Nicetas

ON ST. NICETAS, THE GOTH, MARTYR,

IN GOTHIA BEYOND THE ISTER.

About the year 372.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

The Saint's famous cult: the place and time of his martyrdom investigated: some observations on the conversion of the Goths: the Greek Acts to be published.

Nicetas the Goth, martyr, in Gothia beyond the Ister. (S.)

BY J. S.

Exceedingly famous today among the Greeks and the Muscovites is the cult of St. Nicetas the martyr, a Goth by nation, The Saint's memory in the Calendars: his cult among the Greeks: of whom Baronius in the Roman Martyrology makes mention thus: On the same day, of St. Nicetas the Goth, who by king Athanaric was ordered, for the Catholic faith, to be burned with fire. Peter de Natalibus, book 5, chapter 4, wove an elogium from the Acts to be given below, but not without several errors, and fixed the death of the Saint, whom he calls Nicetus, on the twenty-fifth of May. Hence it came about that Greven and a few other martyrologists inserted Nicetus, or rather Nicetas, into their Calendars on the twenty-fifth of May. Other Latins, however, with Molanus have commemorated St. Nicetas today. The more ancient Latin martyrologists did not know this Saint; but the Greeks with great unanimity, and with them the Muscovites, celebrate St. Nicetas today, as a great Martyr, of whom an ecclesiastical Office to be performed on the same day is prescribed in their ritual books. In Sirleto's Menology this elogium of St. Nicetas is given: The commemoration of the holy martyr Nicetas, who, born under the reign of Constantine the Great and brought up in the region of the Goths beyond the Danube, did not communicate with the barbarians but with pious men worshipping God, being taught the faith of Christ by Theophilus, the most holy bishop of the Goths; and being seized by Athanasius (read Athanaric) the prince on account of the profession of the Christian faith, and tormented with many torments, being consumed by fire, he was consummated. The printed Menæa agree entirely, where the name of Athanaric — for which here by an error Athanasius is read — is correctly expressed.

[2] In the Basilian Menology the Acts of St. Nicetas are set out in an abridgement. an elogium from the Basilian Menology: For after this announcement, The contest of the holy great martyr Nicetas, follows an elogium conceived thus: Nicetas, the illustrious martyr of Christ, lived in the reign of Constantine the Great, for nobility and riches, and taught the faith by Theophilus, the most religious bishop of Gothia. Now when the whole nation of the Goths had been split into two factions, and each had set up its own prince for itself, one of the princes fled for refuge to the emperor of the Romans; and when the latter, having undertaken an expedition against the tyrant of the opposing faction, had won from it a signal victory and had subdued the Goths, from that time the race of Christians among the Goths was multiplied. Of these the first was St. Nicetas, who also with the utmost freedom announced the Christian faith to the people. But after the emperor had returned, the unbelieving Goths, stirred by fury, raising a persecution against the Christians, tortured some in one way and some in another; but Nicetas, tormented with manifold punishments, they delivered to the fire. Thus far the Menology, rightly enough.

[3] his body first translated to Mopsuestia, then to Venice. Of the translation of St. Nicetas the Goth's body the Acts to be published treat, and with them agrees Peter de Natalibus already cited. In both places also it is read that a church was built to the Saint at Mopsuestia in Cilicia, whither the sacred body had been carried. Then Peter de Natalibus adds: After a course of time that body, having been translated to Venice, is said to rest in the church of St. Nicholas. That the body is preserved there Niccolò Doglioni confirms in his Italian little work on the Notable Things of the city of Venice, book 2, page 345; as also the Latin little work on the City of Venice, which is printed in the Thesaurus of the Antiquities of Italy, volume 5, part 2. For in the latter there is treated the temple of St. Nicholas, a parish of presbyters in the region of Dorsoduro, and at the end it is said: Here the body of St. Nicetas and other relics of the Saints are kept.

[4] The Saint suffered in the dominion of Athanaric, As regards the time in which St. Nicetas was crowned with martyrdom, it can in some fashion be assigned from the time in which Athanaric, prince of the Goths, raised a persecution against the Christians. Of the numerous company of Gothic martyrs our Papebroch treated very briefly on the twenty-sixth of March. At greater length and more accurately he treated of St. Sabas the Goth, who suffered in the same persecution, on the twelfth of April, on which he was slain in the year 372. Perhaps in the same year, and certainly not many years earlier or later, was St. Nicetas crowned. The place of the martyrdom was in the dominion of the Goths, who then dwelt beyond the Danube. I truly do not know by what lapse of memory Castellan in the Martyrologium universale, in the margin and in the index, could note that the Saint was slain near Mopsuestia in Cilicia, unless he confused the place to which the body was translated with the place of the martyrdom. For there is no reason why we should say that the Saint was slain outside the dominion of Athanaric, king of the Goths, which was distant from Cilicia by an immense interval of lands. If further we wish to inquire more nearly into Athanaric's dominion, we shall easily perceive from Ammianus, who relates the deeds of the emperor Valens against Athanaric in book 27, chapter 5, that Athanaric at that time ruled in present-day Moldavia, and perhaps in Wallachia and Bessarabia, or at any rate in some part of those provinces; for we do not know how widely he reigned.

[5] The places mentioned by Ammianus, where Valens crossed the Ister in the first and third year of that war, and where in the second year he attempted the crossing in vain, were in Lower Mœsia, ruling beyond the Danube, and about the year 372: opposite to the said provinces, especially to Moldavia, and divided from them only by the Ister. Marcianopolis, a city of the same province, in which Valens

had his winter quarters, and the peace concluded between the two princes upon the Ister itself, likewise show that Athanaric's dominion was divided from Lower Mœsia by the Ister or Danube alone. Therefore it must not be doubted that St. Nicetas suffered in present-day Moldavia, or in Wallachia or Bessarabia bordering upon it. For Athanaric raised the persecution against the Christians before the Goths had crossed the Ister, when the Arian heresy had not yet prevailed among the Goths, as St. Augustine observes, book 18 of the City of God, chapter 52, where he writes this: The king of the Goths in Gothia itself persecuted the Christians with wonderful cruelty, though there were none there but Catholics, very many of whom were crowned with martyrdom; as we have heard from certain brethren who were then boys there, and who without hesitation remembered that they had seen these things. Paulus Orosius, book 7, chapter 32, has this of the same persecution: Besides, Athanaric king of the Goths, most cruelly persecuting the Christians in his own nation, raised very many of the barbarians, slain for the faith, to the crown of martyrdom, etc. This he relates after he had said that Gratian was made emperor. Yet it cannot be inferred from this that in the same year 367, in which Gratian was made emperor, the persecution arose; but only that it was not begun many years later: for Orosius does not refer particular events to determined years. From the Acts of St. Sabas cited above it is certain that the persecution was raging in the year 372, and had already begun before. For this reason I have judged that the martyrdom of St. Nicetas should be fixed about the same year 372.

