ON ST. ARISTION, BISHOP AND MARTYR AT ALEXANDRIA AD ISSUM,
AT ALEXANDRIA AD ISSUM.
Under the gentile emperors.
CRITICAL SYLLOGE.
Aristion or Aristeus, bishop and M., at Alexandria ad Issum (St.)
BY J. S.
§ I. St. Aristion announced under the name of Aristaeus or Aristeus among the Latins together with St. Antoninus, with whom he does not seem to have suffered.
Baronius at the III of September inserted
into the Roman Martyrology
this announcement: At Capua,
of the holy martyrs Aristaeus the bishop, Aristaeus with Antoninus assigned to Capua among the Latins;
and Antoninus the boy.
Then in his notes he speaks thus:
Bede (nay rather Ado) and Usuard, who
treat of these on this day, testify that their Acts are extant,
but we think they have perished; since they are not found even
in their own church; where, Aristaeus being omitted,
we find that only Antoninus is treated of (and indeed on the preceding
day, as of a martyr not of Capua but of Apamea)
in its Breviary. Hence
we are led to the conjecture that, because of the innumerable disasters of wars,
the monuments of that most noble church have
perished. Baronius here hints at some hesitation
whether Aristaeus and Antoninus are rightly joined,
and rightly assigned to the church of Capua.
But no doubt the authority of Ado and Usuard moved
the learned man: for both joined those two in almost
the same way; Ado in these
words: At Capua, the birthday of the holy martyrs,
Antoninus a boy of twenty years; and of Aristaeus
the bishop, whose deeds are had. And Usuard:
In Capua, of the holy martyrs Antoninus
a boy of twenty years, and of Aristeus the bishop,
whose deeds are had. So great is the authority of these
martyrologists that it would seem we must acquiesce in them,
did not weighty reasons occur
which cast a strong suspicion of error.
[2] The first reason is that no one before Ado
ascribed these Martyrs to Capua, but there are weighty reasons, even though they are
mentioned by many, as we shall see. The second reason is
that the people of Capua never venerated them, as may be seen
in their Calendars and ancient Breviary.
Michael Monachus published five different Calendars
in his Sanctuarium Capuanum: in none of them is
Aristaeus found. Antoninus indeed occurs in various Calendars
of the Capuans, as also in their ancient
Breviary, but as a martyr of Apamea,
of whom I have treated at the preceding day. Hence
the aforesaid Monachus, on p. 71, after citing the words of the Roman
Martyrology, subjoins this: The Breviary (the ancient
Capuan one) has not a word of Aristaeus;
it treats of Antoninus on the IV Nones of September, of whom
the Martyrology (the Roman) also treats on the IV Nones.
He is other than Antoninus the boy martyr of Capua.
There is added to these reasons that Monachus,
even though he strives to claim Aristaeus and Antoninus the boy
for the church of Capua, could find nothing in all
his investigation which would add any weight to the authority
just given.
He adduces indeed the words of Peter de Natalibus,
who in bk. 8 ch. 33 has this: Antoninus the boy and
Aristeus the martyrs suffered at Capua, a city of Campania.
Which Antoninus, when he was ten
years old, converted Aristeus to the faith: with
whom afterward, being seized and tormented with various tortures,
at last both by the smiting of the sword obtained the palm
of martyrdom on the III Nones of September. But
it can scarcely be doubted that that scarcely critical writer
took these things from Ado or Usuard,
and even disfigured them with his own conjectures.
Nothing therefore does Peter de Natalibus, nothing do the three other
Martyrologies, far later than Usuard, which
Monachus cites on p. 72, add of weight to Ado
and Usuard. Monachus also confesses on p. 214
that it is unknown at what time Aristaeus presided over the church
of Capua; and that of his body or relics
there is nowhere any mention among the Capuans; and
finally that there is nowhere among them any indication
of ancient veneration.
[3] why we believe this to have been done through an error, Since therefore every reason that favors the Capuans
can be reduced to the authority of Ado, whom Usuard
after his manner followed as his guide, and these in turn
others later; and since the weightiest reasons
fight to the contrary, it remains for us to examine whether it is not
likely that some error crept upon Ado,
or rather crept into his Martyrology through the negligence
of copyists. This Sollerius has already begun to show
in St. Antoninus of Piacenza, vol. 2 of July,
p. 8, where he candidly speaks thus: Lest we linger longer
in the light of midday, let it be permitted safely to assert
that a manifest error is detected in Ado's Martyrology,
whether that be the fault of Ado himself, or, as I should rather
think, of the amanuenses, who turned Apamea,
not rightly formed, into Capua.
