ON ST. JOHN THE MARTYR,
AT NICOMEDIA IN BITHYNIA
In the year CCCIII.
CRITICAL SYLLOGE.
The name of this Martyr is not altogether certain; but the occasion of the martyrdom and the martyrdom itself are known: the opinions of certain men concerning him are examined.
John, martyr at Nicomedia in Bithynia (S.)
BY J. S.
Various Martyrologies of the middle age, and most of the more recent, announce today a very famous Martyr of Nicomedia, The Saint's memory in the Calendars with an elogium but one less known by name, whom they call John. The author of the Little Roman seems to have gone before all the others in the eighth century, when at the VII day of September he wrote thus: Of John the martyr, who at Nicomedia under Diocletian tore into small pieces the book of the iniquitous law. Ado followed, and wove together a longer elogium out of Rufinus in this manner: The birthday of blessed John at Nicomedia, under the emperor Diocletian. He, sprung of noble parents, illustrious in honor and dignity, when he saw the cruel edicts against the worshippers of God hanging in the forum, kindled with too great a heat of faith, publicly, in the sight of the people, laid his hand upon the book of the iniquitous law, pulled it down, and tore it into small pieces, while Diocletian Augustus was established in that same city together with Maximian Cæsar. And when the deed of the religious and illustrious Man had been reported to them, at once raging against him with every kind of cruelty, they could not effect even this alone, that anyone should see him sorrowful in his torments: but with a glad and cheerful countenance, when already his inward parts had failed under the torments, yet his spirit rejoiced in his face. Whereat his tormentors were the more grievously tortured, because they were using up every sort of torment upon one whom they could not by these render even sad.
[2] Usuard delivers nearly the same things, but a little more briefly, as does Notker also. at VII September, on which day, however, he was not crowned. Many later writers then followed, whom it is not necessary to enumerate. I add only the words of the modern Roman, drawn for the most part from Usuard: At Nicomedia, the birthday of blessed John the martyr, who, when he saw cruel edicts against the Christians hanging in the forum, being inflamed with ardor of faith, laid hand on them, pulled them down and tore them: and when this had been reported to Diocletian and Maximian the Augusti (the latter was then only Cæsar) established in that same city, they ordered that all kinds of torments should be tried upon him: which that most noble Man bore with such cheerfulness of countenance and of spirit that he could not even be seen sad on account of them. Baronius adds in his annotations that this Martyr is commemorated on the same day by Ado and Usuard, to whom he wrongly joins Bede, since nothing is read of him in the genuine Martyrology of Bede. But as regards the day: this was chosen at will by the author of the Little Roman: for he seems to have suffered not on this day, but on the XXIV of February, as will be shown below.
[3] Eusebius in book 8, chapter 3, reports the edicts published against the Christians in the nineteenth year of Diocletian, which coincides with the year of Christ 303. The martyrdom reported by Eusebius, Then in chapter 5, concerning what was done at Nicomedia, where Diocletian Augustus and Maximian Galerius Cæsar were residing, he speaks thus: First indeed, as soon as the edict against the churches was published at Nicomedia, a certain Man, by no means obscure, but conspicuous above all by the prerogative of secular honors, moved by a certain divine zeal and stirred by ardor of faith, pulled down that edict, which had been affixed in a public and conspicuous place of the city, and tore it with his hands as impious and wicked: and that while two emperors were staying in the same city, of whom the one, the elder Augustus, held the first rank of all in the empire, but the other the fourth. He therefore, having been the first of all in that city to become famous by a deed of this sort, at once endured those torments which it was credible would be inflicted upon him after so great boldness, and preserved gladness and tranquillity of soul to his last breath. Thus far Eusebius, whom Rufinus rendered in a freer paraphrase in book 8, chapter 5. But neither of them indicated the Martyr's name.