[6] The occasion of the persecution is in the Acts traced to a dissension of the Goths, a war of the Goths is said to have been the occasion of the persecution: and to a war which is said to have arisen between the princes of the two parties, namely Fritigern and Athanaric. If the Acts are to be believed, Fritigern was first conquered by Athanaric; but afterwards, a treaty being made with Valens, by his help he became victor. Sozomen has the like, book 6, chapter 37, writing thus: Not long after, a sedition having arisen among them (the Goths), they were divided into two parties, over one of which Athanaric, over the other Fritigern * presided. Presently, a battle being joined between them, Fritigern, being conquered, implored the help of the Romans. And when the emperor had granted this, and had ordered that the soldiers who were in Thrace should bring him aid, engaging again he carried off the victory, and put Athanaric's forces to flight. Thus far Sozomen, adding that on that occasion Fritigern, with the bishop Ulfilas and his subjects, was drawn over by Valens to the Arian heresy. But that writer mentions all these things after the Goths had been driven from their seats by the Huns, and had been received by Valens in Thrace.

[7] But Athanaric's persecution raged when all the Goths were dwelling beyond the Ister, but that war is not altogether certain: as St. Augustine just cited attests, and this is also clear from the time of the persecution assigned by Orosius. Besides, St. Epiphanius, who flourished and wrote at that time, treating of that violent persecution in the seventieth heresy, of the Audians, chapter 15, says that it was stirred up by the king of the Goths chiefly out of hatred of the Romans, because he saw that the Roman emperors were Christians. Therefore it is to be feared that there is some confusion both in the Acts and in Sozomen, and that thence the cause of the persecution has been wrongly assigned. For Athanaric before the persecution waged war against Valens, and was conquered by him in the year 369, about which year the persecution was begun, perhaps as soon as Valens, peace being ratified, had withdrawn with the Roman army. But whether Fritigern and Athanaric contended in war even before that time is not so certain, although Socrates too has this, book 4, chapter 33.

[8] but it is certain that the Goths were then Catholics. However that may be, the persecution is established; and it is further established that it was raised when the Goths were Catholics, as St. Augustine observes, and as is clear from the time at which the Goths were drawn over to Arianism. Socrates indeed makes the Goths slain by Athanaric at once both Arians and martyrs; but that writer frequently writes in a plainly inept and ridiculous manner about matters of faith, and makes the Goths already Arians then, because not long after they embraced that heresy: as Theodoret, presently to be cited, relates, who attributes it to the perfidy of Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. But what Theodoret records of Ulfilas's perversion is far more probable than what Philostorgius the Arian wrote of him. For Philostorgius says that he was ordained by Eusebius the bishop (hinting at the Arian of Nicomedia), when he had been sent as an envoy with others by the king who then ruled the Goths to the emperor Constantine. These things are improbable, because thus Ulfilas would have been ordained before the death of Constantine, who died in the year 337, and indeed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian. But neither is it likely that Ulfilas was so soon a bishop, or that he was ordained in the time of Constantine by an Arian, when St. Alexander, in favour with Constantine, held the see of Constantinople. Therefore those are fictions of Philostorgius, who not rarely writes falsehoods to gratify his own Arians. Very uncertain also, and less probable, is what Socrates writes of Ulfilas, book 2, chapter 41 — that he was at the council of Constantinople of the year 360, where the Arians framed a new formula of faith, to which Ulfilas then assented. Sozomen, however, has the same, book 4, chapter 24. But the latter, book 6, chapter 37, thinks it was done imprudently by Ulfilas, who, he says, persevered in communicating with bishops who followed the decrees of the Nicene fathers.

[9] For Ulfilas their bishop, formerly a Catholic, However it may be as to some particular deeds of Ulfilas, on which the faith of the Goths does not depend, it is established that the Goths were converted long before the time in question, and that Theophilus the metropolitan of the Goths was at the council of Nicæa in the year 325. Therefore the Goths had long been Christians and Catholics; but they were drawn over to perfidy by Valens about the year 376, when, driven out by the Huns, they asked that it might be allowed them to fix their seats within the boundaries of the Roman empire. Sozomen observes this, who elsewhere generally follows Socrates too closely; and he adds about the bishop of the Goths, in confirmation, the following words: For Ulfilas, who was then their bishop, at the beginning dissented in no respect from the Catholic Church. Presently he adds that Ulfilas, who had been sent as an envoy by the Goths to Valens, was corrupted by the promises of the Arian bishops.

[10] was only perverted about the year 376. But let us hear Theodoret, writing of these matters in book 4, chapter 37, where he has thus: At the time when the Goths, crossing the Ister, struck a treaty with Valens, that abominable Eudoxius (probably Euzoïus should be read, who was the Arian bishop at Antioch, where Valens was then staying), who was then present, suggested to the emperor that the Goths should be persuaded to communicate with him. For since they had long before been enlightened with the rays of divine knowledge, they had always been nourished in the Apostolic doctrine. Indeed, said Eudoxius, the communion of one dogma will make the peace firmer. And when Valens had approved this counsel, he proposed to the nobles of the Goths that they should agree with him in the doctrine of the faith. But they answered that they could never be brought to depart from the doctrine of their forefathers. Now at that time Ulfilas was bishop of the whole nation, of great authority among them, and one whose words they held for the firmest of laws. Him Eudoxius, having both soothed him with words and enticed him with gifts, drove to bring the Goths to embrace the emperor's communion. And he persuaded them by saying that the contention had arisen from ambition, and that there was no discrepancy of doctrines. Thus by the perfidy of Ulfilas, about the year 376, the Goths were led into heresy.

[11] As regards the Greek Acts of St. Nicetas, they have Metaphrastes for their author, The Greek Acts seem probable enough, who probably had more ancient Acts, which he brought over into his own style. They have been published in Latin in Lipomano and Surius, and there ascribed to Metaphrastes. Allatius also, in his little work on the writings of the Simeons, page 127, gives the beginning of these Acts, and adds it to the catalogue of those which seem to be Metaphrastes'. Baillet in his critical table on this day observes that other Acts of St. Nicetas formerly existed, but that they may be reckoned as lost, after Metaphrastes undertook to embellish them with his own style. But this censure seems more vehement than is just, and perhaps arose from nothing else than the mere name of Metaphrastes; for I do not find what could greatly displease in the Acts of St. Nicetas, except some things scarcely concerning the Saint, and the occasion of Athanaric's persecution, and his war against Fritigern, which nevertheless Socrates and Sozomen also have.