Indeed there seems no doubt that Ado
drew his announcement from some Hieronymian
codex, since he could not have taken it
from the old Roman published by Rosweyde, which
elsewhere gave him light: for in it there is no memorial of Antoninus
the boy or of Aristaeus. Ado's own later
words, whose deeds are had, clearly hint at this.
That those deeds were never seen by Ado can be sufficiently
established, says Sollerius rightly, from this, that
he, who neglects no eulogies of the Saints, has here not reported
a word from them. For all the learned who have been willing
to examine Ado's Martyrology at all
will easily perceive that he wove eulogies
for those Saints whose Acts he had; but that he mentioned
others briefly from more ancient Martyrologies.
[4] Why then did Ado say, whose deeds are had?
For no other cause, assuredly, than that
in those same Hieronymian codices, in which he read
of Antoninus a boy of XX years, & that we should adjudge both Saints to Capua. and of Aristaeus
the bishop, he also found added at the end,
whose (singular) deeds are had: but since he supposed
these two to be joined, he put for cujus
quorum, as if those Acts treated of both. Take
the texts of the Hieronymian codices which could have given
Ado light, and others like them.
The Hieronymian in Florentinius at the III of September:
And in the region of Apamea, in the village Aprocavitus,
under the emperor Constantius, in the province of Syria, the birthday
of the holy Antoninus a boy of XX years, and of Arestus
the bishop, whose deeds are had. The codex of the Queen
of Sweden on the same day: In the province of Syria under Constantius
the emperor, of St. Antonius a youth of XX
years, and of Arestus the bishop, whose deeds are had.
If we did not have reasons from elsewhere for disjoining
Antoninus and Aristaeus, these texts would easily
persuade us that they must be joined, and these or similar ones
seem to have persuaded Ado, who for that cause
changed cujus into quorum; as Florentinius also
observed in his notes to have been done by Ado.
The village Aprocavitus and the emperor Constantius
Ado omitted, either because he did not find them
in his codices — as indeed only in the ones cited is
Constantius had, and in one only is the village mentioned —
or, if perhaps he did find them, because he held them
suspect, since they were lacking in several. Finally,
for At Apamea there crept in at Capua:
for from wherever this error arose, that there was an error
we can scarcely doubt, and therefore we dare ascribe neither Antoninus
nor Aristaeus to Capua.
[5] Further, another doubt now occurs, namely
whether Antoninus and Aristaeus ought to be joined It is doubted whether Antoninus ought to be joined with Aristaeus;
as companions in martyrdom; or rather disjoined, as having
suffered at a different time and place. Then another will follow this,
namely whether we ought to acknowledge one single
Aristaeus or Aristion, or a bishop of a neighboring name,
or rather several, inasmuch as several
are announced in certain transcripts on the same
day. To disentangle these difficulties, first of all
the Hieronymian transcripts must be carefully considered,
from whose faults and interpolations
the difficulties themselves arise. And two things, even though
they have been frequently repeated in this Work, I judge must here again
be advised. The first is that from some
diversity of name, or from its repetition on the same
day, or even on the two following days under the same name,
it cannot be inferred that that name, the same or
somewhat altered, refers to two different
Saints. The reason is that those transcripts have been enlarged
by many hands. Hence from one copy Saints have been written
into another, in which they were already read
with the name a little changed, or on another neighboring
day. Sometimes too they could have been added on the same
day and under exactly the same name, because in the place
of martyrdom, or in some other circumstance, some
difference was found, from which it was easily believed
that there were two different Saints. The second is,
that in those transcripts Saints are frequently joined together
as though belonging to one class,
although there is no connection between them. This seems to have happened
on account of excessive brevity, because many were recorded
without place or time or any other circumstances,
the name alone being expressed. These things having been observed beforehand,
I subjoin what those ancient, but at the same time faulty
and interpolated, Martyrologies have concerning Aristaeus,
and, joined with him in various of them, Antoninus. since in various Transcripts they seem to be joined,
[6] In Florentinius at the III of September: In
Alexandria the birthday of Aristoippus the bishop, and in the region
of Apamea, as above at num. 4… of Antoninus
the boy and of Arestus the bishop. You see here on the same day Aristoippus
and Arestus, both bishops: and Antoninus
joined with Arestus in the same way as he is joined
in the Codex of the Queen of Sweden, likewise cited at num.
