ON ST. BARSABIAS, ABBOT, AND COMPANIONS, MARTYRS IN PERSIA,
IN THE YEAR 342.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Barsabias, martyr in Persia (S.)
Ten companions, martyrs in Persia (SS.)
J. V. H.
§ I. The silence of the ecclesiastical calendars; the Acts of the martyrdom, written by St. Maruthas; the year and day of the passion.
St. Barsabias, until now The Acts of St. Barsabias and Companions, translated from the Chaldaic into Latin by Stefano Assemani Acta SS. Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium, vol. I, p. 96., say that their passion fell on the tenth day of the moon of the month of June, which in the year 342 coincides with the 3rd solar day of the same month. At that day, therefore, the Acts of our Holy Martyrs should have been placed. But in the year 1695, when the first volume of the Bollandist June was published, not only their passion but even the slightest memory of them was hidden from all; these came to light at last when in the year 1748 Stefano Evodio Assemani, archbishop of Apamea, made public the Acts of the Eastern and Western Martyrs. But Alban Butler in his universal Hagiology, although, when he was beginning his work, he had more probably examined the Acts of Assemani, nevertheless narrates the martyrdom of our Saints under this day, the 20th of October, without alleging any reason for this arrangement of his. From Butler, further, flowed the elogium of St. Barsabias into the universal Martyrology which the chevalier de Saint-Allais published in French in the year 1823 with second pains from Châtelain. Certainly, if the matter were still open to us, we should not hesitate to consign the Acts of our Saints to the 3rd day of June according to our custom. But we are already so far advanced in the course of the year that the memory of St. Barsabias must either be omitted or referred to a supplement, perhaps never to be published. We prefer, therefore, to fill the gap here rather than to bequeath to a late and uncertain posterity a work perhaps never to be completed. Wherefore we approach the commenting of the Acts of SS. Barsabias and Companions.
[2] unknown to all the martyrologists, There is, so far as I know, no Martyrology of the Church, whether Latin or Greek, which records the memory of St. Barsabias and his Companions. Alban Butler indeed says in his Hagiology, written in English, that the memory of our Martyrs is celebrated on the 11th day of December both in the Roman Martyrology and in the Menologies of the Greeks: namely, he thought our Barsabias one and the same with the Martyr Barsabas, who is in fact presented at the 11th day of December as a Martyr in Persia. But, says Assemani Ibid., p. 92., from whom we have drawn most of what is in this Commentary, one would search with vain effort for the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Barsabias and Companions both in Latin and in Greek writers, for they draw their first light here from our Chaldaic codices. In the Roman Martyrology, indeed, a commemoration of "St. Barsabas, Martyr in Persia" occurs at the 11th day of December: but that he is altogether different from our cenobiarch is plainly discerned from the very notes appended to the same Martyrology. For Baronius there warns that the memory of the Martyr Barsabas is kept by the Greeks on the same day. But he whose martyrdom the Basilian Menology and the Menaea celebrate together on that day, Apsaeus by name, is called a deacon, never a cenobiarch; nor are companions joined to him. And so he seems to have some connection not with our Barsabias, but rather with Barhadbeschiadas, the deacon martyr, whose Acts we shall give below. Thus Assemani, in whose text some things come to be observed.
[3] he was wrongly confused by Butler with St. Barsabas: First, when the praised writer had inclined,
to fuse Barsabas with Barhadbeschiadas into one person, he afterwards retracted this opinion in the preliminary Admonition to the martyrdom of St. Barhadbeschiadas Ibid., p. 128, and pronounced that they were two different Persian Martyrs. Next, the opinion expressed by Assemani, that the martyr Barsabas is the same as Apsaeus or Acepsimas (for it is written variously), it is not for this place to investigate more curiously, since this question will arise of its own accord at the 11th day of December, on which he is celebrated in the Martyrologies. Let us nevertheless observe that in the Greek Menaea a distinct memory is kept both of Apsaeus with Aithalas and of Barsabas Menaea, month of December, vol. XI, p. 97, Venice edition 1843., and that this Apseus or Acepsimas is not to be confused with his namesake, likewise a Martyr in Persia, but a bishop, of whom our predecessors treated under the 22nd day of April Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 19. and Assemani in the Acts of the Martyrs Vol. I, p. 168.. Finally, in the elogium of St. Barsabas nothing is indicated from which it may be conjectured that he had one or more companions, so that he seems rather to have suffered alone. Thus the Roman Martyrology, when it says: In Persia, of St. Barsabas, martyr, declares a solitary martyrdom. So too the Menaea, with which the Basilian Menology agrees, records one athlete in these words December, vol. XI, p. 97
Θυσας,
Βαρσαβᾶ,
ζῆθι,
λυτρωθεὶς
ξίφους;
Ἄνω
ποθῶ
ζῆν,
θᾶττον
ἡκέτω
ξίφος.
Sacrificing, Barsabas, live, freed from the sword: In the heavens I long to live; rather let the sword come.
The Menology of Sirleto also has under the same day Canisius, Thesaurus Monumentorum, vol. III, part I, p. 495, Basnage's edition: The contest of the holy Martyr Barsabas, who, when he freely confessed Christ as true God, was beheaded by the governor of Persia. The Menaea, in the place cited, report the same word for word. From all these it is clear that this Martyr was associated with no one, and so must be altogether distinguished from our St. Barsabias the cenobiarch, who entered upon and consummated his contest with eleven fellow soldiers.
[4] Assemani translated his Acts from the Syriac into Latin, As regards the Acts which we shall publish below, they are of such antiquity, authority and genuineness that they rightly claim all credence for themselves. Of which thing a most luminous testimony is furnished to us by the very series of the Acts of the Eastern martyrs, so arranged that the beginnings of nearly each one refer to the preceding passions. For the Acts of various martyrs frequently begin with expressions of this kind: On this same day Assemani, Acta Martyrum, vol. I, p. 45.; at about the same time Ibid., pp. 93, 118, 123, 165.; two years having passed after the martyrdom of Blessed Miles Ibid., p. 103.; it happened unseasonably that at the same time Ibid., p. 54; meanwhile Sciahdustes is substituted for Simeon in the episcopate of Seleucia and Ctesiphon Ibid., p. 88.. These beginnings of the Acts which we cite here, therefore, show clearly that the continuous narrative was composed both by one author and in one tenor, since there exists a perpetual connection among the many passions, and so the various Acts coalesce into one work. Further, the writer of this work, in the Acts of St. Acepsimas, who suffered in the year of Christ 376, with which he finishes his narrative of the Persian Martyrs, points out the sources from which he drew his material and indicates his age in these words Ibid., p. 208.: But perhaps you will say that what has been set forth by us in the former discourses (namely the Acts of the Martyrs of whom he had treated above) about the monstrous cruelty which we have recorded the tyrants used against the Martyrs of God is scarcely credible, and that it could not have come about that they should decree those most atrocious things against them and kill them by those kinds of death.
