ON ST. EUPSYCHIUS, MARTYR
AT CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA,
Under Hadrian.
SYLLOGE.
From the Greek and Latin Calendars.
Eupsychius, martyr at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (S.)
BY J. S.
The Greeks on this day announce in their Calendars St. Eupsychius the martyr, concerning whom the Menology rendered into Latin by the most eminent Sirleto has it thus: The Saint in various Calendars On the same day, the birthday of the blessed martyr Eupsychius of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, who under the emperor Hadrian was arrested by Sapricius, governor of Cappadocia; having first sold all his goods, and having given a certain part to his accusers — inasmuch as through them the kingdom of heaven had been procured for him — he distributed what remained to the poor. Wherefore, when he was compelled by the judge Sapricius to sacrifice to the idols and refused it, he was torn with rakes: afterwards, being struck, he commended his holy soul to Christ the Lord. The things here said about a part of his goods being given to the poor and a part to his accusers are more clearly set forth by others in the Roman Martyrology, where these things are read: At Cæsarea in Cappadocia, of St. Eupsychius the martyr, who under the emperor Hadrian, being accused of being a Christian, was cast into prison: and being sent forth thence a little after, he at once sold his patrimony, and distributed the price partly to the poor, partly to his accusers as to benefactors: but being arrested again, he was torn to pieces under the judge Sapritius, and pierced with the sword, and so consummated his martyrdom.
[2] Some things are set forth in a different manner in the printed Menæa, his memory with an elogium: of which Raderus made a Latin elogium in this fashion: Eupsychius was born and brought up at Cæsarea, in the reign of Hadrian. His father being dead, he was washed in holy baptism, and having bestowed his whole patrimony upon the poor, he is seized by the prefect of Cappadocia, is torn on the sides, is shut up in prison: being healed by an angel, he is again hung up and savagely rent, and at last is punished in the head. It is reported that in place of blood he poured forth milk and water from his veins. The elogium which is inserted on the same day in the Basilian Menology pleases more and agrees better with what has been given from the Roman Martyrology. Take it as it is expressed in Latin in the most recent edition of that Menology: Eupsychius the martyr was of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, when Hadrian was emperor of the Romans. His father being dead, he is baptized by the bishop of Cæsarea: and being informed against by certain men as being a Christian, he is arrested by the governor of Cæsarea, and is thrust into prison. Coming out thence, and having sold his goods, he gave a part indeed to his accusers, as to those who had procured and secured for him the heavenly kingdom: but a part he distributed to the poor. Being arrested a second time, however, and brought before the governor, when he was compelled to sacrifice to the idols and could not be induced to it, he was hung upon a wooden frame and combed to such a degree that all his inward parts were seen. Then, being taken down from the wood and slain with the sword, he gave up his spirit to the Lord.
[3] a fuller Greek elogium Of the elogia just given there is none which embraces together all the things that are related of the Saint; but some things are omitted in these, others in those. But all of them together are set forth more distinctly in the manuscript Synaxarion of the church of Constantinople, which was communicated to us from the college of Clermont at Paris. I subjoin the Greek words, that I may afterwards render them into Latin: Ἄθλησις τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτηρος Εὐψυχίου. Ὃς γέννημα καὶ θρέμμα ὑπῆρχεν τῆς Καισαρέων Πόλεως, υἱὸς Διονυσίου συγκλητικοῦ. Μετὰ δὲ τελευτὴν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Ἀδριανοῦ τοῦ Ρωμαίων βασιλέως βαπτισάμενος, καὶ διαβληθεὶς παρά τινος ὅτι Χριστιανός ἐστιν, παραδοθεὶς Σαπρικίῳ τῷ Καππαδοκῶν ἄρχοντι, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν ἐμβληθεὶς, παρὰ δὲ τῶν φυλάκων παραχωρηθεὶς ἐξελθεῖν, καὶ πωλήσας πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῷ, πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς κατηγόρους δώροις πολλοὶς ἀντημείψατο· ἔπειτα δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τοῖς πένησι διανείμας, καὶ εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὑποστρέψας, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας τῷ ἄρχοντι παραστὰς, τανύεται, καὶ δεινῶς ξέεται τὰς πλευρὰς, καὶ αὖθις φρουρεῖται. Εἶτα ἀγγέλου ἐπιστασία Θάρσους ἐμπίπλαται καὶ ἀναρώννυται· καὶ πάλιν ἀναρτᾶται καὶ ξέεται
ὥστε τὰ σπλάχνα αὐτοῦ προῦπτον φαίνεσθαι· καὶ τὴν κεφάλὴν ἀποτέμνεται· καὶ αὐτίκα ἄντι αἵματος γάλα καὶ ὕδωρ ἔγγυς· ξένον τοῦτο θέαμα τοῖς πάσι φανεν.