[12] and will be published with a corrected Latin translation. Perhaps Valens, at Fritigern's instigation, undertook war against Athanaric; although he is also read to have done this because Athanaric had sent aid to the tyrant Procopius against Valens. Perhaps Athanaric attacked Fritigern after the peace made with Valens. However that may be, that war is doubtful rather than certainly fictitious. The rest related in the Acts about St. Nicetas, although not so certain as facts written by a contemporary author, is narrated in a manner probable enough. Now those Greek Acts which I shall publish are noted in our transcript as taken from a manuscript codex of the king of France. The Latin translation in Lipomano and Surius for the most part corresponds to the Greek context, yet is not always so accurate that it cannot be amended. For here and there some words have been altogether omitted in the Latin, which I shall add according to the Greek. Once and again the translator seems to have strayed from the true sense; and therefore I shall substitute the true rendering, retaining nevertheless the old version wherever it shall seem legitimate.

* In Greek Φριτιγέρνης

THE ACTS

From a manuscript codex of the royal library, with the old version corrected here and there.

Nicetas the Goth, martyr, in Gothia beyond the Ister. (S.)

From a Ms.

ΝΙκητικοὺς

ἀγῶνας

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

Νικήτα

πανηγορίζομεν

σήμερον·

οὐχ

ὃν

ὁ

τῶν

ἀποστόλων

κορυφαῖος

πέτρος

ἐπαιδαγώγησε,

καὶ

Κλήμης

ἔσχε

κοινωνὸν

ὠδίνων

τῶν

μητρικῶν,

ῥώμη

τε

προήνεγκε,

καὶ

Κόμοδος

τυραννῶν

τῷ

διὰ

Χριστὸν

τετελείωκε

μαρτυρίῳ·

οὐ

τούτου

γῦν

τοὺς

ἂθλους

πανηγορίσαι

συνήλθομεν,

ἀλλ᾽

ὃν

(τόγε

πρὸς

εὐφημίαν

λαμπρότερόν

τε

καὶ

τιμιώτερον)

βάρβαρος

μὲν

ἤνεγκε

χώρα,

βάρβαρα

δὲ

ἐθρέψαντο

ἤθη,

καὶ

τὴν

ἔμφυτον

τῆς

τυχῆς

εὐγένειαν

οὔμενουν

οὐκ

ἐνόθευσαν·

ἴσαν

πάντες

τὸν

ποταμὸν

Ἴστρον

μεγέθει

καὶ

εὐθηνίᾳ,

ὅσα

ποταμοὶ

φέρουσι,

τὸ

περιβόητον

ἔχοντα,

ὃν

καὶ

Δανούβιον

ἡ

ἐπιχώριος

ὀ,

δε

γλῶττα

καλεῖν.

Γότθους

δὲ

κατ᾽

ἐκεῖνο

καιρου

μεταναστάτας

τῆς

πατρίδος

γεγονότας

προσοίκους

ὁ

ποταμὸς

ἔφερεν.

Οὗτος

οὗν

ὁ

θαυμαστὸς

Νικήτας

γοτθικῶν

σπερμάτων

ἐκφὺς,

καὶ

τιμὴν

τὴν

πρώτην

παρ᾽

ἐκείνοις

λαχὼν,

διά

τε

τὸ

περιφανές

τοῦ

γένους

καὶ

τὴν

ἄλλην

τοῦ

σώματός

τε

καὶ

τῆς

ψυχῆς

εὐφυΐαν

ὅσην

καὶ

δεξιότητα,

οὐ

Γότθος

ἦν

τὸν

βίον,

οὐ

τοὺς

τρόπους,

οὐδὲ

τὴν

πίστιν.

Ἐνίκα

γὰρ

ἡ

μὲν

γνώμη

τὸ

τὸ

δὲ

εἰς

Χριστὸν

φίλτρον

τὴν

βάρβαρον

δόξαν,

ὁ

δὲ

τῶν

ἀρετῶν

ἔρως

τὴν

Γοτθικὴν

ἀκρασίαν

καὶ

ἀγριότητα.

[2] Θεοφίλου

δὲ

τὴν

οὗτος

ἐπὶ

νεαζούσῃ

τῇ

ἡλικίᾳ

τῶν

ἱερῶν

τῆς

διδασκαλίας

ἀπερυσάμενος

ρευμάτων.

Ὅνπερ

δὴ

θεόφιλον,

τὴν

ἀρχιερατικὴν

ἐφορείαν

τῶν

Γότθων

πεπιστευμένον,

καὶ

τῇ

ἐν

Νικείᾳ

οἰκουμενικῇ

καὶ

πρώτῃ

συνόδῳ

ἐμάθομεν

ἐνεπιστῆναι

καὶ

τὰ

τῆς

εὐσεβείας

Χειρί

τε

καὶ

γλώσσῃ

παρὰ

πᾶσι

κρατύναι

δόγματα·

ἐπεὶ

δὲ

οὐ

πολὺς

ἐν

μέσῳ

διέβη

χρόνος,

καὶ

τὸ

Γότθων

ἔθνος

εἰς

ἀντιπάλους

διεῤῥάγη

καὶ

ἐμφυλίους

μοίρας,

καὶ

εἰς

δύο

τε

γεγόνασι

μέρη·

καὶ

τούτων

ἡγεῖτο

θατέρου

μὲν

φριτιγέρνης,

θάτερον

δὲ

Ἀθαναρίχῳ

ὑπήκουε

τὰ

πάντα

δεινῷ·

Ἀθανάριχος

οὗτος,

κατὰ

τῆς

ὁμογενοῦς

καὶ

ἀποστάδος

τοῦ

φριτιγέρνους

μερίδος

ρίδος

πλῆθει

χειρὸς

ἐπιστρατεύσας,

τρόπαιον

ἵστησιν.

Ὅθεν

φριτιγέρνης

ἀποῤῥηθεὶς,

πρὸς

τὴν

ῥωμαἳκὴν

ἀπέβλεψε

δεξιὰν,

αὐτόβολός

τε

προσελθὼν,

ἀμύνειν

ἐδεῖτο.

