of his Ordination in a letter to the Antiochenes in these words: Alexander, servant of God and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the most blessed church of the Antiochenes, greeting in the Lord. God has made my bonds easy and light in the time of my custody, after I learned that Asclepiades, a man most suitable by the merit of his faith, had by divine providence taken up the episcopate of your most holy church. And he signifies that he gave this letter to Clement to be carried, writing thus towards the end: Further, these letters, he says, my Lord brethren (κὺριοὶ μου ἀδελφοὶ), I have sent to you by the blessed presbyter Clement, a man endowed with virtue and approved: whom you both know already and will know more fully. Who indeed, by the will and providence of God, while he was present here with us, both confirmed and greatly increased the church of Christ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XI. According to Valois.. Then a little lower he relates: At Antioch
Asclepiades having died, Philetus obtained the episcopate of that church Ibid., chapter XXI..
[3] likewise St. Jerome. St. Jerome makes mention of blessed Asclepiades incidentally in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, where he treats of Clement, Presbyter of the church of Alexandria Chapter XXXVIII., who after the death of Pantaenus, whose hearer Clement had been, held the ecclesiastical school at Alexandria and was master of the κατηχήσεων. Then he enumerates his writings, which he calls notable volumes; among others: On the ecclesiastical Canons and against those who follow the error of the Jews, one book: which he addressed, προσεφώνησε, particularly to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. And after a few words in between he adds: There exists a Letter of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, who afterwards ruled the church together with Narcissus, concerning the ordination of Asclepiades the confessor, to the Antiochenes, congratulating them, in which he sets down at the end: These writings I have sent to you, my Lords and brethren, by Clement the blessed presbyter, an illustrious and approved man; whom you also know, and will now recognize more fully, who, having come hither according to the providence and visitation of God, confirmed and increased the church of the Lord. It is established that Origen was his disciple. He flourished, moreover, in the times of Severus and of Antoninus his son. So far Jerome, from which Clement, the bearer of the Letter on the ordination of Asclepiades, will be recognized. Le Quien, where he illustrates the patriarchate of Antioch, places Asclepiades tenth in order among the bishops of that see, of whom he has this Oriens Christianus, volume II, column 703.: Eusebius in the Chronicle: After Serapion, Asclepiades is established ninth bishop of Antioch (Eusebius numbers the bishops from the Apostles; if therefore St. Peter is added with Le Quien, Asclepiades will be tenth), to whom he assigns eight years of Pontificate (that this is said falsely will be seen afterwards). Then, having set down in part the things which are found in the history of Eusebius, as above, Le Quien concludes: Asclepiades, therefore, will have held the episcopate of Antioch from the year of Christ 211, the 1st of Antoninus Caracalla, up to the year of the Lord 219, and the 2nd of Elagabalus. Nicephorus numbers the years as θ᾽, 9. Of these things it will be said expressly below. Let it suffice here to have set down some notice of St. Alexander (of whom frequent mention occurs). He is venerated among the Greeks on the 16th day of May and the 22nd day of December Ibid., volume III, column 151.; among the Latins on the 16th day of March, on which day the Roman Martyrology announces thus: At Caesarea in Palestine, the natalis of blessed Alexander, bishop, who, coming from Cappadocia, from his own city where he was bishop, to Jerusalem from desire for the holy places, when Narcissus, bishop of the same city, already an old man, was ruling the church, by divine revelation took up its government: but afterwards, in the persecution of Decius, when he was already shining with the venerable grey hair of a long life, being led to Caesarea and shut up in prison, he completed his martyrdom for the confession of Christ. His acts are illustrated by us on the same day Acta Sanctorum, volume II of March, pp. 614–617..