[5] and they have as author Nevertheless, the author answers, whoever opposes this to us, let him be thoroughly persuaded that we have been able to bring forward only a few things out of many. For the rest, all the Martyrs who pleaded their cause in the king's palace were struck with the sword; but of those who were killed by the prefects, neither the names, nor the number, nor the place of martyrdom have so far become known: but they were harassed and tortured as has been set forth by us. The examinations, further, which we have written out, as we have found by certain documents, through which knowledge of the tyrants also has come down to us, the most cruel governors of the places practised against the servants of God, and they were held for the most part in the cities of Persia. As regards those last Martyrs, whose martyrdom and judicial acts we have related copiously, some were our contemporaries and underwent martyrdom in our times, and it was granted us to see them. But of those who were earlier, we have diligently written down their deeds according to the knowledge handed down to us by elder bishops and presbyters, witnesses most worthy of credence, who narrated things done in their own age and before their own eyes. Thus the writer of the Acts, who enclosed the series of his whole narrative between the martyrdom of St. Simeon Bar-Saboë, bishop, consummated in the 31st year of the reign of Sapor Ibid., p. 10., and the slaying of St. Acepsimas, perpetrated 39 years after Ibid., pp. 181 and 190.. Accordingly, since from what has been said above the writer professes himself a witness of the later contests, and drew his knowledge of the earlier ones from witnesses most worthy of credence, there is nothing that can shake his authority.
[6] What we have said thus far is placed beyond all controversy: St. Maruthas, but there is another question somewhat more intricate, namely who is to be held the writer of these Acts. Joseph and Stefano Assemani, the former in his Bibliotheca Orientalis, the latter in the Acts of the Holy Martyrs, think that St. Maruthas, whose deeds will be elucidated on the 4th of December, is the author of the Acts. In confirmation of their assertion they bring forward first the testimony of Hebedjesu, an author of the 13th century, who writes [Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. I, p. 181. Acta SS. Martyrum Orientalium, vol. I, preface, p. XLVII.] that Maruthas, bishop of Maipherkat (Martyropolis) and a most skilled physician, composed a book of martyrdoms and hymns and odes on the Martyrs. These things would indeed furnish a strong argument in favour of St. Maruthas if he alone were known as hagiographer of the Persian martyrdoms: but, as Stefano Assemani admits Acta Martyrum, vol. I, preface, p. LXIV., besides Maruthas there were others, among whom Achaeus, bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, and another, likewise a bishop, of Adana, who at the same time set forth the history of the Persian Martyrs. Sozomen also, book II, chapter XIV P. 63, Cambridge edition, 1720., says that the Persians, Syrians and Edessenes put very much zeal and labour into this matter (that is, into recording the number and the names of the martyrdoms). From this head, therefore, it becomes uncertain whether St. Maruthas, although it be admitted as undoubted that he wrote a hagiology of the Persian Martyrs, is nevertheless the author of those Acts which Stefano Assemani published translated from the Chaldaic into Latin.
[7] as is shown at greater length: This doubt the praised Assemani resolves by the following reasoning Acta Martyrum, vol. I, preface, p. LXV.: What completes the business of our plainly most evident demonstration, there comes to hand here that argument which is both reckoned most robust among all critics and is certainly available to us most luminously. For this is the law of the critics, confirmed by common consent, that if an anonymous writing is found to agree, by the mark of time, place and style, with the pursuits, age, place and diction of a certain author, that writing is to be adjudged to him above all. And we, besides those indications both of times and of places which we have so far reviewed, and all of which we have already seen to signify and plainly point to Maruthas, what at length have we left to desire, if indeed there is added this very thing too, the argument from the style of this History of the eastern Martyrs, most closely similar to the other writings of Maruthas which survive? Let all men, indeed, who are thoroughly versed in Chaldaic or Syriac be present with us; let them be present to view the matter with me and to examine it plainly; let them see how this History and the other writings of Maruthas, which are most certain, teem with the same eloquence, sound together in the same circuit of words and expressions, are strong in the same purity of diction, shine forth most luminously with the same elegances, the same phrases, the same intervals of sense. I indeed willingly admit this whole manner of argument, since at the 4th day of December it can and must be treated again on purpose in the Commentary. Nevertheless, as regards place and time, it has this in common with the other contemporaries cited above, and so cannot produce any distinction. As regards style, however, that, being ignorant of the Syriac language, I am not able to judge: one thing nevertheless I shall observe, that a proof of this kind is not seldom slippery when the question at issue is to which, above all, among various men of the same region, age and condition, a book is to be ascribed.
[8] the time of the martyrdom We have treated thus far of the authority and writer of the Acts to be published; now we take a step to inquire in what year St. Barsabias and his companions consummated their martyrdom. The Passion of St. Barsabias begins with these words: At about the same time at which Blessed Miles was crowned with the laurel of martyrdom…, the most holy Barsabias was accused: whence it is given to understand that the year of the martyrdom of our Saints depends on the time of the passion of St. Miles. But in the Acts of St. Miles no note of time occurs besides the day of the martyrdom: wherefore the year of the passion of St. Miles, and so too of St. Barsabias, must be found by other aids. Further, as we observed above at number 4, all the Acts are so connected with one another that they make one work proceeding in chronological order: from this we have the consequence that the time of the martyrdom of St. Barsabias, who comes in the sixth place, depends on the preceding passion, namely of St. Sciahdustes or Sadoth, bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, who occurs in the fifth place. Sadoth, moreover, met martyrdom one year after his predecessor, St. Simeon Bar-Saboë, the standard-bearer of the Persian Martyrs under Sapor. For Sadoth himself narrates that he saw St. Simeon in sleep saying to him Acta Martyrum, vol. I, p. 88.: Well done, Siahdustes … yesterday I, today you are to come up to this place… And what he added to me, says St. Sadoth, yesterday I, today you, signifies that he indeed was killed in the past year, but that I shall be killed in the present one. Further, St. Simeon suffered in the hundred and seventeenth year of the reign of the Persians, which was the thirty-first of Sapor Ibid., p. 15.: wherefore the year of the martyrdom of St. Sadoth will have to be fixed as the thirty-second of Sapor.
[9] with the 32nd year of Sapor, What we have said so far about the time of the martyrdom of St. Sadoth fits excellently for defining the year of the passion of St. Miles. For when St. Miles was consummating his contest, there befell bishop St. Sadoth the dream of which we have spoken above: this, namely, the words indicate with which he begins the history of St. Sadoth Ibid., p. 88.: Meanwhile (namely while St. Miles was contending and undergoing his struggle) Sciahdustes is substituted for Simeon in the episcopate of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Between SS. Simeon and Sadoth, therefore, we have St. Miles: and Simeon fell as a Martyr on the Parasceve of the thirty-first year of Sapor Ibid., p. 31.; Miles on the third of the moon
of November, that is, on the fifth day of the same month Ibid., pp. 79 and 83.; Sadoth finally on the twentieth of the moon of February of the following year Ibid., pp. 91 and 92.: whence at length it follows that the passion of St. Barsabias and his companions was consummated on the seventeenth day of the moon of June, or the third solar day of the same month Ibid., p. 95 and following, and belongs to the thirty-second year of king Sapor: for this sequence is clearly demonstrated by the beginning of the Acts of St. Barsabias Ibid., p. 93.: At about the same time at which St. Miles was crowned with the laurel of martyrdom … the most holy Barsabias was accused by wicked and criminal men, and after the accusation, after a short interval, was condemned by capital sentence together with his companions. Wherefore the time of the martyrdom cannot be moved from the thirty-second year of Sapor.