4, in which no other Aristonippus the bishop is mentioned
on that day. The Ms. which Florentinius calls
most ancient in his notes has thus: In Alexandria,
of Arippus, and in Syria of Antonius the boy, and of Aristo the bishop,
and finally, other things being interposed, and of Arito. We have
here in the same text Arippus, Aristo, and
Arito. The Corbie in the same place: In Alexandria the birthday
of St. Aristonippus the bishop. And in the region of Apamea
in the province of Syria the birthday of St. Antonius the boy, of Arestus
the bishop. And after others, of Aristo. In those published by
us after volume VII of June the variety is no less:
The Rheinau: In Syria, of Antoninus, and of Aristenis the bishop.
And in Alexandria of Arestenippus the bishop.
The Reichenau: In Syria of Antoninus and of Aristo the bishop.
And in Alexandria, of Arestempus the bishop …
of Arestis. The Augsburg, without any place: Of Aristonippus,
of Antoninus, … of Arestus. I observe here that Aristius or
Aristaeus is not immediately placed after Antoninus, as is done
in the preceding. The Labbean likewise disjoins them all, without place,
in this manner: Of Aristonippus … of Antoninus
… of Arestus. The abridged Corbie: In Alexandria,
the birthday of St. Aristonippus the bishop. In the province
of Syria, the birthday of the holy Antoninus the boy, of Arestus
the bishop. Thus far our own.
[7] but in others they are separated: Others were published by Edmond Martène in vol. 3
of the Anecdota, column [ ] and following, whose
words I shall likewise report. The first, which he judges to be
about a thousand years old, has thus on the same day: Of Aristonippus,
of Antoninus etc. Here there is only one Antoninus,
one Aristonippus. The Murbach, which
he pronounces to be of nearly nine hundred years, separates the Saints
still more: for at day 2 it has: Of Antonius,
at the III: Of Aristonippus. This agrees with the preceding
in that it records only one of each,
but disagrees in the days. In the rest published there
Aristaeus is not read, except in the Corbie,
which I have already given. The aforesaid Martène also published various
ancient Martyrologies or Calendars
in vol. 6 of the Collectio amplissima, from col. 633. The first
there, marked with the name of Bede, at the III of September,
without any place added, has among others, Of Aristus,
without any Antoninus at that or the preceding
day. After certain others, in which neither is read,
the Stavelot Calendar on the same day has
Antoninus alone in these words: Of St. Antoninus the martyr.
The Verdun that follows agrees almost with the preceding,
the Saint's name being slightly changed in this
way: Of St. Antonius the martyr. Finally the Auxerre,
which is there the last and less ancient,
plainly agrees with Usuard. The Hieronymian of
d'Achery in vol. 2 of the reprinted Spicilegium at day 2 records
in the parts of Apamea Antonius and Antoninus,
but at the III has thus: In Alexandria the birthday
of St. Aristonippus the bishop. And in the region of Apamea,
in the province of Syria, the birthday of St. Antonius the boy,
of Arestus the bishop .. and with others of Arito with
companions, without place. The Gellone in the same place at day 2, Of Antonius,
on the following, Of Aristonippus, of Antoninus, … of Arestus,
all without place. I add Rabanus, who on day
III announces these: In Alexandria of Aristippus the bishop,
and in Syria of Antoninus a boy of XX years, and
of Aristo the bishop. Thus far the Martyrologies.
[8] we believe they are by no means to be joined, The reader will perhaps wonder that so many
texts of Martyrologies have here been heaped up by me,
and will ask what at last ought to be gathered from all
these. I shall indicate my opinion in a few words,
before I set about confirming it by a longer disputation.
I am wholly persuaded that Antoninus and
Aristaeus were not companions in martyrdom, nor suffered in the same
place, which was the first doubt. Then I also
judge that by those names of Aristonippus, Arestus,
Arippus, Aristo or Aristonis, Aristippus, and others
near them which have been reviewed, only a single
Saint is designated, namely St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria
ad Issum, just as I believe that only
a single Antoninus of Apamea is signified on days 11 and III,
even though in certain transcripts
three are reckoned under the name of Antonius or Antoninus.