[4] various Martyrologies; As regards the Martyrologists: the Old Roman of our Rosweyde, at the 15th day before the Kalends of November, makes mention of Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch. On the same day nothing concerning Asclepiades occurs in Bede (although Baronius intimates the contrary), but in the Auctaria at the 19th day (on which Bede is vacant) he is joined with St. Luke: Of Luke the Evangelist and Asclepiades. The Menologion of the Emperor Basil and the Greeks generally are silent, although, as we have said, he is venerated by them. Ado of Vienne has the following announcement on this day: Of Saint Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch, who was one of the illustrious number of confessors who suffered gloriously under Decius. Usuard repeats Ado word for word. It will be useful to transcribe here the Observation of our Du Sollier on the text of Usuard. The author of the Little Roman first made mention of Asclepiades thus, from Rufinus's Eusebius, book VI, chapter 9: And of Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch. And in very truth, as we saw above, these words are read in the Old Roman of Rosweyde, but they are plainly lacking in the Older Roman of Fiorentini: there is deep silence there about Asclepiades. Du Sollier, however, continues: Ado has a little more, and from him Ours (that is, Usuard): all of which I do not know whence they were taken; especially if suffering gloriously be understood of the punishment of death. For that he truly suffered Eusebius sufficiently expresses, book VI, chapter XI, when he says of him, succeeding Serapion: who, having confessed the faith of Christ in the time of persecution, had won the greatest glory; or, as Rufinus interprets, whose words are inserted in the text of Usuard: who himself also was one of the illustrious number of confessors. But certainly of a violent death there is no plain evidence; nor can he be said to have suffered under Decius; which, observed by Baronius, drove him to substitute Macrinus for Decius. We shall in its place examine the whole matter afresh and more accurately. It may be observed meanwhile that two Asclepiadeses were probably confused by Ado; namely this bishop of Antioch, who suffered under Severus; and another, the companion of Pionius, whose contest belongs to the times of Decius, as see in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of Pionius, 1st of February, §3. The very few things which remain in praise of our Asclepiades the said Eusebius briefly sets out in the place cited. So far Du Sollier Martyrology of Usuard, p. 609..
[5] the Roman. It is evident to us that the Passion of Asclepiades of Antioch cannot be referred to the times of Decius, who first gained possession of the empire in the month of October of the year 249. Unless, therefore, we say that Eusebius, Jerome, and all among the ancients who wrote of Asclepiades were incredibly deluded, the Announcement of Ado and Usuard cannot be admitted. Whence also it is to some extent likely, as Du Sollier observes, that Ado, deceived by the similarity of name, transferred to Asclepiades of Antioch what he found said of Asclepiades, the companion of St. Pionius. On that account also Baronius announces in the Roman Martyrology: At Antioch, of Saint Asclepiades, bishop, who was one of the illustrious number of Martyrs who suffered gloriously under Macrinus. And on this place he notes: Eusebius in the Chronicle, when he refers him (Asclepiades) to the time of Antoninus Caracalla, and his successor Philetus to the time of the Emperor Macrinus, shows that he reached as far as those times; the same (Eusebius) in the Ecclesiastical History, book VI. Jerome treats of the same, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 38, under Clement of Alexandria, where he makes mention of the letter of St. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, on the Ordination of Asclepiades the confessor, when he had received that see. Nicephorus likewise, book IV, chapter 19, and book V, chapters 10 and 26. From all of which Usuard, Ado and others who followed them, who say that he suffered in the persecution of Decius, are convicted of manifest error.
[6] St. Asclepiades suffered under Severus. Baronius indeed rightly struck out the name of Decius, but he too must be convicted of manifest error if, as the words seem of themselves to sound, he thought that he suffered under Macrinus. (See, however, below, no. 9.) From our chronological disquisition, to be set down presently, it will be made out with probability that St. Asclepiades died towards the end of Macrinus or at the beginning of Heliogabalus, but by no means that he suffered at that time; rather that he suffered before he was ordained bishop, under the rule of Lucius Septimius Severus, who held the throne from the year of Christ 193 to the year 211. Nor, therefore, is Asclepiades properly to be called a Martyr, but rather a Confessor, by which name those were distinguished who in times of persecution had confessed the faith strenuously amid tortures; and of whom afterwards not a few, the storm against the Christians having been calmed, are read to have been freed from prison and appointed to the government of churches. Nevertheless, as Benedict XIV shows at length De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, book I, chapter II., the words martyr and confessor were formerly used indiscriminately; and he cites, among others, Galesini, who has it thus: there are not lacking those who contend that the name of Martyr and Confessor was formerly synonymous; as also François-Aimé Pouget: formerly, he says, those alone were called Confessors of Christ who, when they had borne witness to the truth with peril of prison, exile, property, tortures and life itself, had nevertheless not been delivered to death; and they were called Confessors on account of the glorious and public confession of the name of Christ; they were also called Martyrs on account of the testimony shown to the truth Ibid., no. 6.. For the rest, one could stand by Ado and Usuard if Severus were put in place of Decius in this way: At Antioch, of Saint Asclepiades, bishop, who was one of the illustrious number of confessors who suffered gloriously under Severus.