[4] The contest of the holy martyr Eupsychius. He was born and brought up in the city of Cæsarea, rendered into Latin. the son of Dionysius a senator. But after the death of his father, in the times of Hadrian emperor of the Romans, he was washed in holy baptism, and being informed against by a certain man as being a Christian, and delivered to Sapricius prefect of Cappadocia, he was cast into prison; but going out by the permission of his guards, and having sold all that he possessed, he first indeed requited his accusers with many gifts: but afterwards, when he had distributed the rest to the poor and had returned to the prison, and after some days had been brought before the judge, he is stretched out and violently torn on the sides, and is again led back to prison. After these things he is filled with confidence by the visitation of an angel, and is healed: then he is again hung up and torn so violently that his inward parts plainly appeared; and he is beheaded. Presently, in place of blood, he poured forth milk and water: this appeared to all a strange spectacle.
[5] You see, I think, studious reader, nearly all things here joined together [Another Eupsychius on IX April: Tillemont believes this one the same as that one:] which in the other elogia are read separately; and those things well enough reconciled which in the others somehow seemed divergent. I suspect that all were drawn from more extended Acts, out of which each collector of Calendars chose what pleased him more. But those Acts have not come to my hands, and therefore I cannot judge of their trustworthiness. Further, Baronius in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology on the VII day of September observes that a certain Eupsychius also suffered at Cæsarea in Cappadocia under Julian the Apostate, and reckons the one distinct from the other, because the one is said to have suffered under Hadrian, the other under Julian. Concerning him who was certainly crowned under Julian, Henschenius discoursed at the IX of April, on which day he is read as inserted in the Greek and Latin Calendars. Tillemont, in tome 7, note 17 upon the Persecution of Julian, strives to show that the Eupsychius who is venerated on IX April and on VII September is probably the same, and brings forward certain reasons not to be despised; nay, such that I would acquiesce in his opinion, if I believed that all the things which are said of St. Eupsychius in Nazianzen, in Basil, and in the Greek Menæa themselves on the IX day of April were to be understood of him who was killed under Julian on account of the overthrown temple of Fortune, as Tillemont judged. This therefore must first be investigated.
[6] First, St. Gregory Nazianzen in Epistle 26 to Basil makes mention of the assembly or church of St. Eupsychius the martyr, but in words very ambiguous, Eupsychius mentioned by Nazianzen and Basil, which have been variously expounded by interpreters, yet in such a way that no one doubts that it is a question of St. Eupsychius the martyr, whom St. Basil frequently mentions: and that is enough for our purpose. That epistle of Gregory seems to have been written in the year 371. In the following year 372 Basil wrote Epistle 100 of the most recent edition (formerly 256) to St. Eusebius of Samosata, whom he invites in friendly wise to come to him, expressing thus the time at which he most desired him to come: This therefore, if it can be done, we ask may be done at the solemn assembly which we celebrate every year in memory of the most blessed martyr Eupsychius, now drawing near, on the seventh day of the month of September. In Epistle 142 (formerly 418), which is noted as written in the year 373, he has it thus: I have called together all our brethren the chorepiscopi to the assembly of the blessed martyr Eupsychius. Epistle 176 (otherwise 394), addressed to St. Amphilochius bishop of Iconium in the year 374, was again written to the same end, namely that St. Amphilochius should come to the assembly which was held yearly at Cæsarea in honor of the martyrs. Yet the name of St. Eupsychius is not expressed in that epistle; nor does the day at all agree; for thus it has concerning the day: Moreover the appointed day is the fifth of September. But the editor judges there to be an error; and that is probable enough. Again in the year 375 he invites Amphilochius in Epistle 200 (otherwise 397) with these words: Be mindful of the memory of the most blessed martyr Eupsychius, etc.
