EYSEBIANA
ESSAYS ON
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF
EUSEBIUS
BISHOP OF CAESAREA
BY
HUGH JACKSON LAWLOR, D.D.
CANON AND PKECENTOR OF ST. PATRICK'S AND BEBESFORD
PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
MDCCCCXII
■^^""t^
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH, NEW YORK
TORONTO AND MELBOURNE
^n
^K
VIRO
DOCTO • VENERABILI • ILLVSTEI
lOHANNI GWYNN
SACEAE THEOLOGIAE PROFESSORI REGIO
MAGISTEO DI8C1PVLVS
AMICO AMICVS
D.D.D.
PREFACE
It has been my habit for some years to give
occasional courses of lectures on the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius. The following Essays are based
on material collected for that purpose.
I have to thank the editors of the Journal oj
Theological Studies and Hermathem for permission to
make use of articles published in those journals.
The Essays on the Hijpomnemata of Hegesippus and
on the Use of Volumes of Tracts by Eusebius are
expansions of two notes which appeared in Herma-
thena nine years ago (1902). With the former has
now been incorporated an article entitled 'Hege-
sippus and the Apocalypse ', printed in the Journal
of Theological Studies for April 1907. The Essay on
the Heresy of the Phrygians is reproduced from the
latter journal (July 1908), and that on the Chrono-
logy of the Martyrs of Palestine from Hermathena
(1908)— in both cases after careful revision, and with
some additions.
In passing the present volume through the press
I have received much help and encouragement from
my friends. Among these I would specially mention
Dr. L. C. Purser, who contributed the note on the
Rate of March of a Roman Army which is printed
vi PEEFACE
as an Appendix to the fifth Essay ; the Lord Bishop
of Ossory, who, while he was still my colleague at
St. Patrick's Cathedral and in the University, was
kind enough to read the Essays before they were
printed ; Professor Newport J. D. White, who per-
formed a similar office with the proof; Mr. H.
Montgomery Miller, who examined a rare book for
me in the British Museum ; and my former pupil,
the Kev. E. G. Sullivan, who pointed out a serious
mistake in the Essay on the Martyrs of Palestine, all
trace of which is now, I hope, removed. To all
these, and to others, to whom my obligations are
recorded in footnotes, I desire to express my grati-
tude.
My thanks are also due to the Delegates of the
Clarendon Press for undertaking the publication of
my book.
H. J. LAWLOR.
Trinity College,
Dublin.
Conversion of St. Paul, 1912.
CONTENTS
ESSAY I
PAGE
The Hypomnemata of Hegesippus .... 1
Appendix : The Eemaining Fragments of tlie
Hypomnemata 98
ESSAY II
The Heeesy of the Phrygians . . . 108
ESSAY III
On the Use by Eusebius of Volumes of Tracts . 136
ESSAY IV
The Chronology of Eusebius's Martyrs of Pales-
tine 1''^
ESSAY V
The Chronology of the Ninth Book of the
Ecclesiastical History 211
Appendix I. The Eate of March of a Eoman
Army, by L. C. Purser, Litt D. . . . 235
Appendix II, The Authorship of the De Mor-
tihus Persecutorum 237
viii CONTENTS
ESSAY VI
PAGE
The Eaelier Foems of the Ecclesiastical History 243
Index of Passages of Eaely Weitees quoted
OE eefeeeed to 292
Geneeal Index 299
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
By some writers Hegesippus has been styled the
• Father of Church History '. Others, anxious to reserve
this honourable title for Eusebius, have drawn attention
to the fact that the last of his five Memoirs^ contained an
account of so early an event as the martyrdom of James
the Just, and from this infer that his work was ' nothing
more than a collection of reminiscences', and 'quite
without chronological order and historical complete-
ness '.^ On both sides it seems to be tacitly assumed
that Hegesippus composed what at least aimed at being
a history of the Church. And this was the opinion of
St. Jerome. 'Hegesippus', he writes, 'vicinus apostoli-
corum temporum et omnes a passione Domini usque ad
suam aetatem ecclesiasticorum actuum texens historias,
multaque ad utilitatem legentium pertinentia hinc inde
congregans, quinque libros composuit sermone simplici.' ^
But Jerome gives no evidence, except in this sentence,
that he knew more of Hegesippus than we ourselves may
learn from the work which in so many cases appears to
have been his only source of information as to early
Christian writers, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
' It is only in recent times, I believe, that this word has come to
be used as the equivalent of vnnnv^nnTa, which it appears to me to
represent very inadequately. But, as it has received the sanction of
such high authorities as Lightfoot, Hort, and Westcott, 1 have thought
it convenient to retain it.