Οὐάλεντι

δὲ

τηνικαῦτα

τῷ

μισοχρίστῳ,

τὰ

ρομαἳκὰ

διείπετο

σκῆπτρα·

οὗ

τοῖς

ἐπὶ

θράκην

στρατιώταις

τῷ

φυγάδι

βοηθεῖν

ἐγκελεύσαντος,

φριτιγέρνης

λαβὼν

τόν

τε

θράκιον,

καὶ

ὅσος

ὑπ᾽

αὐτῷ

Γοτθικὸς

στρατὸς

κατελέλειπτο,

διαβαίνει

τὸν

ἴστρον.

Καὶ

τὸν

θεῖον

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

σταυρὸν

πάσης

προηγούμενον

τῆς

δυνάμεως

φέροντες,

συρρύγυνται

τοῖς

ἀντιπάλοις

εἰς

μάχην,

κρατοῦσι

τε

ρἇον

τοῦ

κρατήσαντος·

καὶ

τὸ

ἐκείνου

πλῆθος

αἰχμαλωσία

καὶ

ξίφος

διεμερίζετο·

μόλις

μετ᾽

ὀλίγων

Ἀθαναρίχου

τὴν

σφαγὴν

αἰσχρότατα

διαπεφευγότος.

[3] Αὕτη

γέγονε

πρόφασις

καὶ

αἰτία

πολλαπλασίους

τῶν

προλαβόντων

τὰ

Χριστιανῶν

ἀσπάσασθαι

Γότθους.

Οὔρφιλος

δὲ,

διάδοχος

μὲν

τῶν

ἀρχιερατικῷν

θεσμῶν

ἐχρημάτιζε

θροφίλου,

συμπαρὼν

δὲ

αὐτῷ

πάλαι

κατὰ

τὴν

Νίκαιαν

καὶ

τὰ

ἶσα

φρονῶν,

συνηδρευσεν

ὕστερον

καὶ

οἷς

ὀτ᾽

ἐν

Κωνσταντινουπόλει

ἁγία

καὶ

οἰκουμενικὴ

δευτέρα

συνεκροτήθη

σύνοδος.

Οὗτος

ἀνὴρ

λόγιός

τε

καὶ

νουνεχὴς

ὢν,

τύπους

γραμμάτων

καὶ

ἀπηχήσεις

αὐτῶν

τῇ

Γοτθικῇ

συμβαίνοντας

ἐξεῦρε

φωνῇ·

τούτοις

τε

τὴν

ἱερὰν

ἡμῶν

γραφὴν

καὶ

θεόπνευστον

ἀπὸ

τῆς

ἐλλάδος

εἰς

τὴν

Γοτθικὴν

γλῶσσαν

μεταβαλὼν,

τοὺς

ὁμοφίλους

ἐκμανθάνειν

πάσῃ

σπουδῇ

παρεσκεύασε.

Διὸ

καὶ

μᾶλλον

ἐπεδίδω

παρὰ

τοῖς

βαρβάροις

ἡ

εὐσέβεια,

καὶ

ἐπὶ

μέγα

καθ᾽

ἑκάστην

προέκοπτεν.

Αθανάριχος

δὲ

χρόνῳ

ὕστερον

τῆς

ἥττης

ἀναλαβὼν

ἑαυτὸν,

τῆς

ἀσεβείας

οὐκ

ἀνελάμβανεν,

ἀλλὰ

πολλοὺς

μὲν

τῶν

Χριστιανῶν,

ταῖς

βαρβάροις

καὶ

Γοτθικαῖς

βασάνοις

ὑπέβαλλεν·

ἐπὶ

μᾶλλον

δὲ

κατὰ

τοῦ

γενναίου

Νικήτα,

ὅσῳ

καὶ

τῷ

περιφανεστέρῳ

τοῦ

γένους

καὶ

τῆς

εὐσεβείας

τῶν

ὁμογενῶν

ἐκράτει,

κινούμενος

ἦν.

[4] Γρατιανοῦ

δὲ

τηνικαῦτα

τοῦ

εὐσεβοῦς

καὶ

πρᾴου

τὴν

ῥωμαἳκὴν

τε

καὶ

πατρικὴν

διέποντος

ἀρχὴν,

ὁ

δυσσεβὴς

καὶ

μιαιφόνος

Ἀθανάριχος

αὐτὸς

δι᾽

ἑαυτοῦ

τὴν

κατὰ

τῶν

εὐσεβῶν

μιαιφονίαν

ἐπαλαμᾶτο,

καὶ

τοῦς

ὑπὸ

χεῖρα

μιμεῖσθαι

παρεκελεύετο.

Οἱ

τοίνυν

θεομισεῖς

οὗτοι

καὶ

ἀλιτήριοι,

κρυπτομένης

καθ᾽

ἑκάστην

τῆς

ἀσεβείας,

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

ἠγανάκτουν,

ἠπείλουν,

ἐσφάδαζον

τοῖς

θυμοῖς,

ἀνελεῖν

ἐπεχείρουν.

Ὥνπερ

δὴ

Νικήτας

βραχέα

φροντίζων,

οὐδὲν

ἧττον

τοῦ

τῆς

εὐσεβείας

κηρύγματος

περιείχετο.

Τέλος

πρὸς

φανερὰν

ἐκραγέντες

ὀργὴν,

ἀθρόον

ἐπιστάντες,

ἐν

ᾧ

τὸν

τῆς

ἀληθείας

λόγον

ὁ

μάρτυς

ἐκήρυττεν,

ἀναρπάζουσί

τε

αὐτὸν

καὶ

ἕλκουσι

βίᾳ,

καὶ

τὴν

πίστιν

ἀπώμοτον

θέσθαι

καταναγκάζουσι.

Ἀλλ᾽

ὁ

μὲν,

δι᾽

ὧν

τε

ἔλεγε,

δι᾽

ὧν

τε

ἐποίει,

τῆς

εὐσεβείας

οὐκ

ἀφιστάμενος,

καὶ

τοῦ

παῤῥησίᾳ

τὸν

Χριστὸν

ὁμολογεῖν,

καὶ

ὡς

Θεῷ

τούτῳ

προσάγειν

τὸ

σέβας,

χλεύην

καὶ

παιδιὰν

ἀπέφαινε

τὴν

ἑκείνην

ἐπίθεσιν.

Οἱ

δὲ

τοῦ

σώματος

συντρίψαντες

μέρη,

φεῦ

τῆς

μανίας·

εἶτα

καὶ

πυρὶ

ῥιπτοῦσιν.