[7] [On the beginning of the episcopate of St. Asclepiades according to the Chronicle of Eusebius] But in what year did the Episcopate of St. Asclepiades begin, in what did it end? On both limits there is no agreement among the learned. For fixing the beginning of his Episcopate we have chiefly two things: one is the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea; the other is the Ecclesiastical History of the same, in which the Ordination of Asclepiades is read to have happened while Alexander of Jerusalem was in Bonds, as is manifestly established from the latter's letter to the Antiochenes, praised and partly recited by us above. Now as regards the Chronicle: the Greek work of Eusebius (the words are those of Fabricius in the Bibliotheca Graeca Volume VII, p. 339. Hamburg edition of 1801.) has perished, except for the fragments and shreds which more recent Chronologers have preserved; Syncellus above all. The Latin codices (from St. Jerome's interpretation) vary wonderfully among themselves through the carelessness of the copyists, and quite often can easily be reconciled neither among themselves nor with history. And in fact in this place various copies set down various years. For the most part the year 211 occurs; the Chronicle in Scaliger's recension has the year 212 Chronicorum liber posterior, p. 172.; in the edition of the Chronicles according to the Armenian codex, by the care of Angelo Mai and Johannes Zohrab [The two books of the Chronological canons of Eusebius Pamphili. Work edited from the Armenian codex by Angelo Mai and Johannes Zohrab. Milan, 1818.], the year is 213, namely in the first of the 248th Olympiad, likewise in the first of Caracalla; the same year is expressly set down in the other edition of the same work, which is found in the new collection of ancient writers Volume VIII, p. 391. Rome edition of 1833. which the same most celebrated Mai published in ten volumes. Among all these, in the places cited, is read: Asclepiades is established ninth Bishop of Antioch. We already have, therefore, three different years to which the beginning of his episcopate is tied.
[8] George Syncellus, whom all know to have used, nay even abused, the Chronicle of Eusebius very greatly, according to Goar's Canon has at the year of Christ 208, the 6th of Antoninus Caracalla: Bishop of Antioch IX, Asclepiades, for 9 years [Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, Syncellus, volume II, p. 291. Bonn, 1839.]. But in the very text of Syncellus Ibid., volume I, pp. 673 and 674. Asclepiades is written after the death of Macrinus, in the year 210; and again under the rule of Antoninus Aurelius (whom he records to have reigned 4 years, namely from the year of Christ 211 to the year 215): Bishop of Antioch IX, Asclepiades, for 9 years. And he is indicated as contemporary with Callistus, Roman pontiff (whose beginnings fall in the year 219, or, as Scaliger would have it, in the year 217), and with the 34th Bishop of Jerusalem, Sardianus (while the 348 is Alexander, nor does Sardianus appear anywhere in Le Quien
and others) [Cf. Acta Sanctorum, volume III of May, Chronological History of the Bishops of Jerusalem, p. XIII.]. From the rude and undigested farrago of Syncellus, therefore, nothing certain can be concluded for our purpose. Since, moreover, we noted above that nothing at all fixed is to be had from the Chronicle of Eusebius, there remains his Ecclesiastical History, according to which the Ordination of Asclepiades falls in the time when St. Alexander was in Bonds. But here Baronius must be heard, in the Annals at the year 213, no. 12 Volume II, p. 437. Lucca edition of 1738..
[9] and the Ecclesiastical History of the same. If it was when Alexander was in bonds that the election of Asclepiades happened to be celebrated at Antioch, how could this have happened, if from the death of Severus there was peace in the whole church (as Sulpicius Severus reckons) for thirty-eight years? Wherefore it must be said that Alexander was ennobled by those bonds before the present year (213), in the persecution of Severus, and that thus at that time Asclepiades himself also, having suffered much in the same persecution, was likewise Ordained Bishop. Thus, therefore, as the election of Asclepiades, so also the imprisonment of Alexander is not to be placed after the death of Severus, who (namely Alexander) is established by his own statement (namely in the letter praised above) to have been afflicted with prison before (namely under Severus), and thus afterwards under Antoninus, in this year (as Eusebius will have it), to have been presented with the Episcopate of Jerusalem. Whence the same Baronius rightly concludes: In what year of Severus the imprisonment of Alexander and the Ordination of Asclepiades occurred it is not easy to affirm.