[4] and by Lactantius, from whom it is understood that he suffered on XXIV February. Lactantius in the book On the Deaths of the Persecutors, where in chapter 12 he had narrated the burning of the church of the Christians at Nicomedia, which deed he says was done on the VII Kalends of March, in the year of Christ 303, thus proceeds in chapter 13: On the next day — that is, on the XXIV day of February — an edict was published in which it was provided that men of that religion should be deprived of all honor and dignity… Which edict a certain man, although not rightly, yet with a great soul tore down and cut in pieces, saying in mockery that victories over the Goths and the Sarmatians were set forth: (thus, that is, mocking the surnames Gothicus and Sarmaticus which the emperors arrogated to themselves.) And being at once brought forward, not only was he racked, but even roasted according to form, with admirable patience
he was at last burned up. All things imply that that Saint was crowned with martyrdom on the same XXIV day of February on which the edict had been published at Nicomedia.
[5] Castellanus's conjecture about the name of this Martyr Further, from the assigned day of the martyrdom, which, if not altogether certain, is at least most probable, Castellanus attempted also to extract the name of this illustrious Martyr, saying that he was probably called Palphetrus. But that conjecture appears to me not only uncertain, but also destitute of all probability. Castellanus's reason is drawn from the Hieronymian copies in this fashion. Palphetrus stands on the XXIV day of February in the most ancient Corbie copy of the Hieronymian, and in Florentinius, in the text, faultily Palpetrus, and still more corruptly in the Epternach or most ancient codex Petrus. Moreover, in the Corbie there precedes Editius, as also in the text in Florentinius; in the Epternach, Editus. On the contrary in others there follows Evitius, for which in others is read Edictitius, nay Edititius, namely in the Labbean. Hence he infers that in the autograph there was perhaps written Edictilaceri, and asserts that this agrees very well with Palphetrus. These things may be seen more at large in the Roman Martyrology translated into French and illustrated with annotations, at XXIV February, page 759. But already from this the studious reader sees, I think, that the conjecture is far too far-fetched: yet I shall show this more clearly.
[6] First, the name of that Saint of whom the Hieronymian copies treat is more probably Petrus, not Palphetrus. it is refuted: not Palphetrus in the Hieronymian at XXIV February, but Petrus, For the name of Palphetrus is found in a single Corbie codex, but that of Petrus is read in the Epternach and in the codex of the queen of Sweden published by us after tome VII of June. Moreover it is not improbable that there is announced in that place that Peter whose martyrdom Eusebius and Rufinus, in book 8, chapter 6, presently subjoin — and Rufinus indeed in such words that he seems to have suffered on the same day as he who had torn the edict. In various codices there is read Petri, Palatini with a stop between; but in the Epternach and the Corbie certain Nicomedian martyrs are set down a second time, as often happens in the Hieronymian, and there is read Petri palatini without a stop, so that a certain minister of the palace seems to be designated, such as was that Peter whose martyrdom Eusebius reports. In our Acts, that Peter and his companions were treated of at the XII of March, on which day he is inserted in the Roman Martyrology. Tillemont, in tome 5 of the Monuments of the Church, in St. Dorotheus the chamberlain, believes that Peter suffered after the first burning of the palace at Nicomedia, when the persecution began to rage more fiercely, and that therefore his martyrdom is rather to be referred to the XII of March than to the XXIV of February.
[7] His reason is sought from Lactantius, who narrates the slaughter of the most powerful eunuchs in chapter 15, after both burnings of the palace have been related. who may be a chamberlain of Diocletian, But I altogether judge that that Peter was crowned with martyrdom before the burning of the palace, since Rufinus alleges this as the cause of his martyrdom: When he complained too freely about the immense torments of the above-mentioned Martyr (who had torn the edict), he himself is ordered to be brought forth into the midst, etc. To this Tillemont answers in note 4 upon Dorotheus that the cause of the martyrdom both of this Peter and of SS. Dorotheus and Gorgonius, who were all chamberlains of Diocletian, was unknown to Rufinus, and that the cause of their martyrdom became known to us from Lactantius. But I shall never attribute so much authority to a silent Lactantius as to a speaking Rufinus, especially if Eusebius also favors the latter. Lactantius names neither Peter, nor Dorotheus, nor Gorgonius. In what manner therefore do we learn the cause of their martyrdom from Lactantius? Namely, because after relating the second burning of the palace, in describing the savagery of the persecution, he says among other things: The once most powerful eunuchs were slain. These words Tillemont understands of Dorotheus and Gorgonius, and therefore says that the cause of their martyrdom became known to us from Lactantius.