[10] which, notwithstanding Sozomen's, We have deliberately abstained so far from indicating any other epoch than that of king Sapor, because in this all agree. It remains, however, for us to reduce the years of Sapor to our common era. Joseph Assemani in his Bibliotheca Orientalis Ibid., p. 5 and following thinks that the thirty-first year of Sapor coincides with the year of Christ 330, and so that Barsabias underwent martyrdom in the 32nd year of the same king, that is, in the common year 331. Besides the opinions of the moderns Baronius and Pagi, of which we shall treat below, there are two things which chiefly moved the learned man to embrace an opinion of this kind; namely the authority of Sozomen, book II, chapter XV P. 63, Cambridge edition, 1720., and of Theodoret, book I of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter XXIV Vol. III, part II, p. 808, Halle edition, 1771., who say that Constantine the Great wrote to Sapor that he should abstain from shedding the blood of the Christians. And since Constantine died in the common year 337, a year must be sought in which the Parasceve is tied to the 17th day of April, since both the Syriac Acts relate that St. Simeon suffered on the Parasceve and the Greek Menologies on the 17th day of April: and such a year before the death of Constantine is not found other than the thirtieth of the fourth century.
[11] which is refuted, First, we maintain that the genuineness of the letter of Constantine the Great to Sapor, king of the Persians, is undoubted, since Eusebius of Caesarea, a contemporary author, reports it in the Life of the emperor Constantine, book IV, chapter IX Eusebius, p. 631, Cambridge edition, 1720.. In it, however, the emperor exhorts Sapor to favour the propagation of the Christian religion, which he had found most salutary for himself and his people. But as regards a persecution of the Christians already raging, there is nothing in the letter which we must interpret in that sense. It is true indeed that Sozomen said openly that the occasion of writing the letter was a persecution of the Christians already begun; which indeed does not necessarily follow from the words of the emperor, as our forebears already judged at the 4th day of August in the collection on St. Ia and the companion martyrs in Persia Acta SS., vol. I of August, p. 329, no. 4.. As regards, further, the very opinion of Sozomen, it ought not to prevail against the arguments to be unfolded below, because he narrates the circumstances of the Persian harassment very confusedly, with no order observed: whence it could easily have happened that he wrongly interpreted the occasion of Constantine's letter. opinion, Thus, after he had related, book II, chapter X P. 58., the martyrdom of St. Simeon, who we said above at number 9 died in the first year of the persecution, he adds, chapter XIII P. 61., that at the same time, ὑπὸ
δὲ
τοῦτον
τὸν
χρόνον, Acepsimas undertook martyrdom: then he likewise introduces Miles as a Martyr, chapter XIV P. 61., although he too suffered in the first year of the persecution, as we have shown above at number 9. Yet all these things are confused: since an interval of forty years separates the martyrdoms of SS. Simeon and Miles and of Acepsimas, as the Chaldaic Acts testify Assemani, Acta SS. Martyrum Orientalium, vol. I, p. 206.. It is true indeed that we can interpret the words of Sozomen, at the same time, as though he were saying in the same persecution: yet the confusion persists, because the writer lacked an accurate chronology of Persian affairs; and so his opinion becomes uncertain in so far as the emperor Constantine gave his letter to Sapor on the occasion of a Persian persecution already set in motion.
[12] and the authority of Theodoret, Theodoret, who is objected next, not only causes us less difficulty, but rather resolves it. For his words indicate not so much open persecution as hidden machinations. For when, says Theodoret, book I, chapter XXIII Vol. III, part II, p. 808., he had been informed that they (the Christians) were harassed by the impious, and that the king, given over to error, was circumventing them with hidden snares, παντοδαπὰς
αὐτοῖς
καττύειν
ἐπιβολὰς,
he wrote a letter to him, by which he both exhorted him to embrace piety and asked him to hold its worshippers in honour. Constantine foresaw, namely, from the hidden machinations contrived against the Christians, that an open persecution would at some time break out, which he strove to forestall by his letter. This the words clearly indicate, that Sapor wished to circumvent the Christians with hidden snares, αὐτοῖς
καττύειν
ἐπιβολὰς: that is, to obtain something by fraud and guile, without the royal mandates breaking out into manifest violence. Theodoret, moreover, understood in this sense, squares excellently with what is read in the Chaldaic Acts, where St. Simeon, bishop and standard-bearer of the Martyrs, reproaches Sapor because he plans to impose an intolerable yoke, because moreover he demands gold of those to whom neither gold nor wealth is available Assemani, Acta SS. Martyrum, vol. I, p. 17 and following. Indignant at this letter, the king decreed that punishment be inflicted without delay on the priests and levites, that the sacred buildings be utterly destroyed, the most holy monuments of religion defiled, and the instruments of the sacred ministry plundered and thrown away to profane uses Ibid., p. 20.. Here is the edict by which the king no longer circumvents the Christians with hidden snares, but proclaims a manifest and internecine war: accordingly the letter of Constantine preceded the edict. And indeed this interpretation of Theodoret is to be preferred to the opinion of Sozomen, because the bishop of Cyrrhus, neighbour to the Syrians, could draw a more accurate knowledge of Persian affairs. But if the authority of Sozomen has been shaken in this part and the sense of Theodoret explained, the inference of Joseph Assemani collapses, that St. Simeon suffered in the year of Christ 330 Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. I, p. 6. because in that year too the sixth feria of the Parasceve coincides with the 17th day of April Compare Assemani, Acta SS. Martyrum, vol. I, preface, p. LXXXI and following.
[13] belongs to the year of the Persians 117 It now remains to show that the edict of Sapor just brought forward was promulgated in the year of Christ 340, and so when Constantius, son of Constantine, held the helm of the Roman empire. Now the Acts of St. Simeon cast the beginning of Sapor's persecution into the hundred and seventeenth year of the reign of the Persians, which was the thirty-first of king Sapor Ibid., p. 15.. If therefore we subtract 117 from the common year 340, we come to the year 223, which can easily be made to agree with the third year of Alexander Severus; just as Abulpharagius, by others called Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, made it agree. For he has this in his Tripartite Chronicle, which I copy out from Stefano Assemani [Acta Martyrum, vol. I, preface, p. LXXXVI. Compare Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. II, p. 118.]: In the third year of this Alexander Caesar, which was the year 542 of Alexander of the Greeks, began the last dynasty of the Persians, which is called that of the Sassanids, and lasted four hundred and eighteen years, namely until the rise and reign of the Muslims. And these chronological points agree well enough for us to join the beginning of the Saporian persecution with the common year 340. For if we take away 117 years from the common era 340, we come to the year 223, which can be reckoned the third of Alexander Severus, since, created Caesar in the year 221, in the following year, Heliogabalus having been slain, he obtained the Roman empire [Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. III, pp. 72 and 254, Brussels edition, 1732.]. Abulpharagius, however, seems to have expressed the year of the Greeks 542 less happily; since according to the more common era of the Greeks, or of the Seleucids, the year 535 coincides with the year of Christ 223: whence we have a difference of seven years.