[10] It is more probably referred to the year 211. Since, however, Severus died at York in England on the 4th of February in the year of Christ 211; and, on the testimony of Sulpicius Severus Sacred History, book II, chapter XXXII., there was then peace for the Christians for an interval of thirty-eight years, except that in the intervening time (after Alexander) Maximinus harassed the clerics of some churches; it may be inferred that the beginnings of Asclepiades cannot be moved beyond this year (211) or the following, granted that the effects of the edicts passed against the Christians by the preceding emperor did not cease everywhere immediately on the beginning of the rule of Antoninus Caracalla (who was the successor of Severus). Wherefore the Ordination of St. Asclepiades is not improbably placed in the year 211. And in fact this is written by Baronius, Le Quien, Tillemont, etc., and likewise our Bosch in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch, which see at the head of volume IV of July.
[11] In what year St. Asclepiades died. But in what year did he depart this life? The matter is very much entangled, says Bosch in the place cited. So much so that Tillemont (where he treats of Serapion and Asclepiades) thought it unknown whether he died while Macrinus was reigning, in the year of Christ 217; or under M. A. Heliogabalus, in the year of Christ 220; or finally in the 1st year of the emperor Alexander, of Christ 222. The first is in the Chronicle of Eusebius; the second seems to be gathered from George Syncellus, St. Nicephorus, the Haarlem catalogue and Eutychius, who all ascribe IX years to Asclepiades; the third is thought to be drawn out of the History of Eusebius, book VI, chapter XXI, and Nicephorus Callistus draws it out, book V, chapter XXVI, when he says: At Antioch, under the rule of Alexander, Philetus was substituted for Asclepiades in the episcopal office. So briefly and clearly Bosch.
[12] From the chronicle of Eusebius the year 217 or 218 is drawn. In most copies of the Eusebian Chronicle the Ordination of Philetus is written at the year 217; according to Scaliger's recension it falls in the year 218; with Scaliger agrees the Eusebius of Angelo Mai, who, as is known, edited his Chronicle from the Armenian codex. For the rest, it may be admitted that the various copies of the Eusebian Chronicle do not here depart from one another: since the difference in noting the 217th or 218th year can arise from the manner in which the beginning of the year is taken differently by different people, or from very many other causes, which occur not infrequently even in the Dates of more recent age.
[13] From the History of Eusebius But as regards the History of Eusebius, the passage here in question admits several ways of interpreting; nor certainly is it clearly made out from it that Asclepiades died at the beginning of the emperor Alexander. To this purpose it will help to recite the very words of Eusebius. For the rest, he says [Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XXI, at the beginning. According to Valois.], when Antoninus had reigned for seven years and just six months, Macrinus succeeded. Who, when he had prolonged his life and his rule together up to the space of one year, another Antoninus again received the Roman principate. In the first year of his rule Zephyrinus, Bishop of the city of Rome, departed from life, when he had held the priesthood for eighteen years. After whom Callistus took up the Episcopate: who, having lived on for five years, left the church to be ruled by Urban. After this Alexander took up the Roman Empire, Antoninus having reigned only four years, at which time indeed, Asclepiades having died at Antioch, Philetus obtained the Episcopate of that church. Further, the mother of the Emperor Alexander, Mamaea by name, a woman pious and religious above all, since the name of Origen was everywhere held most celebrated, so that it had been carried even to her ears, desired to enjoy the sight of him, and to know by most certain experience the knowledge of divine things which all greatly admired in that man. Therefore she, living at Antioch, having sent a military escort, summons the man. Who, having stayed with her for some time … returned in good time to his accustomed abode. So far Eusebius.