Ἀλλὰ

καὶ

οὕτω

πάσχων

ὁ

ἅγιος

οὔτε

τὴν

γλῶτταν

εἶχε

τῶν

εἰς

Θεοὺ

ὕμνων

ἀφισταμένην,

οὔτε

τὴν

καρδίαν

τῆς

πρὸς

αὐτὸν

πίστεως·

διὸ

καὶ

μέχρι

τέλους

ἀκλινῆ

τὴν

ὁμολογίαν

διασωσάμενος,

σὺν

ἄλλοις

πολλοῖς

τῶν

ὁμογενῶν

τῶν

μαρτυρικῶν

ἠξιώθη

στεφάνων,

εἰς

χεῖρας

Θεοῦ

τὴν

ψυχὴν

παραθέμενος.

[5] Μαριανὸς

δέ

τις

ἀνὴρ

εὐσεβὴς,

Κίλιξ

τὸ

γένος,

ἐκ

τῆς

ἐκεῖσε

πόλεως

Μοψουεστίας

ὁρμώμενος,

κατ᾽

ἐκεῖνο

καιροῦ

τοῖς

περὶ

τὸν

ἴστρον

διατρίβων

τόποις,

κοινωνίᾳ

πίστεως

καὶ

ὁμοιότητι

τρόπων

(ὅπερ

οἶδεν

ὡς

τὰ

πολλὰ

συμβαίνειν)

συνήθης

καὶ

φίλος

τῷ

μάρτυρι

καὶ

ὁμορόφιος

γίνεται

χρόνον

πλειόνα.

Οὗτος

μετὰ

τὸ

μαρτιρικὸν

ἐκείνου

τέλος,

διεκοπεῖτο

καὶ

πολλοῦς

ἔτρεφε

καθ᾽

ἑαυτὸν

λογισμοὺς,

τίνα

τρόπον

δυνατὸν

γένοιτο

τὸ

τοῦ

φίλου

σῶμα,

τοιούτῳ

μάλιστα

τέλει

κεκοσμημένον·

ἠβούλετο

γάρ

ἀχωρίστως

αὐτοῦ

ἔχειν,

ὡς

οἷόν

τε

καὶ

μετὰ

θάνατον·

οὕτω

τοιγαροῦν

σκοπούμενος,

ἀερὶ

ποτὲ

τῶν

νύκτων

διὰ

τὸν

Ἀθαναρίχου

φόβον

(αὐτὸς

γὰρ

αὐτῷ

τὴν

τοῦ

μαρτυρικοῦ

σώματος

ἀνάληψιν

οὐ

μεθίει)

ἐπιστὰς

ἐν

ᾧ

τὰ

τῶν

ἁγίων

διέρριπτο

λείψανα,

ἐπεὶ

ἀγνοεῖν

εἶχε

ποῖόν

ἐστι

τὸ

ἐπιζητούμενον,

παρὰ

τούτου

διδάσκεται,

παρ᾽

οὗ

καὶ

μάγοι

τὴν

ἐκείνου

προσκύνησιν·

Δύναμις

γὰρ

οὐρανία

τις

καὶ

ἀσώματος,

ἀστέρος

ὑπελθοῦσα

μορφὴν,

τοῦ

χρηστοῦ

προηγεῖτο

Μαριανοῦ

μάλα

σαφῶς

καὶ

γνωρίμως·

καὶ

οὐκ

ἀπέστη

τοῦτο

ποιῶν

ὁ

φαινόμενος

ἐκεῖνος

ἀστὴρ,

ἕως

ὐπέδειξε

τὸ

ποθούμενον.

Τὸ

δὲ

ἦν,

οὐ

λείψανόν

τι

καὶ

μέρος,

ἀλλὰ

σῶμα

ὁλόκληρον

τῆς

μακαρίας

ὄντως

ψυχῆς

μετὰ

τῶν

ἄλλων,

κρεῖττον

φανὲν

καὶ

πυρὸς,

ὤστπερ

ἄρα

καὶ

ἡ

κλῆσις

ἠβούλοιτο,

πλὴν

ὅσον

ἴχνη

τινὰ

σέζειν,

καὶ

οὐδὲ

ταῦτα

σαφῆ,

ἀλλ᾽

ὥστε

δῆλον

εἶναι,

ὅτι

πυρὶ

προσωμίλησεν.

Τοῦτο

τοίνυν

τὸ

ἰερὸν

σῶμα

θήκῃ

ἐνθεὶς,

καὶ

μαρτυρικαῖς,

ὥσπερ

ἔδει,

τιμῶν

ἱερολογίαις,

εἰς

τὴν

ἑαυτοῦ

πατρίδα

μετακομίζει.

[6] Καὶ

τῷ

ἰδιωτικῇ

παραμένον

οἰκίᾳ,

δημοτελεῖς

ἐπήγαζε

τὰς

ἰάσεις·

καὶ

γὰρ

ἀγαθῆς

ὢν

ψυχῆς

οἶκος,

μιᾷ

περιγράφειν

οἰκίᾳ

τὰς

ἰδίας

οὐκ

ἠγάπα

θαυματουργίας,

ἀλλὰ

κοινοὺ

ἦν

Μοψουαστηνῶν

ἐντρύφημα·

μᾶλλον

δὲ

καὶ

τῶν

ἀλλαχόθεν

φοιτώντων,

ἀπόλαυσις

οὐ

δαπανωμένη.

χρόνῳ

δὲ

ὕστερον

καὶ

νάος

τῷ

μάρτυρι

ἀνεγείρεται.

Καὶ

αὐτὸς

τὸ

τίμιον

υποδέχεται

σῶμα,

φανερωτέρας

τοῦ

λοιποῦ

τὰς

ἑαυτοῦ

παρέχον

ἐνεργασίας,

καὶ

μηδέποτε

λῆγον

κατὰ

παντοίων

παθῶν

καὶ

νόσων

ἱστάμενον.

ὅμως

ἡ

τὸν

ἀθλητὴν

πρώτως

οἰκία

ξενοδοχήσασα

τῆς

ἁγίας

ἐκείνης

χειρὸς

πλουτεῖ

τὸν

ἀντίχειρα

καὶ

ταύτην

ἰδιάζουσαν

χάριν

τῷ

φίλῳ

Μαριανῷ

Νικήτας

ὁ

καλὸς

δίδωσι,

καὶ

φιλίας

ἐκεῖνος

νόμους

καὶ

ξενίας

τιμῶν

ὅπερ

οὐδενὶ

τίνι

ἄλλῳ

ποιῆσαι

παραχωρεῖ,

καὶ

τούτῳ

τάχα

τὸν

φίλον

δοξάζων.