[14] and to the common year of Christ 342: It must be observed, however, that there is a twofold era of the Greeks, of which the one, more common, precedes our common era by three hundred and eleven years and is properly called that of the Seleucids or Syro-Macedonian, inasmuch as Seleucus Nicator then began to acquire Syria for himself L'Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, p. XVII.. The other era begins from the death of Alexander the Great of Macedon, and is earlier than our common era by three hundred and twenty-four years Ibid.. But if to the common year 223 we add either 324 or 311, we have the year of the era of the Greeks 547 or 534; whichever, therefore, is taken, there will always be some slip in the chronology of Abulfaragius. For the rest, as Stefano Assemani rightly notes Acta Martyrum, vol. I, preface, p. LXXIV., all, if you except his uncle Joseph, hold that Sapor died in the year of Christ 380: and since he reigned as many years as he lived, namely 70 Biographie universelle, under Chapour II. (for those who give him 72 have used lunar years for solar Notices des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale, vol. II, p. 333, Paris, 1789.); it follows that Sapor was born and crowned in the common year 310, and then in the year 340 reached the thirty-first year of his reign. This chronology is confirmed also by another notice furnished by Abulpharagius; namely that the dynasty of the Sassanids lasted four hundred and eighteen years, which, if they are added to the beginning of the dynasty, namely the year of Christ 223, bring us to the common year 641, the 12th of the Hegira, in which, according to the Saracen History which Thomas Erpenius translated from Arabic into Latin P. 25, Leiden edition, 1625, the power of the Persians having been broken in a decisive battle at the city of Nuhawend and their king Isdegerd III driven out of the kingdom Compare l'Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, p. 410., Persia was thenceforth subject to the Mahometans or Muslims: wherefore Abulpharagius calls the dynasty of the Saxanites, or Sassanids, the last of the Persians. Pagi indeed joins the end of the Sassanids with the death of Isdegerd, and accordingly ties both to our common year 651, § X. And we shall readily grant that Isdegerd lost his life in that year, but after the disaster of Nahuwend, stripped of his chief provinces, and then striving in vain to recover his paternal inheritance. From what has been said thus far it follows that the persecution of Sapor began in the year of Christ 340, and since St. Simeon the Protomartyr suffered in the following year, the martyrdom of St. Barsabias is to be fixed at the common year 342, as may be deduced from what was said at number 8 and following.
[15] the solar day also of the various martyrdoms As regards, further, the day on which St. Barsabias suffered together with his companions, we have already said above that it
fell on the 3rd day of June. For our Acts report this, number 3: The Martyrdom of these Saints fell on the seventeenth day of the moon of the month of June. This lunar day Stefano Assemani briefly converts Acta Martyrum, vol. I, p. 96. into the 3rd solar day of the same month. The reduction of lunar to solar days has already been treated at the 19th day of this month, on the occasion of St. Sciahdustes or Sadoth among those Passed Over Above, p. 380 a.. Namely, from the ordinary chronological Tables there is taken the epact of the following year, which indicates for each year the letter of the Martyrology, from which then the moons for each day of the whole year are had. And since, as we said above, St. Barsabias underwent martyrdom in the year of Christ 342, the epact of the following year, or 343, is XI, to which the letter of the Martyrology l corresponds: under which at the 3rd day of June we have the 17th moon. For in the old Calendar the epact precedes by one year the epact of the Calendar reformed by Gregory XIII in the year 1582 [Compare Petau, Doctrina temporum, book VI, chapter XXI, vol. I, p. 339, Venice edition, 1757, and Harris Nicolas, The Chronology of History, p. 55.]. As regards the month, however, it is to be taken from the Golden Number, which in this year 342 was I; and so the Moon of January began from the Nones (5th) of December Petau, Doctrina, ibid., chapter XXII, page 337.. Whence it is not to be wondered at that the greater part of the lunation of June is occupied by the month of May. And so that it may be clearly established that these things have not been put forward by us rashly, we subjoin here a little table of those Persian Martyrs whose day of passion is indicated in the Acts, and at the same time what we said above at number 5 will shine out, that the writer presented the martyrdoms of the Saints in a continuous series.
ORDER AND TIME OF THE MARTYRDOMS IN PERSIA UNDER KING SAPOR.
[16] by the epacts of the following year In the table placed above all the solar days fit aptly both in Assemani's computation and in the chronological Tables L'Art de vérifier les dates., with one day excepted, namely in Barbasceminus; Assemani puts the solar day as the fourteenth of January, while the Tables report the twenty-fifth day of the same month. But I should think this happened by the fault of the compositor, who, using Roman numerals, put XIV for XXV, changing X into I. We said above that for making the lunar day agree with the solar, the Epact of the following year is to be taken. By the same method is found the Paschal Term, or the 14th day of the paschal moon, that is, of March, after which, on the Sunday immediately occurring, the paschal solemnity is celebrated. It must be observed, however, that if we search out the paschal term by the help of the epact of the following year, in the present-day Martyrologies, after the Calendar was reformed in the year 1582, we shall constantly find the 17th day of the moon when the 14th moon ought to occur. This I judge to flow from the fact that, as Petau says Doctrina temporum, vol. I, p. 230, Antwerp edition 1703., the paschal terms had gradually advanced from the time of the Nicene synod, which lunar anticipation or προήγησιν the Gregorian correction had emended by taking away three days: and so the 17th moon noted in the present-day Martyrologies, three days being taken away, was truly the 14th moon, and accordingly the paschal term.
[17] is drawn out. This explanation of the epacts seems to me to be confirmed by the example handed down to us by our Papebroch in the Paralipomena to the Conatus on the Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs P. 60., in which these chronological notes are read: From the Nativity of the Lord to the present year, in which Theuderic, king of the Franks, died, DCCXXXVII. In which year, in the fifth indiction, epact XV, concurrent I, the circle of the moon XIII, XIV; on the 12th day before the Kalends of April the moon XVII, XXIV of the cycle of DXXXII years according to the Greeks. Godefroy Wendelin, cited by Papebroch, further suspects that an error lies in the epact, and that the mark of one ten dropped out through the carelessness of the writer or was worn away by age, and so that the epact XXV is to be read for XV. He gives the reason for an emendation of this kind, because the paschal new moon fell on the 6th of March, and therefore that epact cannot be made to agree with that new moon. But Wendelin stumbles; for with the new moon falling on the 6th of March, the full moon would have occurred on the 19th of March, which is contrary to the Nicene decree forbidding the paschal full moon to be reckoned before the 21st day of March, the equinox. But if our method be used, namely if the epact of the following year be taken, for the legitimate epact of the year 737, XV, we shall substitute the following, XXVI, which will give us the letter of the Martyrology G, and so, on account of the προήγησιν, the 17th moon, which was formerly the 14th moon, on the 21st day of March, that is, on the paschal term. For the rest, the epacts of the current year, as here, were sometimes used with other chronological notes, as Jean Mabillon shows by various examples in his work On Diplomatics, book II, chapter XXIV. The Benedictine authors of the chronological work observe, however, that the epact of the following year is then not seldom expressed in charters and diplomas when they were dated after the end of August, because according to some of the ancients the epact preceded the civil year by four months, that is, from September L'Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, p. XXXV..