[14] the same year is not improbably taken. Now let us hear our Bosch again on the aforesaid words of Eusebius: If you look a little more attentively into the chapter of Eusebius adduced, it will easily, unless I am mistaken, be brought back to the year assigned in the Chronicle: for since there, as if by a recapitulation, he heaps together many things: such as the time of the rule of Caracalla, Macrinus, Heliogabalus; then of the Roman Pontiffs, Zephyrinus, Callistus, Urban, and finally Alexander succeeding Heliogabalus; he continues thus: ἐν τούτῳ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας Ἀσκληπιάδην Φιλητὸς διαδέχεται, which Valois interprets thus: at which time indeed (namely of Alexander taking up the empire), Asclepiades having died at Antioch, Philetus obtained the Episcopate of that church. But ἐν τούτῳ extends more widely, that is, among these things (namely which I have now narrated from the death of Antoninus Caracalla), meanwhile, in the meantime, in this intervening space, etc. He does not therefore tie the succession of Philetus to the rule of Alexander; but, using vague particles, he comprises the whole of that space which lies between the death of Caracalla and the beginning of Alexander. It is therefore permissible, according to the History, to place Philetus, the successor of Asclepiades, under the Emperor Macrinus, in the year of Christ CCXVII, with the Chronicle: and to this opinion St. Prosper subscribes in the complete Chronicle, when he says that Philetus, the successor of St. Asclepiades, was ordained in the consulship of Praesens and Extricatus, in place of whom, according to the Rationarium of our Petavius, Opilius Macrinus and Opellius Antonius were substituted on the first of May 217 Rationarium temporum, Part III, p. 128. Verona edition of 1741, in folio.. There is assuredly nothing that compels us to depart from this interpretation, which Tillemont had already indicated in Note I on St. Serapion [Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, volume III, p. 648. Paris edition of 1701, in quarto.].
[15] From Origen's journey to Mamaea nothing can be concluded for our purpose. Bosch then adds: To this also pertains Origen's journey to Mamaea, mother of Alexander, then staying at Antioch, which (Eusebius) subjoins at once in the same chapter, which Tillemont proves against Huet to have occurred in the year of Christ CCXVIII, note 16 on Origen Ibid., pp. 763, 764., and against Pagi at the year of Christ CCXXIX, no. 16, volume 3 Histoire des Empereurs, volume III, p. 257. Brussels edition of 1732, in folio., note 8 on the Emperor Alexander, Philetus being already seated among the Antiochenes. If Tillemont had really proved this solidly, an argument not to be despised would be had. But it is a supposition or conjecture rather than a proof, as will be evident from the summary of Tillemont's reasoning subjoined here [Note XVI on Origen. Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, volume III, p. 763 and 764.]. It does not appear, he says, that Mamaea, while her son was reigning, ever lived at Antioch, except after the Persian war was finished, which indeed, according to all, falls at the end of Alexander, towards the year of Christ 234. Nor yet can Origen's journey be said to have been undertaken after the year 227 without the whole Historical series of Eusebius being turned upside down. It will therefore be better to admit that it happened when Heliogabalus, Mamaea's nephew, came to Antioch after the death of Macrinus in the year of Christ 218; and that Eusebius treated this matter under Alexander because the beginning of his rule gave occasion for speaking of his mother, nor did Eusebius otherwise know for certain in precisely what year Origen, at her summons, had gone to Antioch. And this interpretation of the words of Eusebius is indeed not absurd; but it would have to be proved by certain arguments, which I do not find in Tillemont, whom therefore our Bosch does not rightly assert to have proved that Origen's journey to Mamaea falls in the year of Christ CCXVIII. Nor did the same Bosch write with sufficient consideration that this was proved by Tillemont against Huet and Pagi, since between these and him, in the places cited, the dispute properly concerns the Persian War, namely in what year of Alexander it was waged. Nevertheless, if, as Huet seems to hold, that war were to be referred to the very first beginnings of the said emperor, the conjecture of Tillemont praised above would collapse from its foundations: for, this being supposed, Origen could have met Mamaea before the year 227. Hence it will not be beside the point to discuss incidentally and summarily some things on this subject, both because it is not very foreign to our purpose, and because in the words of Bosch recited above some things are to be corrected.