[8] But I answer that his reasoning is illegitimate. For since the court of Diocletian was full of Christians, whose martyrdom Eusebius reports: as Tillemont himself relates in tome 5, in the Persecution of Diocletian, article 3, three chamberlains could have been killed for another cause before the burning, and many others likewise crowned with martyrdom after the burning. Certainly Eusebius as well as Rufinus narrated the martyrdom of those three before the burning: and having related the burning and the increase of the persecution, he subjoins these words: But even the bodies of the royal chamberlains, which after their death had been given a fitting burial, their own lawful masters judged ought to be dug out of the sepulchre and cast into the sea, lest anyone, accounting those laid in tombs as gods — as indeed they themselves supposed — should thereafter adore them. This ignominy of bodies dug out of their sepulchres again hints that they had been killed while the persecution was less savage, that is, before the burning. And so concerning Peter at least it appears far more probable that he was killed before the burning; nor is there any reason which compels us to remove his martyrdom from the XXIV of February.
[9] [other conjectures which might be brought from the Hieronymian are also disapproved:] Further, whatever be the case with that Peter, at least it is sufficiently proved that Castellanus's conjecture about the name of our Martyr is not probable. It might more probably be said that the name of that illustrious Martyr was unknown to Eusebius, and perhaps also to Lactantius, nay even to the collector of the Hieronymian Calendars. Wherefore, if we were to proceed by conjecture, I should rather suspect that he was announced under the name of Edictius, from the edict torn; or that he was called Lucianus, because Lucianus is placed first in most of the copies, and in the more contracted ones is generally the only one named of those Nicomedians. Lucianus indeed is reckoned third in the text in Florentinius and in the Corbie; but in the same copies he is afterwards repeated with others, and there is reckoned first. To this conjecture, however, it stands in the way that that Lucianus is in most copies named a priest: which dignity does not seem to agree with the Martyr known for the tearing of the edict, since Eusebius says that he was conspicuous by the prerogative of secular honors, and Rufinus agrees with him. Wherefore none of these conjectures is to be made so much of that the Martyr's name can be gathered from them even probably.
[10] [nor does the conjecture about St. George please. The name John, attributed to the Saint from the eighth century,] Our Papebroch, in tome 3 of April, in St. George, §4, brought forward another conjecture, which Sollerius in his Observations on Usuard at the VII day of September called not improbable. Papebroch wished, that is, to show that all those things which Eusebius and Rufinus narrate of the torn edict and of the torments inflicted on the Martyr on this occasion can probably be understood of St. George. But his chief reason falls to the ground since the work of Lactantius On the Deaths of the Persecutors came forth: for from it it is plain that our Martyr did not suffer on the XXII of April, on which St. George is venerated, but on the XXIV of February. The remaining arguments of Papebroch can indeed instil some suspicion, but not so much that the thing appears sufficiently probable. Wherefore it seems that we must altogether say either that the martyr's name was unknown, or that he was called John. We do not indeed know whence the author of the Martyrology in the eighth century learned that name; but from this we cannot safely infer that it was rashly invented by him. He could have learned it from some ancient monument which is now lost or lies hidden. Thus the name of Diocletian's wife, Prisca, which became known in the last century from the discovered work of Lactantius, could have been known and written by someone in the middle age.
[11] is not at once to be held fictitious: nor is the Martyr's nobility to be denied. Moreover, from the Martyr's name being passed over in Eusebius and Lactantius it in no way follows that the Martyr himself was unknown at Nicomedia: for they could have omitted the name on purpose, because they disapproved the tearing of the edict as imprudently done. And so I would by no means concede to Baluze that this Martyr was without doubt of the common people, as he infers from the name's being passed over: for greater credit is owed to Eusebius, who says that he was noble. Nay, even if it were established that the name of the illustrious Martyr was unknown to Eusebius and even to the Nicomedians themselves, nothing would thence follow against the Man's nobility, since he could have been a stranger at Nicomedia, and there have done the aforesaid deed and been crowned with martyrdom. The nobility and dignity of such a Man could somehow become known to those present from the care of his person and from his train of servants, while his name might lie hidden at Nicomedia, or be concealed by those who knew it. Nor yet let anyone infer from this that the Martyr's name could not afterwards be known, if it were thus concealed: for servants or others who knew the illustrious Man's name could afterwards have indicated it in many ways.