Καὶ

γὰρ

Αὐξέντιος,

ὃς

τῆς

εἰρημένης

πόλεως

ἐπίσκοπος

ἦν,

ἐπιχειρήσας

ἀπομερίσαι

τι

τοῦ

σώματος

καὶ

λαβεῖν,

εἴληφε

μὲν

οὐδὲν,

ὧν

ἐξῄτει,

ἔλαβε

δὲ

δέος,

οὔτε

μικρὸν

οὐδ᾽

ὅσον

ἀνέκφορον

μεῖναι

καὶ

λαθεῖν,

ἀλλ᾽

ὥστε

καὶ

αὐτοῦ

τὴν

ψυχὴν

λίαν

κατασεισθῆναι,

καὶ

διδάσκαλον

τοῖς

ἄλλοις

γενέσθαι

οἷς

τε

εἶδε

καὶ

οἷς

αὐτὸς

ἐξεδειγματώθη,

μηδένα

τολοιπὸν

χεῖρα

τολμηρὰν

προτείνειν,

μηδὲ

μέρος

τι

τοῦ

σώματος

παρὰ

γνώμην

ὂν

αὐτῷ

παρασπᾶν.

[7] Ὅπως

δὲ

συνέβη

τὸ

δέος

καὶ

τίσι

λόγοις

εἴργεθαι

τῆς

ἐπιχειρήσεως,

ὁ

λόγος

δηλώσει.

Ἀνέστησε

μὲν

γὰρ

ὁ

φιλόμαρτυς

οὗτος

ἀρχιερεὺς

τοῖς

καλλινίκοις

τῶν

μαρτύρων

νάον,

Ταράχῳ

τέ

φημι

καὶ

Πρότῳ

καὶ

Ἀνδρονίκῳ,

ὃς

καὶ

πρὸ

τῶν

τειχῶν

τῆς

πόλεως

τῆσδε

Μόψουεστίας

ἵδρυται·

ἐπεὶ

δὲ

καὶ

λειψάνων

ἐδεῖτο

τῶν

ἀυτῶν

ἁγίων

ἐπὶ

καθιερώσει

τοῦ

οἰκοδομηθέντος

νάου,

ἐπλούτει

δὲ

ταῦτα

ἡ

γείτων

ἐκείνης

πόλις

Ἀνάξαρβα,

ἐπαγγελίᾳ

λειψάνου

μαρτυρικοῦ,

μαρτύρων

λαμβάνει

λείψανα,

καὶ

ὑποσχόμενος

δοῦναι

Νικήτα

τοῦ

φαιδροῦ

μερίδα

τῶν

εἰρημένων

ἀνακομίζεται.

Ὡς

οὗν

ἔδει

πληροῦσθαι

τὸ

ἐπαγγελμένον,

καὶ

ὁ

τάφος

ἀνώρυκτο,

καὶ

ὁ

ἐπικείμενος

ἀνῄρητο

λίθος,

θραύεται

μὲν

εὐθὺς

ἡ

μάρμαρος

παρ᾽

οὐδεμίαν

ἐμφανῆ

αἰτίαν·

ἀναφαίνεται

δὲ

ὁ

νεκρὸς,

ἔχων

τε

τὰ

μέλη

κατὰ

σχῆμα

κείμενα,

καὶ

τὸ

σῶμα,

οὐδὲν

τοῦ

προτέρου

χρωτὸς

παραλλάττον·

ἐπεὶ

οὖν

καὶ

λαμβάνειν

ἐχρῆν

μέρος

τοῦ

σώματος,

καὶ

ἡ

χεὶρ

ἥπτετο

τοῦ

τὸν

τάφον

ὀρείξαντος,

(ἐνταῦθα

μοι

προσεκτέον

τὸν

νοῦν)

λαμβάνει

μὲν

γὰρ

οὐδὲν,

γίνεται

δὲ

παραχρῆμα

ξηρὰ,

καὶ

δέος

εὐθὺς

καὶ

τρόμος

εἶχε

τὸν

τολμητὴν.

Εἶτα

σεισμὸς

ἐπιγίνεται,

καὶ

βρονταὶ

καταῤῥύγνυνται,

καὶ

ἀστραπῶν

ἐξάλματα

συνεχῆ,

φόβον

ἐμβάλλοντα

τοῖς

παροῦσιν

οὐ

φορητόν.

[8] Ἅπερ

ὁ

ἱερὸς

Αὐξέντιος

θεασάμενος,

(ἦν

γὰρ

καὶ

θείων

μηνυμάτων

οὐκ

ἀμαθὴς)

τὴν

μὲν

ξηρανθεῖσαν

χεῖρα

τοῦ

παθόντος

προσάγει

τοῖς

λειψάνοις,

οὐχ

ὡς

αὖθις

τὰ

ληψομένην,

ἀλλ᾽

ὡς

αἰτησομένην

μᾶλλον

ἀφθέγκτως

συγγνώμης

ὑπερ

τῆς

τολμῆς,

καὶ

τευξομένην

τῆς

θεραπείας.

Πολλῷ

γάρ

σε

ρἇον,

ἔλεγεν,

ἀγαθὸν

ὄντα,

καὶ

τοῦ

ἀγαθοῦ

μιμητὴν,

τοῦ

βλάψαι

τὸ

θεραπεῦσαι·

καὶ

ἐκεῖνο

παρέσχε

καὶ

μὴ

βουλόμενος,

πῶς

οὐχὶ

μᾶλλον

τοῦτο

κατὰ

γνώμην

δώσεις;

ἰᾶται

τοιγαροῦν

ἡ

παθοῦσα

χεὶρ,

καὶ

κήρυξ

γίνεται

τῆς

τοῦ

ἰασαμένου

καὶ

δυνάμεως

καὶ

χρηστότητος·

τὸ

μὲν

ἀπὸ

τῆς

παιδείας,

τὸ

δὲ

ἀπὸ

τῆς

μετὰ

τὴν

ἐπίγνωσιν

τοῦ

σφάλματος

θεραπείας.

Τολοιπὸν

τοίνυν

ὁ

ἀρχιερεὺς

τὸν

ἰερὸν

τάφον

δοξολογίαις

τε

καὶ

ὕμνοις

τιμήσας,

τὸ

ἀρχαῖον

ἀποδίδωσι

αὐτῷ

σχῆμα,

τῷ

κοσμιοτέρῳ

μόνῳ

τὴν

παραλλαγὴν

ἔχοντι.