[16] [Some things are incidentally touched concerning the Persian War, from the chronicle of Eusebius,] Tillemont says, then, that the Persian war is tied by Huet to the beginning of the reign of Alexander; but that the Chronicle of Eusebius is wrongly invoked by him, since no mention of the Persian war is made there; but rightly in the Chronicle of St. Jerome at the 1st or 2nd year of Alexander, of Christ 222. And in very truth in the Greek text of Eusebius itself the Persian war is not noted; but who does not know that this text, as it is had today, is mutilated? The Greek work of Eusebius, as we have already noted above from Fabricius, has perished, except for the fragments and shreds which more recent chronologers have preserved, Syncellus above all, and Cedrenus, and the writer of the Alexandrian or Paschal chronicle. But St. Jerome translated the Chronicle of Eusebius into Latin, in such a way as to add certain things here and there: for it must be known, he says in the Preface Thesaurus temporum of Scaliger, p. 4 at the end. Amsterdam edition of 1658., that I have used in part the office both of interpreter and of writer, because I have both expressed the Greek most faithfully, and added some things which seemed to me to have been omitted, chiefly in the Roman history, which Eusebius, the author of this book, did not so much fail to know, being most learned, as, writing in Greek,
seems to me to have touched lightly as being little necessary to his readers. And so from Ninus and Abraham up to the capture of Troy it is a pure Greek translation. From Troy up to the twentieth year of Constantine very many things are now added, now mingled, which we have most carefully excerpted from Tranquillus and the other illustrious historians. Although, therefore, one may not easily define whether what occurs there concerning the Persian war comes from the Eusebian source, or whether Jerome added it of his own, yet Tillemont is all but cavilling here, since the Hieronymian version is indiscriminately called the Chronicle of Eusebius. Finally, in Scaliger's Eusebius the Persian War is noted at the 1st and 2nd years of Alexander, of Christ 223 and 224; in Angelo Mai's Eusebius (the last edition, in the New collection of ancient writers Volume VIII. Rome edition of 1833.) at the 1st year of Alexander, of Christ 225.
[17] and from Herodian. But what Huet adds (so Tillemont proceeds), that neither Herodian nor any other of the historians noted the years of the said war, is false at least as regards Herodian: for he expressly affirms that Alexander received news of the incursion of the Persians into the borders of the Romans in the fourteenth year of his rule. And this indeed rightly: for Herodian writes Book VI, chapter II.: When (Alexander) had governed the empire in this manner for thirteen years (so far as concerned himself) without anyone's complaint, behold, unexpectedly, letters from Syria and Mesopotamia were delivered by the generals, in which it was written: that Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, the Parthians being already conquered, and Artabanus (who was first called great king and used a double diadem) having been driven not only from the kingdom of the East but also from life, was subduing the neighbouring barbarians and making them tributary to himself; and that he no longer kept himself within the river Tigris; but, having passed its banks and the borders of the Roman empire, was overrunning Mesopotamia and threatening Syria; and was claiming for himself, as the old possession of the Persians, the whole continent opposite Europe, which is bounded by the Aegean sea and the strait of the Propontis and has the name of Asia, etc. From which it is made out, according to Herodian (unless with Pagi we admit that this passage is corrupt, as will presently be indicated), that, the XIIIth year of Alexander having already elapsed, and the XIVth therefore begun, news was received of the hostile incursion of Artaxerxes, which was the beginning of the Persian war. One would certainly have to stand by this testimony of Herodian, who lived contemporary with the Emperor Alexander, were it not certainly established from elsewhere that Alexander, together with his mother Mamaea, was slain on the borders of Germany in the fourteenth year of his rule, begun only a few days before. Whence it cannot be that the beginning of the Persian war falls in the said year, since Alexander led an army against him (Artaxerxes) and conquered, as Lampridius teaches from the Acts of the Senate, and triumphed on the 7th day before the Kalends of October. Although the same (namely Lampridius) relates that Herodian wrote far otherwise (for he narrates the matter as conducted unhappily by the Romans). Having discharged this expedition, he undertook a new one against the Germans, in which he is slain by a conspiracy of a few soldiers… This was done in the year of Christ 235. He reigned a little more than 13 years; he lived twenty-nine with 3 months. So Petavius Rationarium Temporum, Part I, book V, chapter X at the end.. It is evident, therefore, that Herodian slips in assigning the years of the Persian war. But, as Tillemont not absurdly replies, if Herodian could be deceived by one or two years, it is not likely that his error extends as far as the twelfth or thirteenth year; and that, being a contemporary, he placed at the end of the reign what had happened at the beginning, especially since the Persian war holds the chief place among the deeds done by Alexander.