That the studious reader might more easily understand these things
by a probable disputation, I judged that so great a heap
of Martyrologies must be gathered here. Of the same
opinion, I think, was Wandelbert the deacon,
who in his Martyrology at the III of September
records one Antoninus, and likewise one
Aristeus, and not as companions in martyrdom, but as crowned
on the same day, so far as can be gathered from his words,
which I subjoin:
On the third, Antoninus, boy and martyr, thou dost triumph:
Then too Aristeus the prelate is blessed by death.
[9] The first reason why I do not judge St. Antoninus and St. Aristion
(this name seems the one to use in preference to the others)
to be companions in martyrdom [both because in no transcripts are they clearly joined as companions in martyrdom,] is this, that
in no Hieronymian transcripts are they clearly joined
as companions. Certainly nowhere does a greater conjunction appear
than in those published by Florentinius
from the Lucca and Blumian codex, and in the codex of the queen
of Sweden, whose words I gave at num. 4: for
after Antoninus has been reckoned there is at once subjoined, and of Arestus
the bishop, as is also done in certain
others; but in others the conjunction and is omitted.
Nevertheless from those very codices cited it is clearly
enough gathered that they are not announced as companions: since
after the words and of Arestus the bishop, there is subjoined,
whose (singular) Deeds are had. Assuredly no one is ignorant that of companion
Martyrs Acts are composed common to them all;
if therefore they were companions in martyrdom, it would have been written,
whose (plural) Deeds are had. Then that apparent
conjunction which is found in certain Martyrologies
becomes on this account also less likely,
that in all those in which they seem to be joined,
Antoninus is reckoned in the first place, but Aristion,
who was a bishop, only in the second.
But it is not likely that a Bishop should have been placed after a Boy, as
Antoninus is called in those texts, by
all of them, if they had believed them companions in martyrdom. These things suffice
against that apparent conjunction,
which in the Hieronymian Transcripts is of no great
weight. Yet from these alone, so far as can be gathered,
Ado joined those Martyrs, as
Rabanus also seems to have done, but less clearly, and
keeping almost the words of the Hieronymian texts.
[10] The second reason for disjoining the aforesaid Martyrs
is drawn from other Hieronymian transcripts, [and because in others they are clearly separated, and suffered in different places.]
in which they are clearly dissociated. In various of those cited they are
so disjoined that others are set between in the middle who
certainly are not their companions. In the Murbach they are placed
on different days, namely Antoninus on day 2,
Aristonippus on the following. In another Aristion alone is reckoned under
the name of Arestus, in others Antoninus alone.
There could be added all the Acts of St. Antoninus, of
which we disputed at the preceding day: for in
them there is no mention of Aristaeus or Aristion the bishop.
The third and last reason why we separate Aristion
from Antoninus is that by those different names
only one Aristion is indicated, as we shall presently
prove. Now this Aristion suffered at Alexandria
on the Issic gulf, but Antoninus at Apamea,
or in its neighborhood. These reasons ought to outweigh
the authority of Ado and of the others,
whose opinion rests on no suitable monument,
and seems to have arisen from the Hieronymian transcripts
less accurately considered. It now remains to be proved
that one single Aristion, bishop of Alexandria,
is announced under different names, and this I shall do
in the following §.
§ II. There is one Aristion, who is multiplied under neighboring names
in various Martyrologies: he was bishop of Alexandria ad
[ ] Issum on the border of Cilicia and Syria: various eulogies of him from the Menologies.
Only one Aristion is to be admitted on this day, I have already said at num. 8 that only one Aristion
is indicated on the III day of September, even though under three
different names he is reported in certain
transcripts, whether interpolated or patched together
out of various Martyrologies by unskilled men,
who believed that different Saints were indicated as often as
in different Martyrologies they found a slight
difference of name or of circumstances. My opinion
seems to have been followed long ago by Wandelbert,
Ado, and Usuard, since they announce only one;
although the two latter did not rightly designate the place
of martyrdom. The author of the old Roman,
and Notker, omitted Aristion altogether. But Rabanus
divided into two the Aristion who seems to us one,
as was easy on account of the interpolation of the Hieronymian texts.
Baronius in the Roman Martyrology
of today followed Ado and Usuard,
as we have already seen. Receive briefly, studious reader,
the reasons on account of which I acknowledge only one
Aristion on this day.
[12] [because he who is announced under various names as bishop of Alexandria is the same as Aristion,] First, in various Hieronymian texts only one
is announced, and indeed in different ones with the name
not a little dislocated. In the first two Martyrologies
published by Martène, as I said at num.