§ II. On the beginnings of the monastic institute in Syria and Persia.
Assemani, following the opinion of the moderns, thinks Having in some fashion disentangled these chronological trifles, we could make an end of commenting, did not another question solicit us, not foreign to St. Barsabias, which Assemani touches upon in passing indeed, yet repeatedly, and which seems to us worthy of some illustration. In the Premonition to the Passion of our Saints Stefano Assemani writes this Acta Martyrum, vol. I, p. 92.: That the monastic institute had already been widely propagated through Mesopotamia, Assyria and Persia in the times of Sapor II, king of the Persians, is most luminously shown by the Acts of St. Barsabias the cenobiarch and of the other Martyr monks which are presented in this work. This kind of life, instituted by St. Antony the Great in Egypt about the year of Christ 305, soon disseminated in Palestine by Hilarion, had been brought at about the same time into Mesopotamia and Assyria, and thence also into Persia, by Aones or Eugenius, a disciple of the same Antony, who, as Sozomen witnesses, Ecclesiastical History book VI, chapter XXXIII P. 267, Cambridge edition 1720., had his dwelling in Phadana, and was the first among the Syrians, just as Antony among the Egyptians, to be the author of the solitary and stricter philosophy. And that he, whom the Syrians by excellence call "Abun" or "Avun," whence Sozomen's "Aones," that is, "our Father," first founded a monastery on Mount Izla near Nisibis, a city of Mesopotamia, and presided over seventy monks, by whom the other monasteries which existed from Mardin to lower Persia in the fourth century of Christ were built, Assemani reports from Bar-Hebraeus and other writers on oriental affairs, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. III, part II P. DCCCLX., where he treats most learnedly of the origin, progress, monasteries, schools and rules of the monks among the Chaldaeans and Persians. Thus far Stefano Assemani.
[19] that the institute of monks began with St. Antony; For this opinion, which Thomassin especially fostered and promoted, part III of the Ecclesiastical Discipline, book III, chapter XII, and which Giulio Selvaggi confirmed, Ecclesiastical Antiquities, book I, part II, chapter XIII Vol. II, p. 244, Mainz edition 1787., Alessio Pelliccia, Christianae Ecclesiae Politia, book I, section III, chapter I Vol. I, p. 119, Bassano edition 1782., and other moderns, I find no foundation. My colleague has already touched upon the question above in the preliminary commentary on St. Varus, Martyr, at the 19th day of October P. 426, no. 8.. The foundation of the whole opinion seems to be nothing else than a text of St. Jerome, wrongly understood. For he begins the Life of St. Paul the Hermit with the following words Jerome's Works, vol. IV, part II, col. 68, Paris edition 1706.: It has often been doubted among many by whom above all the desert began to be inhabited by monks. For some, going back further, have taken the beginning from blessed Elijah and John. Of whom both Elijah seems to us to have been more than a monk, and John to have begun to prophesy before he was born. Others, however, in which opinion the whole common crowd agrees, assert that Antony was the head of this purpose, which is in part true. For it is not so much that he himself was before all, as that the zeal of all was stirred up by him. But Amathas and Macarius, disciples of Antony, of whom the former buried the body of his master, even now affirm that a certain Paul of Thebes was the chief of this thing, not of the name, an opinion which we also approve. Thomassin had prefixed to this text this observation, namely that before the peace of the Church under Constantine monasteries could not have grown together, being often to be overturned by the persecutors. As though the same argument were not valid for demonstrating that there were no churches of the Christians before Constantine, because these too, while persecution raged, were liable to frequent destruction. We shall show, however, that there were monks before St. Antony, which done, reasonings of this kind are struck down.
[20] but wrongly; for St. Athanasius, St. Athanasius first of all luminously shows that there were monks both before and besides St. Antony. For in the Life of St. Antony, treating of his beginnings, he says Athanasius' Works, vol. I, part II, p. 796, Paris edition 1698.: For monasteries were not yet so frequent in Egypt, nor did any monk know the vast desert; but whoever wished to be free for himself exercised himself alone not far from his own village. In whatever way, in the end, the word "monastery" be understood, whether for the dwelling of one monk or of several, it is nevertheless manifest that there were monasteries before St. Antony, though rare, and so monks too. What of the fact that a little before the biographer openly designates a monastery of girls, παρθενῶνα, when he says: His sister having been commended to virgins known to him and faithful, and handed over to the Parthenon, he himself devoted himself before his house to the ascetic life, τῇ
ἀσκήσει: then the initiator of his ascetic or monastic life (which sounds one and the same to Athanasius) was an old man who had led the monastic life from his youth Ibid., p. 797., ἐκ
νεότητος
τὸν
μονήρη
βίον
ἀσκήσας; and if he heard of anyone anywhere living strenuously for virtue, then after the manner of a prudent bee he sought him out, nor did he go back to his own seat before he had seen the man, and thence, having received as it were provision for undertaking the journey of virtue, he returned Ibid., in the place cited. From which it becomes clear that professors of the monastic life existed before the times of Antony, and faithfully transmitted to their successors the rule of living received from their elders.
[21] in the very Life of St. Antony: Indeed, that there were monks besides St. Antony is witnessed by St. Athanasius, who inscribes the Life of Antony to the brethren abroad, or dwelling in a foreign region Ibid., p. 793., πρὸς
τοὺς
ἐν
τῇ
ξένῃ
μοναχοὺς,
and these had asked Athanasius about the manner of life of St. Antony, desiring to learn in what way he had entered upon this kind of exercise, who he had been before, what had been the end of his life, whether the things said of him are true, that you may apply yourselves to imitating him. From these words our opinion is most clearly proved, that there were other monks besides the Antonians, or such as did not draw their origin from Antony. In our present question it does not matter to know whether the foreign monks lived within Egypt or in another region Compare Carattini, Vita Claustralis, p. 28 and following: this is certain, that they knew Antony only by report, and for the rest were ignorant not only of how he had begun and ended, but also of in what way he had entered upon this kind of exercise. But if they had been followers of the Antonian institute, plainly, in what pertains to the kind of exercise, his disciples would not have needed to be instructed; and then the biographer would not add St. Athanasius' Works, ibid., p. 793 and following: That after you have heard these things and admired the man, you may long to imitate his purpose: for the life of Antony is an apt model for monks for exercise, ἄκησιν.