Οὕτω

δοξάζει

Θεὸς

τοὺς

αὐτὸν

δοξάζειν

προελομένους,

οὕτω

μεγαλύνει

τοὺς

μεγαλυνόντας.

Οὐ

τὸ

πᾶν

ἐνταῦθα

διδοὺς,

οὔμενουν·

ἀλλὰ

τὰ

μέλλοντα

τούτοις

τεκμαίρεσθαι

παρεχόμενος·

τὰ

γὰρ

ἐνταῦθα,

σὺν

τοῖς

αἰσθητοῖς

ἅπασι

τὸ

ἐξαίρετον

ἔχῃ,

ἀλλ᾽

οὖν

καὶ

ἀκοῇ

δηλοῦται,

καὶ

ὄψει

καταλαμβάνεται·

ἁ

δὲ

τοὺς

ἁγίους

ἐκεῖ

περιμενει,

οὔτε

ὀφθαλμὸς

εἶδεν,

καὶ

οὖς

οὐκ

ἤκουσε,

οὔτε

εἰς

ἀνθρωπίνην

ἀνέβη

καρδίαν·

τοιαῦτα

γὰρ

ὡς

ἐμάθομεν,

τὰ

πρὸς

θεοῦ

τοῖς

ἀγαπῶσιν

αὐτὸν

τεθησαυρισμένα.

Ὧν

γένοιτο

πάντας

ἡμᾶς

ἐπιτυχεῖν,

χάριτι

καὶ

φιλανθρωπίᾳ

τοῦ

Κυρίου

ἡμῶν

Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ,

ὧν

ἡ

δόξα

καὶ

τὸ

κράτος

εἰς

τοὺς

αἰῶνας

τῶν

αἰώνων.

Nicetas, a Goth by birth, outstanding in character, Today we celebrate the victorious contests of Nicetas the martyr — not him whom Peter the prince of the Apostles instructed, and who was the brother of Clement ^a, and whom the tyrant Commodus consummated with martyrdom inflicted for Christ's sake. We are not assembled to celebrate his contests, but those of him whom (which is indeed for praise more illustrious and more excellent) a barbarous region bore, and barbarous manners nourished, and yet did not at all adulterate his inborn nobility ^b. All men know the river Ister, famous indeed among rivers for its greatness, which the tongue of that region calls the Danube. And the river had as dwellers on its banks the Goths, who at that time had gone forth from their country [c]. This admirable Nicetas therefore, born of Gothic stock, and having obtained the first honour among them, both for the illustriousness of his birth and for his other natural gifts and dexterity of mind and body, was not a Goth in life, nor in character, nor in faith. For his native talent overcame his race; his love toward Christ overcame barbarous opinion; and his zeal for virtue overcame Gothic intemperance and savagery.

[2] he was instructed by Theophilus: the defeat of Athanaric king of the Goths, Now he in his youth had drunk in the sacred streams of the teaching of Theophilus. Which Theophilus indeed ^d, when the pontificate of the Goths had been committed to his trust,

of Nicæa, and to have confirmed among all, by hand and tongue, the doctrines of piety. And when not much time had intervened, and internal wars had broken out among the nation of the Goths, and they were divided into two parties, and over one Fritigern presided, while the other obeyed the exceedingly terrible Athanaric, this Athanaric, having undertaken an expedition with the greatest forces against Fritigern, who was indeed of the same race but had been torn away from him, gaining the victory, raises a trophy. Wherefore Fritigern, in his afflicted circumstances, looked to the Roman right hand, and coming as a fugitive, sought help. But Valens, the enemy of Christ, at that time held the Roman sceptres. And when he had commanded the soldiers who were in Thrace to bring aid to the exile, Fritigern, having received the Thracian army and that which had remained to him, crosses the Ister. And so, bearing the divine Cross of Christ, going before all their forces, they join battle with their adversaries, and easily conquer him who had conquered; and of his multitude part is cut down, part taken captive, while Athanaric [e] most shamefully saved his own life by flight with a few.

[3] the faith increasing among the Goths, This was the cause and occasion why many of those Goths ^f who went before embraced the Christian religion. And Urphilus ^g was the successor of Theophilus in the pontifical office, who had also been present with him at the council of Nicæa, holding the same opinions, and afterwards had sat with those who were gathered at Constantinople in the second holy synod. He, being a prudent and learned man, invented the shapes of letters and sounds fitted to the Gothic speech; and when in these he had turned our sacred and divinely inspired Scripture from the Greek into the Gothic tongue, with all zeal and diligence he brought it about that those of his own nation learned it. Wherefore piety received a great increase among the barbarians, and daily made progress. But Athanaric, when in course of time he had recovered from the loss which he had received, and had returned to his former place, did not nevertheless attain to piety; but he subjected many of the Gothic and barbarian Christians to punishments; and he was moved still more against the noble Nicetas, who both in the illustriousness of his birth and in piety surpassed those who were of his own race.

[4] was the occasion of the persecution in which St. Nicetas was slain. And while Gratian, the pious and clement, was administering the Roman and paternal empire, the impious and murder-breathing Athanaric of himself prepared slaughter against the pious, and brought it about that those who obeyed him imitated him. These execrable enemies of God, therefore, daily concealing their impiety [h], were indignant for the Martyr's cause; and since the Martyr's piety was daily proclaimed, they were tormented in mind, they threatened, they set about taking him out of the way. And Nicetas, caring little for these things, none the less went on preaching piety. At last, bursting into open wrath, they suddenly attack the Martyr at the time when he was preaching, and seize him and drag him by force, and press him to abjure the faith. But he, desisting neither in words nor in deeds from piety and the free confession of Christ, and from honouring him as God, showed their assault to be sport and mockery. But they, having crushed the parts of his body — O madness! — cast him also into fire. But even so suffering, the holy man neither ceased with his tongue to celebrate God with hymns, nor with his heart to believe in him. Wherefore, keeping his confession unshaken to the end, with many others who were of the same race and faith, he was held worthy of the crowns of martyrdom, having delivered his soul into the hands of God.