7, only one is recorded under the name of Aristonippus.
In another there likewise one under the name of Aristus. So in
the codex of the Queen of Sweden mention is made of one Arestus, whose deeds
are had. Various codices record no
Aristaeus or Aristion at all; but others
several. Now since this Saint is ancient,
I do not see why in the more ancient Martyrologies
others of almost the same name should have been omitted,
who also ought to be quite as old. Certainly I more easily
perceive how it could have come about that one
should be repeated on the same day under three different names.
For the collectors of those Martyrologies,
who were eager to take something from various sources,
and used greater diligence than critical judgment, could take from
one Aristonippus, from another Arestius,
from another Aristo, and insert those names into their
Martyrologies as of so many Saints.
Ground for suspecting that this really happened
is furnished not only by the similarity of the names, but also
by this, that the Saint who under the name of Aristoippus,
Arippus, Arestempus, but more frequently Aristonippus,
and in Rabanus Aristippus, is attributed to Alexandria,
must necessarily be St. Aristion, bishop of
Alexandria, who is known in the Greek Menologies
on the same day. For thus I reason with myself: Since
the day and place of martyrdom, as also the episcopal dignity
of Aristonippus and of Aristion agree, on account of a slight
change of name, which in the Hieronymian texts
is most frequent, it does not become credible that there are two
different Saints.
[13] Further, just as it is in no way likely that these are distinct,
so it appears no more credible concerning
St. Aristion and that holy Bishop [likewise the same with him is that Bishop who is everywhere placed after Antoninus;] who in
most transcripts follows after Antoninus
under the name of Arestus, Aristo, Aristenis, Aristonis,
as he is also called in Rabanus. For here too there is the same
episcopal dignity, the same day of veneration,
and so great a similarity of name, that we cannot
believe them distinct without a weighty reason,
which does not occur; since only the repetition of the names
can be brought forward for the distinction. But that repetition
of names is most frequent in the Hieronymian transcripts
for the reasons already stated. Besides, in two
transcripts it is said of Arestius, whose deeds
are had. And these words seem to be understood of Aristion
alone, a summary of whose Acts still
survives in the Menology of the Greeks. Assuredly
they cannot probably be understood of any other bishop,
since of another Arestius no memorial exists among the Greeks
on this day, and no trace of Acts among the Latins.
Wherefore, if neither Aristonippus
nor Aristo is distinguished from Aristion
of Alexandria, neither are they distinguished from each other.
[14] The second reason for not acknowledging a twofold Saint here
& because only one place is assigned in the Hieronymian texts: is the place, which is so assigned as single
that it is added to one and then omitted. Aristonippus is said
to have suffered at Alexandria, and he was bishop
of that city. But that Alexandria ad Issum is to be understood,
which by some is assigned to Syria, by others
to Cilicia, I shall show below. But to Aristo
or Aristeus no place is anywhere added, for
just as he is to be separated from Antoninus, after whom in
most he is announced, so also he ought not to be referred to the same
place with him. But if anyone should wish
to contend that Aristeus or Aristo is referred
to the same place in which Antoninus is announced,
he would have to answer the reasons by which I have proved
that those two martyrs did not suffer together.
Further, this omission of the place, which is found in all
the Hieronymian texts in the case of Aristo or Arestius,
proves from another quarter also that that name does not belong
to the original text of the Hieronymian Martyrology.
This is gathered from the words of St. Gregory in his Epistle
to Eulogius of Alexandria, which are everywhere
understood of the Martyrology bearing the name of Jerome:
But we, says Gregory in bk. 8,
epistle 29, have the names of nearly all the Martyrs, with their passions
distinguished through the several days, collected in one codex,
and on the several days we perform the solemnities of Masses
in their veneration.
Yet in the same volume it is not indicated how each
suffered, but only the name, the PLACE,
and the day of the passion is set down. Whence it comes about that many
from different lands and provinces are known to have been crowned with martyrdom
through the several days, as I said before.
Gregory testifies that the place was set beside each one.
Ought they not therefore to be reckoned interpolations,
where the bare names of Saints occur
without the place added? — especially since other reasons too
hint that those same names had already been recorded before.
[15] From what has been said I conclude that by different names
one St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria, is designated, likewise one Aristion is known among the Greeks, of whom a eulogy is given:
even though he is a third time repeated in
some under the name of Arestus, Arestis, or Aristo.