[22] Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History, This opinion is most powerfully confirmed by what Eusebius relates about the Therapeutae, book III of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter XVII P. 66 and following, Cambridge edition 1720.. Their institute, made up of persons of both sexes, presents an accurate image of the monastic life: for Philo says that as soon as they have betaken themselves to this kind of philosophizing, they willingly give up all their goods, transmitting them to their kinsfolk; then, casting off all care of human affairs, going out beyond the city, they live in gardens and secluded little fields, as men who understand that the company and intercourse of men of a different purpose are very harmful to philosophy. After they have laid temperance, ἐγκράτειαν, as a kind of foundation in their souls, they then build the remaining virtues upon it. For none of them would ever take food or drink before sunset. He adds also that with these men certain women also live, most of whom remain virgins even to extreme old age; who, not compelled, like most of the priestesses among the gentiles, but of their own accord, have guarded the chastity of the body. Further, in each dwelling there is a certain chapel, which is called a semneum and a monastery, in which alone, witnesses being removed, they perform the mysteries of a holier life. Finally, that kind of men is found scattered in various regions of the world: for it was fitting that Greeks and barbarians should become partakers of so great a good. It flourishes, however, chiefly in Egypt, spread through each of its prefectures, but most of all around Alexandria.
[23] even if wrongly, the discipline of the Therapeutae We have excerpted these chief lineaments of the therapeutic life from Eusebius, so that it may be clear to the reader what kind of institute it is that was sketched by Philo, a writer of the first century. For the rest, says Eusebius, that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in mind those first preachers of the evangelical doctrine and the discipline first handed down by the Apostles, I think is doubtful to no one. This opinion is most openly followed by SS. Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapters VIII and XI Works, vol. IV, part II, cols. 105 and 106, Paris edition 1706., and Epiphanius, heresy XXIX Works, vol. I, p. 120, Cologne edition 1682.. Wherefore Cassian, On the Institutes of the Cenobia, book II, chapter V Works, p. 22, Arras edition 1628., says: When in the beginnings of the faith few indeed, but most approved men, were reckoned under the name of monks, who, as they received the rule of living from the Evangelist Mark of blessed memory, who first presided as pontiff over the city of Alexandria, not only retained those magnificent things which we read in the Acts of the Apostles that the church or the throngs of believers practised in the beginning: (and after the words of Acts IV, 32–35 are recited) but had also heaped up things much more sublime than these. I am not indeed ignorant that there were some learned men even among the catholics who denied that the Therapeutae were Christians, holding them rather Jews; the names of the champions for each opinion may be found in the book of my colleagues, the Historical and Canonical Examination of the rights and duties of regular and secular clerics P. 42.. This is not the place to settle an intricate controversy: one thing suffices for our present question, namely that according to Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius and Cassian, cited above, the monastic state was contemporary with the very cradle of Christianity.
[24] But Pagi meets us with certain others, saying in his critique at the year 62 (Baronius 64), § IV: had transferred from the Jews to the Christians, Nor does he (Eusebius) say that monks were instituted by Mark at Alexandria, but ascetics. These, however, differ much from monks, as the genus differs from the species. And from this grew up the opinion that the ascetics were another kind of men than the monks. This opinion Niccolò Antonelli unfolded learnedly and subtly in his dissertation on the Ascetics, which he inserted into his edition of the Works of St. James of Nisibis. But our colleagues have shown in the above-praised Canonical and Historical Examination Historical and Canonical Examination, p. 54. that there is more subtlety than truth in the distinction between ascetics and monks. For in the very image which Antonelli sketches of the ascetic institute, all the elements of the monastic life are to be found, namely a peculiar dress, a separate place in the church, a segregated dwelling, manifold prayers, a more austere diet, voluntary poverty, perpetual chastity: and if we add obedience to all these, no one will deny that all the elements of the monastic life are present in the ascesis. And in the ancient monuments we find very many things which designate obedience. Thus Socrates, book I of the History, chapter II P. 39, Cambridge edition 1720., records St. Paphnutius, a bishop, who was present at the Nicene council in great age, educated from boyhood, and so in the third century of the church, in an asceterium; likewise Auxanon, a Novatian presbyter, once instructed by Eutychian in the ascetic discipline. St. Basil in the second ascetic sermon (for, like St. Athanasius too, he holds ascetic and monk in one reckoning) clearly shows that there was a superior of the ascetics or monks. He who, he says Works, vol. II, p. 324, Paris edition 1722., by public testimony excels all in prudence, constancy and integrity of life, is to be set over the governing of the others… And so, some one having been chosen and set over them, all private wills will cease, and all will conform themselves to what is more excellent. Nor can the objection strike down the authority of St. Basil that the holy Doctor is treating of monks; for he himself calls the same men monks whom he calls ascetics; then, where there were a public profession, a special habit, a separate dwelling, distinct seats in the churches, it is not seen by what means these could be established without some form of government, and so without a superior, and, being established, be preserved.
[25] are witnesses that monks existed before St. Antony, What we have said thus far abundantly shows that the origin of the monastic institute is wrongly derived from St. Antony. Indeed, if we weigh accurately the words of St. Jerome brought forward above at number 18, it shines out clearly that the holy Doctor is treating not of the first professors of the monastic life, but of the first inhabitants of the desert among monks, in so far as monks formerly frequented the outskirts of cities or villages. And in this sense St. Athanasius too agrees, in the Life of St. Antony, number 14 Works, vol. I, part II, p. 807, Paris edition 1698.; for, having left the fort which he had inhabited for nearly twenty years, he persuaded many to choose the monastic life; and so at length monasteries were raised in the mountains too, and the desert was inhabited by monks. These last words Evagrius translates thus: and this was the beginning of inhabiting the desert: for it is thus: Καὶ
οὕτω
λοίπον
γέγονε
καὶ
ἐν
τοῖς
ὄρεσι
μοναστήρια,
καὶ
ἡ
ἔρημος
ἐπολίσθη. For the rest, to bring forward what I think, I doubt vehemently whether that primacy attributed to some Saint is always to be taken in the strict sense, or whether it ought not rather to be interpreted in so far as the founder left behind him heirs and propagators of his institute. But of those who had no successors of their profession, the memory has been obliterated among most.
[26] Let us illustrate the matter by an example. The author of the Life of St. Pachomius, published at the 14th day of May, which is also shown relates at number 77 Acta SS., vol. III of May, p. 326. the words of St. Antony saying: At the time when I first began to act the monk, no cenobium existed anywhere in which anyone had care or concern for the salvation of others: but each of the ancient monks, the persecution being now ended, exercised himself privately in the monastic life. But afterwards your father (Antony is addressing the Pachomian monks), with God's help, brought about so great a good. Who would not deduce from these words that St. Pachomius was the author of the cenobitic institute, and so that monastic communities did not exist before him? And yet in the same Life, number 35 Ibid., p. 310., these things are read: A certain old ascetic, who himself also presided with authority over a monastery of older monks, and was called Eponymus, came to Pachomius, and earnestly asked that he would take on the care of the monastery administered by himself up to that time: and the name of the monastery was Chenoboscia. Having therefore taken on its administration, he led other brethren there too, and, having prayed well for them in the place itself, he committed them to divine providence: ordaining that they too should dwell with the brethren who had already stayed there before, and should use the same rule of life. There likewise he designated a steward and one who should hold the second place after him, and also prefects of the communities and subordinates. St. Pachomius also received another monastery, Monchosis by name, being asked, says the biographer, by the chief rulers of that asceterium … among whom was also a certain old man, John by name, very practised in the spiritual life.