[18] In what year it was waged. Nevertheless, since according to Tillemont himself Histoire des Empereurs, note IX on Alexander, volume III, p. 259. Herodian is by no means infallible, and is probably not worthy of credit when he narrates that the matter turned out unhappily for Alexander against the Persians, and moreover manifestly errs in assigning the beginning of the Persian War; it follows that his testimony here is to be judged of no great weight. For the rest, Tillemont himself Ibid., p. 85. Life of Alexander, article XV. refers the ruin of Artabanus and the incursion of Artaxerxes into the borders of the Romans to the year of Christ 226, the 4th and 5th of Alexander. Which certainly does not depart so far from the opinion of Huet: for one would not absurdly say that the fourth and fifth year of Alexander belong to the beginning of his reign. Afterwards indeed Tillemont adds that Artaxerxes for the time sent word to the Romans of his undertakings and turned his arms against the Medes: but by what reason he supposes this is not so easily seen, especially since in the same place he sets out the origin and causes of the Persian war as they are given by Herodian himself. He ties the end of the war, or the triumph of Alexander, to the XIth and XIIth years of his reign, of Christ CCXXXIV Ibid., p. 93.. Pagi contends that the beginning of the Persian war should be established in the year CCXXIX or CCXXX, the Vth or VIth of Alexander [In the Critica at the year 229, no. II. Baronius, volume II, p. 480. Lucca edition.]; but the triumph of Alexander in his IXth year, of Christ CCXXXII. But in the past year, he says Ibid., p. 509, at the year 232, no. IV., the Roman empire was in arms, and therefore the Persian war too, which was Alexander's first, was waged, and in this year the triumph was led. And below: Herodian, book VI, chapter VI, having narrated the Persian war, writes: for three or four years thereafter the Barbarians by no means resumed arms. When this was understood, Alexander stayed at Antioch, and, now more cheerful and freer, the cares of war being relaxed, indulged in the delights of that city. From which words it is clear, first, that Alexander after the triumph returned from Rome to Antioch; secondly, that he spent three or four years there before the German war; thirdly, that the common opinion, which throws the Persian war into the last years of Alexander, is opposed to Herodian, who relates that the Persians remained quiet for three or four years after the war. For if Alexander had moved war against the Persians after he had reigned thirteen years, as the corrupt passage of Herodian has it, when it was finished Alexander could by no means have stayed at Antioch for three or four years Ibid., p. 510.. And from these things it sufficiently appears in what great darkness all these matters are wrapped. It is not, therefore, sufficiently established at what time that war was waged; and accordingly our Bosch affirms without sufficient reason that Tillemont proves against Huet that Origen's journey happened in the year of Christ CCXVIII.
[19] [St. Asclepiades more probably held the see of Antioch from the year 211 to the year 217.] The argument drawn from the life of Origen for defining the time at which St. Asclepiades died is therefore not very firm, nor accordingly is anything solidly concluded from it. There remain, therefore, the things we disputed above from the Chronicle and History of Eusebius: for these, as regards his death, can be reconciled with each other. Whence Bosch infers [Acta Sanctorum, volume IV of July, Chronological history of the patriarchs of Antioch, p. 14.]: since, then, the history of Eusebius does not depart from the Chronicle, why should we seek, nay admit, another year or author? Asclepiades therefore presided about six full years: for there are so many from the 1st year of Caracalla, of Christ CCXI, to the 18th day of October of the year of Christ CCXVII, under Macrinus, when his death is celebrated. And indeed that Asclepiades died after the September of that year is clear from the year which Eusebius ascribed to the beginning of Philetus, of Abraham MMCCXXXIV, the second of Olympiad CCXLIX, which with him begins from the Autumn of the year of Christ CCXVII. Baronius, although he wrote that it cannot be precisely defined in what year of Severus the ordination of Asclepiades occurred, nevertheless afterwards attributes to him an Episcopate of six years. The Chronography of Syncellus, the Compendious Chronography of Nicephorus, the Haarlem Catalogue and Eutychius set down nine years: whom the Authors of the work (L'art de vérifier les dates P. 241.) follow. Le Quien attributes somewhat less. Asclepiades, he says (Oriens Christianus, where he treats of the Patriarchs of Antioch Volume II, column 703.), will have held the Episcopate of Antioch from the year of Christ 211 and the 1st of Antoninus Caracalla up to the year of the Lord 219 and the 2nd of Elagabalus. Nicephorus numbers the years as θ᾽, 9. And these are the things which we have been able to gather concerning the Chronological question. From which it appears that only more or less probable things can be established concerning the years of the Episcopate of St. Asclepiades.