The name has been dislocated in different ways, but
everywhere it is the same Saint. This is confirmed from the
Menologies of the Greeks, in which only one
St. Aristion is announced on this day, not several. Receive
a short eulogy of him from the Menology of Sirletus: On the same
day the birthday of the blessed Aristion, bishop of Alexandria,
who, tried in fire, passed over into heaven.
At the same day, in the Menology composed at the command of the emperor
Basil, St. Aristion, under this title,
The contest of the most sacred martyr Aristion, is
adorned with such a eulogy: The holy martyr Aristion was bishop
of Alexandria. He taught with the greatest
freedom, and preached the coming in the flesh of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and his eternal kingdom;
and besides these the felicity and joy of the kingdom of heaven;
and that this glory of men, and dignities and
riches, are subject to corruption and vanish away;
but that those goods are incorruptible, and that
life immortal. Teaching these things, when he persuaded many
of the Greeks, and converted them to God*
and baptized them, he was seized and set before the prefect of
Alexandria: and having confessed Christ, he is handed over
to the fire: and so in the furnace, like those three
holy children, praising and magnifying God,
he received a blessed and longed-for end,
having obtained the crown of incorruptible
life. And his precious
relics were committed to the earth; but his holy*
soul, ascending to the heavens, rejoices together
with the Saints. These things, rendered into Latin from the Greek, are
thus read in the Urbino edition of the year 1727. The same
are read a little more briefly in the Clermont Synaxary,
communicated to us long ago by Sirmond.
[16] he was bishop of Alexandria ad Issum on the border of Syria and Cilicia; That St. Aristion was not bishop of Alexandria
in Egypt has already been observed by Michael
le Quien in his Oriens Christianus, vol. 2, col.
903, where he reviews the bishops of Alexandria ad Issum,
and describes that city in these words:
Alexandria of Cilicia beside Issus, or ad Issum,
κατὰ
Ισσὸν as it is called by Ptolemy, who assigned it to Syria;
but Pliny assigns to Cilicia the town Issos, then
Alexandria. Stephanus of Byzantium also
says that this is situated in Cilicia, and in the Notitiae
of Hierocles, and in the other Greek one, it is reckoned
to the second Cilicia. It lies near the Issic gulf, and
today too it is named Alexandretta, as it were the lesser Alexandria,
Alessandrona and Scandareta.
As the second bishop of this city he reckons Aristion, of whom he reasons thus: The Greeks in
their Menology on the III day of September keep the memorial
of St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria … And yet
Aristion was in no way prelate of the great Alexandria of Egypt,
and therefore of no other than the Alexandria
of Cilicia. By the same argument he attributes Helenus as the first
and Theodore as the third bishop
to this Alexandria. But I do not inquire whether that
succession is sufficiently certain in every part. Yet it is certainly
established that Hesychius, whom he sets as the fourth bishop
of Alexandria ad Issum, presided over that see
at the time of the councils of Nicaea and Antioch,
since he subscribed to both among the bishops of Cilicia as
Hesychius of the lesser Alexandria. Further, from the
Menology itself it is sufficiently gathered that St. Aristion is not announced
as bishop of the Greater Alexandria,
since he is not called Patriarch, as in that Menology
others are called who presided over a patriarchal see.
[17] [and he is other than Aristion the disciple of Christ, and than others of the same name.] It is not expressed at what time the Saint
suffered; but from the fact that he was seized by the city's
prefect, or governor, it is sufficiently gathered that he was crowned
in some persecution of the gentile
emperors. There was a certain Aristion among the ancient
disciples of Christ, of whom we treated in vol. III of February,
p. 283. Another Aristion, bishop and martyr,
is placed with Lucinius, bishop and martyr, at the IV
of March, that is, in vol. 1 of that month, p. 308. Likewise
in the Apostolic Constitutions, bk. 7 ch. 46, the first
bishop of Smyrna is called Aristo, and again
the third, so that a twofold Aristo is attributed
to the church of Smyrna. But no reason occurs
why I should believe one of these to be the same as St.
Aristion of Alexandria ad Issum. Tillemont
in vol. 2, on St. Papias, disputed of these also;
and he hinted that our Alexandrian, whom he doubtfully and not
rightly seeks in the Troad or in Caria,
is perhaps the same as Aristion the disciple of Christ;
but he brings no reasons that ought to detain
me.
Annotatai.e. gentilium* (of the gentiles).
i.e. corpus* (the body).