[27] from the Life of St. Pachomius: Tillemont, in note VII on the Life of St. Pachomius Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. VII, p. 679., in order to vindicate for this Saint the primacy of the cenobitic life, strives to evade the argument taken from Chenoboscia and Monchosis, saying (I render his words in Latin): These two monasteries were no doubt little dwellings of eight or ten monks, not so much cenobites as hermits. But this indeed is said more conveniently than truly. The adage is known, more or less does not diversify the species. Let the number of monks be eight or ten: we nevertheless have the form of a proper cenobium, namely some monks over whom one presides with authority: let that number be multiplied tenfold, or, if you please, a hundredfold, it is not easily seen what difference it makes; for in either case there exists an assembly of monks living under the obedience of their prelate. For the rest, he imagines at his pleasure that the assembly of Chenoboscia or of Monchosis was of eight or of ten: for if the number of the brethren was so small, why did St. Pachomius designate a steward and one who should hold the second place after him, and also prefects of the communities and subordinates?
Who would think it necessary to send so many monks from Tabenna to govern so tiny a flock? We easily persuade ourselves, therefore, that each assembly was numerous enough, as having several rulers. And if the matter stands so, we now see that each monastery existed before and besides the Pachomians, and so that before St. Pachomius there were cenobia of older monks; nor does it greatly matter whether they are to be called hermits or cenobites: the Camaldolese and the Carthusians, who inhabit distinct little houses or cells, are nevertheless monks in the true sense of the name, and the difference there is between these and other regulars is adventitious, which leaves the substance itself unchanged. Since, therefore, these two monasteries grew together with the Pachomians, the memory of their original institution could gradually be obliterated, which may be suspected of other assemblies of monks too, so that they are reckoned to have begun at the time when they were joined together with a greater congregation. Thus, to bring forward a more recent example, Savigny, founded in the year 1112 by Blessed Vitalis, after it had grown together with the Cistercian Order, reckoned its beginning as the year 1118, as the Chronological Index of Jongelinus has it, and holds the rank of its dignity as though born then. All of which my colleague will explain at length and accurately in the historical Commentary on BB. Geoffrey and Serlo, to be given on this very day. From all of which it follows that it is not necessary that he who is sometimes called the first should also be held truly the most ancient.
[28] the same is shown in particular for Syria And indeed, to return whence we digressed, the monastic state in Persia seems to have begun long before the times of St. Antony. For Sozomen, in book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, chapters XXVIII to XXXIV, praises and extols the chief monks of various provinces: of Aones or Eugenius, father, as Assemani will have it, and initiator of monasticism in Syria, he says only this, chapter XXXIII P. 268, Cambridge edition 1720.: This Aones, moreover, they report to have been the first among the Syrians, just as Antony among the Egyptians, to be the author of the solitary and stricter philosophy. In the same way, therefore, Aon was first in Syria as St. Antony in Egypt; and so, just as we have shown that there were monks in Egypt before Antony, so too it may be conjectured that Syria had its monks. Certainly Sozomen, in the place cited, before he comes to Aones, enumerates eleven others who were especially renowned at that time. Nay, the same Sozomen, book I, chapter XII P. 25., refers the beginning of the monastic life to the Therapeutae, when he says: And Philo indeed, when he narrates these things in this manner, seems to indicate the Christians of his time who, converted from the Jews, still lived in the Jewish manner and kept their rites. For among others this kind of life is not to be found. Whence I conjecture that this philosophy flourished among the Egyptians from that time. Then in the following chapter he adds that Antony the monk, by most useful manners and exercises, brought this kind of life to the highest diligence and perfection. But these very words clearly demonstrate that St. Antony, in Sozomen's judgment, added an increase of perfection to a thing already existing before his times, and so was not the first. In the same way, therefore, we may interpret what the praised writer relates of Aones the Syrian.
[29] from the Acts of St. Febronia But the antiquity of the monastic institute is demonstrated more directly by the Acts of St. Febronia, who suffered at Sibapolis, or Nisibis, under Diocletian about the year of Christ 304. This girl, moreover, was brought up in a monastery of women which had fifty ascetic women Acta SS., vol. V of June, pp. 18 and 19.; over these presided a certain woman named Bryene, formerly a disciple of Platonis, who had discharged the diaconate before her, whose tradition and canon she kept excellently to the end. Such, further, was the rule of Platonis. On the sixth feria none of the sisters was to work, but they gathered in the oratory; and after they had finished the canon of psalmody, Platonis, taking the book, read the divinely inspired Scriptures to the sisters until the third hour: and after the third hour she handed the book into the hands of Bryene, bidding her read to the sisters until evening. Bryene, therefore, did likewise, having taken up the diaconate. Here indeed are the most certain elements of a monastery, to which must be added, on the testimony of Thomais, St. Febronia's educator, as our predecessors show at the 25th day of June, number I Ibid., p. 14., besides the community of life, that the rest depended on the will of Bryene, who was called the Great Lady, so much so that without her assent they did not presume to set foot outside the cenobium, where they kept the strictest enclosure, even when the gravest danger pressed. Further, at the end of the same Acts monks and clerics are reported present at the burial of St. Febronia, and a little below Marcellus the archimandrite is cited Ibid., pp. 21, 22 and 32..
[30] whose authority is vindicated Our Papebroch holds the Acts of St. Febronia as the most genuine of all Ibid., p. 14.: Whose glorious contests for Christ, he says, were the more celebrated everywhere through the eastern Churches, the more luminous the testimony by which they were held to be written, namely the eyewitness credit of Thomais the nun, holding the second place in that monastery where Febronia had been brought up from infancy under the discipline of her aunt Bryene. But Joseph Assemani, following the opinion of Tillemont Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. V, p. 654., rejects the Acts of St. Febronia as fabulous Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. III, part II, p. 884.: and he adduces as his chief reason that before the peace restored to the Church by Constantine there were no monks and no nuns. We have already shown how slippery that kind of argument is, since St. Antony was not the initiator of the monastic order, and so monks and nuns existed before the times of Constantine. Nay, from the Acts of St. Febronia we think we can deduce a legitimate argument for the antiquity of the monastic institute. But such is the force of an opinion rashly preconceived that historical facts, otherwise genuine, are either twisted in any manner whatever to the assumed opinion, or, if they are inescapable, are rejected fearlessly. This is at length to wish to write history not, as is fitting, from the facts, but from opinions taken up from wherever; how foreign this is to the duty and candour of the historian, everyone sees.