[7] whose feast was famous at Cæsarea, These things already abundantly imply that the feast of St. Eupsychius was famous at Cæsarea; nor does any word occur from which one might suspect that it had been recently instituted. Nevertheless the celebrity and antiquity of that same feast is still more shown from Epistle 252 (otherwise 291), addressed in the year 376 to the bishops of the Pontic diocese, which, as being very short, I transfer hither: The honors of the martyrs ought indeed to be a matter of the highest zeal to all who hope in the Lord; but especially to you, cultivators of virtue, who by the inclination of your will toward those illustrious and famous fellow-servants show your love toward the common Lord: and most of all because an exact manner of living has some kinship with those who have been made perfect through fortitude of soul. Since therefore the martyrs Eupsychius and Damas and their company are most famous, whose memory is celebrated every year by our city and by all the neighborhood; the Church admonishes you of her own proper glory, and by our voice exhorts you to resume the ancient custom of visiting. Therefore, since a great gain is set before you among the people who desire to be edified by you, and since rewards are laid up for the honor paid to the martyrs, so receive our exhortation, and grant this petition, bestowing on us a great benefit with no great labor.
[8] he seems to have had a more ancient cult, Now, studious reader, it must be inquired whether all these things can conveniently be understood of that St. Eupsychius who suffered in the time of St. Basil under Julian the Apostate on account of the overthrown temple of Fortune. That Eupsychius suffered in the year 362, as Henschenius and Tillemont rightly observe. And so only nine years had passed when St. Gregory Nazianzen made mention of the church or assembly of St. Eupsychius. Then in each of the following years St. Basil invited bishops to the assembly of St. Eupsychius; nor did he anywhere express that that feast was new, or that that Saint whose honor he so anxiously promoted had suffered in his own times. To these things are added the words of the Epistle just given, in which Basil exhorts the bishops of the Pontic diocese to resume the ancient custom of visiting. Tillemont saw these things, and yet says that he judges there to be no doubt that he (Eupsychius) who is so greatly celebrated by St. Basil is the very one who suffered under Julian. But already before that our Papebroch, in St. Gregory Nazianzen, tome 2 of May, pages 393 and 394, had assigned Eupsychius as having suffered under Hadrian, and had added these words concerning the second: There is indeed also another of the same name killed under Julian, because he had overthrown the temple of Fortune… But that a church was erected to this one so quickly, or at all at any time, I could not persuade myself.
[9] Truly so many things stand against Tillemont's opinion that it appears to me not even likely or probable. so that it does not become likely that this is the same man First, St. Basil would not rightly have called the custom of visiting St. Eupsychius ancient: for a few years do not bring in an ancient custom. Secondly, St. Basil or Nazianzen is not known to have commemorated anything anywhere about the deeds of St. Eupsychius. But that would seem strange if the Martyr whose feast was made so much of had suffered in their own time, especially since Basil speaks of him so often, and Nazianzen also touches upon the occasion on which Eupsychius was killed under Julian. Thirdly, Nazianzen in Oration 3 against Julian, page 91, seems to acknowledge that a sin against the laws of prudence was committed by the second Eupsychius: for thus he speaks of the punishment inflicted upon the people of Cæsarea: For what he perpetrated against our people of Cæsarea — these men, I say, endowed with greatness of soul and fervent with zeal for piety, so harassed by him and vexed with insult — it will perhaps not even be fair to cast up against him. For being moved with a just indignation on account of Fortune, who had been visited with misfortune in a time of better fortune, he seemed to have proceeded to this vengeance: since something must be conceded to injustice when it is in power. Thus Gregory not obscurely condemns the overthrow of the temple as imprudence, and at the same time teaches that the deed of that Eupsychius is rather to be wondered at than imitated. It is therefore not credible that the feast of that martyr began forthwith to be kept with so great celebrity by those most prudent Fathers, who knew that Christians were not rashly to be stirred up to like deeds, nor an occasion of calumny to be given to the heathen.