[5] His body secretly taken away and carried into Cilicia, Now a certain pious man Marianus, a Cilician by race, sprung from the city there called Mopsuestia [i], at that time staying in the places about the Ister, through the union of faith and likeness of character — which for the most part agree with one another — had become the Martyr's intimate and friend, and dwelt in the same house for a long time. He, after the other had received the end of martyrdom, considered, and turned over many thoughts within himself, in what way he might receive the body of his Friend, adorned above all with such an end; for he wished not to be separated from him, so far as he could, even after death. When therefore he was thus considering, at last in the dead of night, for fear of Athanaric (for he did not permit the Martyr's body to be taken), approaching that place in which the relics of the Saints had been thrown out, since he did not know which was the one sought, he is taught by him from whom the Magi learned his adoration. For a certain heavenly and incorporeal power, taking the form of a star, went before the good Marianus openly and evidently, nor did that star which appeared cease to do this until it showed what was desired. And that was not some relics and a part, but the whole body of that truly blessed soul. Which indeed appeared to have been mightier than the fire, as also his name signified, save only that it kept certain traces, and those not open, but only such that it might appear that it had encountered fire. This sacred body therefore, when he had laid it in a chest, honouring it, as is fitting, with martyrs' and sacred prayers, he transfers into his own country ^k.

[6] And while it thus remained in a private house, it nevertheless poured out public cures. where a church was raised to the Saint at Mopsuestia: For since it was the house of a good soul, it was not content to circumscribe its miracles within one dwelling; rather it was the common delight of the people of Mopsuestia, nay rather also of those who came from elsewhere, a usufruct which was not consumed. And in course of time a temple also is raised to the Martyr, and receives the venerable body itself, conferring for the rest most manifest benefits and withstanding all diseases and infirmities. That house, however, which first received the Athlete as a guest, is enriched by the thumb of that sacred hand; and this special favour that excellent Nicetas gives to his friend Marianus, honouring the laws of friendship and of hospitality. And this indeed he allows no other to do, in this too giving glory to his friend. For Auxentius [l], who was bishop of the said city, when he had attempted to divide off and take something of that body, received nothing indeed of what he wished; but no small fear seized him, and not such as would not come into the open or would lie hidden, but such that his soul too was greatly agitated, and he taught others by what he had seen and by the terror with which he was affected, so that no one thereafter should stretch out a bold hand, or tear away any part of that body, seeing it was against his own will.

[7] But in what manner this fear happened, and by what words he was forbidden to attempt it, when the bishop, the sepulchre being opened, wished to divide the relics, we shall explain. This pontiff, a friend of the martyrs, raised a temple to the martyrs famed for victory, Tarachus, Probus and Andronicus ^m, which is set before the walls of the city of Mopsuestia. But since he lacked relics of those Saints for the consecration of the temple he had built, and a city near him, named Anazarbus ⁿ, had them, a part of the relics of this illustrious Nicetas being promised to it, he receives the relics of those martyrs. When therefore it was necessary that what had been promised should be fulfilled, and the sepulchre had been dug open, and the stone which had been laid upon it had been removed, straightway the marble is broken, no cause appearing; and the dead man appears, having his limbs decently composed, and his body differing in nothing from its former state. When therefore it behoved him to receive a part of the body, and the hand of him who had dug open the sepulchre had touched it (here I must be attended to), it takes nothing indeed, but presently becomes withered, and fear and trembling straightway seize him who had dared it. Then there is an earthquake, and thunders break out, and frequent lightnings flash, bringing intolerable fear to those who were present.

[8] he is deterred from that design by various prodigies. And when the most holy Auxentius had beheld this (for he well understood what God signified), he brings the withered hand of him who had suffered to the relics, not to take anything again, but rather silently to ask pardon for its boldness and to obtain healing. For it is, he said, much easier for thee, O Saint, since thou art good and an imitator of the Good, to heal than to hurt: and if thou hast afforded the latter even unwillingly, how wilt thou not the rather give this from the purpose of thy mind? The afflicted hand is therefore healed, and proclaims the power and goodness of him who had healed it — the former on account of the chastisement, the latter on account of the healing after the recognition of the error. Then the pontiff, when he had honoured his sacred sepulchre with hymns and glorifications, restored to it its former form, nothing being changed, except that it was in a better and more seemly condition. Thus God glorifies those who glorify him; thus he magnifies those who magnify him. Not giving all things here — by no means — but affording from these things a conjecture of things to come. For the things which are given here, though among all things perceptible they be the most excellent, are yet signified to the ears and comprehended by the eyes. But the things which there await the Saints, neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor have they ascended into the heart of man. For such are, as we have learned, the things prepared by God for those who love him. Which may it be given us all to obtain by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ: to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

brothers of St. Clement the Pope. But the books of the Recognitions have no authority; nor do I see that Nicetas the brother of St. Clement is celebrated in the Greek or Latin Martyrologies. Perhaps the author did not even wish to hint that any such Saint is found anywhere, but only to say that he is not speaking of such a one.

c. It is certain that the Goths did not always dwell in Dacia by the Ister, but advanced to the Ister from another region more remote from the Roman empire, just as afterwards they spread themselves through many provinces of the empire. But whether they took their origin from Scandinavia, that is, from the present kingdom of Sweden, as Jordanes will have it, it is not the place here to inquire.

e. Already in the Commentary, number 7, I have warned that this whole war does not seem certain, and that it perhaps arose from mere confusion. Something of truth may nevertheless underlie it, if Fritigern was in alliance with Valens when the latter in the year 367 waged war against the Goths, a war ended by the defeat of Athanaric in the year 369 and by the peace that followed in the same year.

called so by others. Some things here seem to be said of him incorrectly. Consult therefore what has been said about Ulfilas in the Commentary, numbers 9 and 10, from which it is clear that what immediately follows, if it is true, cannot be understood of the second œcumenical synod, but of the synod of the Arians of the year 360.

h. Here the Latin translation in Lipomano disagrees, and it cannot be reconciled with our Greek transcript: the matter, however, is of no moment for the history.

i. Mopsuestia is an episcopal city of Cilicia, well enough known among geographers and historians. And that someone from Cilicia should have been among the Goths ought not to seem incredible, since St. Augustine, at number 5 of the Commentary, attests that he had dealings with brethren who had likewise been there.

l. In the catalogue of the prelates of Mopsuestia in Le Quien, volume 2 of the *Oriens Christianus*, columns 890 and following, two Auxentii are found, of whom the first seems a little older than St. Nicetas, or at any rate not to have survived him. The other Auxentius, who is known almost only from the diptychs, according to the order fixed there sat in the fifth century. And this time agrees well enough with what is related here.

from which it is believed to have taken its name, was in the division of Cilicia made the metropolis of Cilicia Secunda. That the holy martyrs Tharacus, Probus and Andronicus suffered in that city is shown from their genuine Acts. For the rest, the Greek that follows is somewhat fuller than the Latin; but the Latin words suffice to set out the matter.