[31] against Tillemont. It is true indeed that Tillemont points out certain slips which would betray a spurious offspring: namely that Diocletian wishes to appoint Lysimachus prefect when he did not have the legitimate age, being twenty years old; then that it confuses the Palmyrene region with Mesopotamia; and finally that the Acts place the arena of St. Febronia in Sebapolis, an episcopal city plainly unknown to the geographers Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. V, p. 654.. Let us discuss each: as regards the age of Lysimachus, I admit indeed that the legitimate age for taking up magistracies was the twenty-fifth or even the twenty-seventh year, as Pitiscus has it Lexicon antiquitatum Romanarum, under Ætas, but at the same time it must be admitted that this law suffered manifold exceptions, as is shown by the same Pitiscus. Since, therefore, Diocletian, out of memory of the father Anthimus, wished, the Acts say Acta SS., vol. V of June, p. 17, number 1., to favour the son Lysimachus, a dispensation as to age could easily have intervened, if indeed it was necessary; for we may interpret the words of the Acts as though that number of twenty years extended widely enough to reach the thirtieth: for the Latin text presented by Papebroch renders the Greek less accurately, which has Ibid., p. 18, number 2. ἦν
γὰρ
νέος
τῇ
ἡλικίᾳ,
ὡς
ἐτῶν
εἴκοσι, he was young in age, AS IT WERE of twenty years, while Papebroch has: he was very young, and ONLY twenty years old: for the rest, our former interpretation better suits Thomais, a virgin living in austere solitude, who probably did not inquire more curiously into the age of the young Lysimachus, but guessed it by conjecturing from his outward appearance. Finally, Joseph Simonius Assemani in his Calendars of the universal church Vol. V, p. 444. says that from the Greek and Syriac Acts Selenus is to be read for Lysimachus, namely the uncle of Lysimachus, as though he himself had held the magistracy. From all of which it is clear that an error of this kind, if there is one, inflicts no detriment on the genuineness of the Acts of St. Febronia. In the second place come the topographical questions: the confusion of the provinces of Palmyrene and Mesopotamia, and the episcopal city of Sebapolis, unknown to the geographers. The latter the cited Assemani removes with a light hand, saying that from the Greek and Syriac Nisibis is to be read for Sebapolis; on which matter see the Preliminary Commentary of our Papebroch to the Acts of St. Febronia Acta SS., vol. V of June, p. 15, no. 5.. The confusion of provinces, further, which Tillemont scents out, I for my part do not perceive: for if we consult the Greek text, the Acts seem to proceed in order; they have this Ibid., p. 18, no. 3.: Παραγενόμενοι
τοίνυν
ἐν
τῇ
ἀνατολῇ
καὶ
ἐπιβάντες
τῇ
χώρᾳ
τῆς
Παλμύρης,
καὶ
ἐν
τῇ
Μεσοποταμίᾳ,
τοὺς
δὲ
ξίφει
ἀπέτεμνον
κ.
τ.
λ. Which, rendered word for word into Latin, sound roughly thus: Coming in the East and having entered into the region of Palmyra and in Mesopotamia, they slew these (the Christians) with the sword, etc. We have a parallel passage, Acts XXV, 1: Ἐπιβὰς
οὖν
Φῆστος
τῇ
ἐπαγχίᾳ, Festus therefore, when he had come into the province: from the Greek text, therefore, we have both Palmyrene and Mesopotamia distinctly named. For the rest, although Tillemont's works preceded the edition of our Acts by at least ten years, reasons of this kind in no way prevented Papebroch from both holding and openly declaring the Acts of St. Febronia most genuine. Let these things be said, that we may vindicate the beginnings of the monastic institute as contemporary with the first centuries of Christianity. We subjoin the Acts of St. Barsabias rendered from the Syriac into Latin, with Stefano Evodio Assemani as translator.
MARTYRDOM
Of SS. Barsabias the cenobiarch and his ten companions, and also of a certain Magian.
From the Acts of the Holy Eastern and Western Martyrs, by Stefano Evodio Assemani, part I.
Barsabias, martyr in Persia (S.)
Ten companions, martyrs in Persia (SS.)
To St. Barsabias and his companions, about to be crowned, At about the same time at which Blessed Miles was crowned with the laurel of martyrdom a, the most holy Barsabias, who presided over a certain cenobium in Persia and had ten pupils of his discipline, was accused by wicked and criminal men before the praetor of the city of Astahara b. "This man," the informers barked, "has corrupted the morals of very many men; he teaches besides the art of sorcery, and strives to overthrow the institutions of the Magi c, intending gradually to bring in his own." Wherefore the praetor, attendants being sent, orders Barsabias and his pupils to be seized and, bound with chains, to be brought to the praetorium. Here they all experienced the bitterness of punishments. First their knees were crushed with blows of clubs, their legs, arms and ribs broken with cudgels, their noses moreover and ears torn, and their eyes bruised. And when the monstrous judge saw that the Martyrs, in that butchery of their limbs, amid the most savage tortures, not only had not succumbed so as to abjure their God or fall away from the true religion, but had not even changed countenance or the bearing of their face, he decreed that at once
they should be led out of the city and put to death. The Martyrs, however, hurried to the place of punishment, amid the multitude of the people poured around, amid the hands of the lictors, continually praised God with hymns and psalms.
[2] a Magian is joined to them, It happened meanwhile, when the slaughter of the Saints had already begun, that a certain Magian d and his wife, sitting on a beast of burden, with two sons and other members of the household, having set out from the city at that time, were passing by that place. The Magian, catching sight of the crowd of men thronged there, bade his companions go on for a while until he himself should find out what that concourse of the people meant. And when, carried on his horse, with a servant going before, he had burst in there through the crowded multitude, coming nearer to the Martyrs, he halted. Meanwhile that illustrious cenobiarch was chanting psalms in sweet and pleasant harmony, and not only was firing his pupils for death, but as each was destined for punishment, he took him by the hand and handed him over to the executioners to be slain. To the Magian, as he watched and was astonished at this, there was further presented, God opening his eyes, a wonderful vision: for he seemed to himself to see a certain fire formed in the figure of a cross, flashing with wonderful light, resting upon the bodies of the slain Martyrs. Struck vehemently and terrified by that sight, he at once leapt down from his horse, and, having changed clothes with his servant, going forward into the midst, he set forth in the ear of the superior of the monks the portent he had seen, and soon adds: "This appeared to me another sight, and plainly different from those things which are being done, by which I judge that I have been chosen by your God to fall with you as a witness of the same faith; since I now proclaim this one God of yours e, and confess Him indeed with the inmost sentiments of my soul. And since no one knows that I am not your fellow and a pupil of your institute, come, put on a severe and harsh mind towards me, and, taking me by the hand like the others, give me to the lictors to be slain, as one who longs again and again to undergo a voluntary death with you, with you, I say, who are a holy, true and faithful people."
[3] and all together consummate their martyrdom. Barsabias nodded assent to him as he spoke, greatly moved by the wonderful appearance of the vision related, and, taking the Magian by the hand like the others, after the slaying of the ninth of his monks, he held him out to be slain to those who were entirely ignorant of the matter. To him succeeded the eleventh in death. Last of all, the rest having been slain, the cenobiarch himself also offered his neck to the executioner. Thus the Magian set the crown and the end on the number of twelve Martyrs. The heads of the slain, carried into the city, were hung in the shrine of Nahitis, goddess of the Persians f, to terrify the people: but the corpses were left to the beasts and birds. Not long after, the illustrious deed of the Magian began to be found out, which, soon spreading as quickly as possible through the whole province, was received with the highest admiration of all, and moved very many to give their names to Christ and to take up the true religion; among whom the wife, sons and household of the Magian himself, who gave themselves to be instructed in the Christian rites, then, cleansed in the sacred waters, practised religion most constantly in the highest fear of God through the whole length of their lives. The martyrdom of these Saints, further, fell on the seventeenth day of the moon of the month of June g.