[10] Now certain other reasons of Tillemont must be examined. with the Eupsychius who suffered under Julian: That he may make one out of the two Eupsychii, he observes that that famous Eupsychius of St. Basil is venerated on the V or VII day of September, and believes that the same was afterwards also celebrated by the Greeks on the IX day of April. But I altogether agree that that Eupsychius is venerated on VII September; yet thence I more rightly conclude that the very one celebrated by Basil is he who is read to have suffered under Hadrian, since even now he is held as ascribed to the VII of September in the Calendars. Thirdly he says that Basil nowhere hints that there were two holy Eupsychii at Cæsarea, and that from this it is confirmed that there was but one. I answer that there was only one Eupsychius who was venerated in the time of St. Basil; but that the other was afterwards also venerated by the Greeks. Nazianzen calls those who were killed or otherwise harassed by Julian endowed with greatness of soul and fervent with zeal for piety; but he does not affirm that any one of them was then already held for a Saint.
[11] [An answer is given to the argument for only one Eupsychius drawn from the Menæa;] The last objection of Tillemont is better than the rest, and this is the chief reason, so far as I conjecture, on account of which he wished to acknowledge only one Eupsychius. If we compare the elogia of the Eupsychius celebrated on VII September with the odes which are inserted in the Office of IX April in the Menæa, and which are attributed to St. Joseph the Hymnographer, we shall see that the same things are related of Eupsychius in both places. That this observation is true I gladly acknowledge, and the studious reader will acknowledge it with me, if he shall have been able either to consult the Greek Office itself in the Menæa, or shall only have read through those things which Henschenius, at the IX of April in Eupsychius, numbers 6 and 7, rendered into Latin out of the Office; and shall have carefully compared these with the elogia of St. Eupsychius which I have recited above. I acknowledge, I say, that the odes at the IX of April contain nearly the same facts as the elogia which are read on VII September in the Greek Calendars. But I answer that those odes concerning St. Eupsychius look in truth to the first Eupsychius; and that by an error of the collector of the Menæa they were inserted into the Office of the other: to this Henschenius did not attend, because he did not compare the Acts of the two Eupsychii with one another, and therefore, along with the collector of the Menæa, wrongly attributed those odes to the second Eupsychius, as also certain other things written by St. Basil concerning Eupsychius.
[12] and it is further shown that two must be admitted. For if the deeds of the Saints are to be drawn out of the Greek Calendars, before all others are to be consulted the elogia, in which a brief synopsis of the Acts is contained. Now the elogia of both Eupsychii are read in all the Greek Calendars generally, of the first namely at the VII of September, of the second at
the IX of April. But in those elogia nothing is common to both Saints except the name, the fatherland, and the martyrdom. All the rest is different. For the first is said to have been killed under Hadrian; the second suffered more than two centuries later under Julian. The first was accused and arrested because he was a Christian; the second because he had overthrown the temple of Fortune. The first is read to have distributed all his goods to his accusers and to the poor when he had been let out of prison: the second had lately taken a wife, so that it is not likely that he thought of selling his property, nor is it likely that he could have done it after he had been arrested, since without doubt he was consigned to the strictest custody on account of the destroyed temple. Lastly, the first was much urged to sacrifice to the idols, and is read to have endured various torments: the second was perhaps not even invited to sacrifice, nor is he certainly known to have sustained so long a martyrdom. These things and the others said before altogether persuade me that there was a twofold Eupsychius who suffered at Cæsarea in Cappadocia; the one under Hadrian, whose feast was famous in the time of St. Basil; the other under Julian, who began to be celebrated later.