2 M^Giffert, in Nicette and Posf-Nicene Fathers, vol. i, pp. 81, 198.
3 De Vir. Ill 22.
2 THE HtPOMNEMATA OF HEQESIPPUS
And tlio remgrk which has been quoted seems to have been
only an eiLpan'sibn, quite after Jerome's manner, of the
words of Eusebius, ' In five treatises he composed memoirs
(vTTOfii'ijuaTLcrd/j.euos),^ in a very simple style of writing,
containing the uncorrupt tradition of the apostolic
doctrine (Krjpvyfiaro?),' in which there is nothing which
necessarily implies a historical work. Let us see, then,
what Eusebius really tells us as to the nature of the book
which Hegesippus wrote. His most important statement
occurs in the immediate vicinity of that now referred to,
forming the closing sentence of H. E. iv. 7 and the
opening words of the next chapter. After giving some
account of Saturninus and Basilides, and of Carpocrates,
' the father of the Gnostics,' he proceeds : ' Nevertheless,
in the time of the heretics just mentioned, the truth
again called to her aid many champions of her own, who
made war against the godless heresies, not only by viva
voce refutations, but also by written demonstrations.
Among these {h tovtol?) flourished Hegesippus.' After
a few sentences devoted to him, Eusebius passes on to
Justin Martyr. This description leaves no doubt that
the work of Hegesippus was not primarily a history. It
was a defence of the Faith against the attacks of heretics,
and specially of the Gnostics. But it was more than this.
That Hegesippus, like his elder contemporary Justin,
argued against heathens, as well as against heretics, may,
I think, be safely inferred from a sentence quoted inciden-
tally by Eusebius, with a view to fixing the date of the
^ H. E. iv. 8. 2. Valois translates Trapddoa-iu vTToyLvr]ij.nTi(Tafievos by
' historiani complexus ', which is quite arbitraiy. I should add that
'vicinus apostolicorum temporum ' aj^pears to represent fVi Tf/s npwTrjs
T03V aTTOoToXav yevofxepos Btadoxijs {H. E. ii. 23. 3), which Rufinus renders
'qui post ipsas statim prinias apostolorum suceessiones fuit'. Perhaps
the words should be translated 'who ^vas born in the period imme-
diately following the age of the Apostles'.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 3
writer. He writes thus concerning those who at the first set
up idols : ' To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples,
as is done up to the present time ; among whom is also
Antinous, the slave of Hadrian Caesar,' &c.^ And in the
course of his argument he gave an exposition of primitive
apostolic teaching to which he himself steadfastly adhered.^
The Memoirs then were an Apology for the Faith
against unbelievers, for orthodoxy against misbelievers.
Now, in disputing with the Greeks, if our writer used
the arguments which form the stock-in-trade of the
second-century apologists, he would not draw much upon
ecclesiastical history. Against the Gnostics also there
was much to be said which was purely theological, though
here there was a historical argument, upon which
Hegesippus, like other controversialists of his age, laid
stress. The non-historical portion of the Memoirs, in fact,
must have included the greater part of the work. Let us
suppose that the argument based on the early history of
the Church was only reached in the fifth Memoir^ and
we have at once an explanation of the facts that Eusebius
does not expressly refer to the first four, and that the
martyrdom of St. James was narrated in the closing
division of the work. We may thus defend Hegesippus
from the charges which have been made against him, of
want of method and arrangement. It is true that our
defence obliges us to give up speaking of him as a
historian, and as the • Father of Church History ' ; but to
do this is only to cease calling him what he did not, as it
1 H. E. iv. 8. 2.
^ H. E. iv. 22. 1. ' He has left a very full account of his own
opinions.'
^ That in the fifth J/e»iou' Hegesippus contended against Gnostics,
and that the argument was not wholly historical, may be gathered
from Photius, Bibl. 232. See Appendix VI.
B 2
4 THE HYPOMKEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
seems, claim to be, and what no one who had seen his
work claimed for him.^
Our thesis, then, is that the first four Memoirs contained
few, if any, allusions to the history of the Church. This
will become a highly probable supposition if we can
show that the historical passages quoted by Eusebius,
the exact source of which is not stated, are, for the most
part, drawn from the fifth division of Hegesippus's work.
This, I think, will be found to be the case. We can, as
I believe, reconstruct nearly the whole of two long
passages of the fifth Memoir, the greater part of which
Eusebius, after his mamier, has cut up into fragments,
and inserted where it suited him in his History,^ and
which include all the extant fragments of the writings of
our author which have a direct bearing on Ecclesiastical
History.
I
The earliest extract from Hegesippus is found in H. E.
ii. 23, and contains the account of the martyrdom of
James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem. It is printed
in the Appendix to this Essay.^ This is the only passage
quoted by Eusebius of the position of which in the work
of Hegesippus he gives us explicit information. It is
expressly stated that it came from the fifth Memoir.
In the passage as given by Eusebius there are many
repetitions which suggest either that he took it from a
* Eusebius distinctly states (fl. E.i. 1.3): npcoroi vvv tijs vTrodea-ecos
(TTi^avres old riva iprj^irjv /cai arpi^rj Uvai obbv enixfipovpev. On the Other
hand, the title 'HyTjcrlmrov [(Tropin, which occurs in the sixteenth century,
was probably taken from a manuscript copy of the Memoirs. See
Zahn, Forsckungen zur Geschichte des nenfesf. Kanons n. der altkirchl.
Literatur, vi. Teil, Leipzig, 1900, p. 249, note.
2 So he quotes nearly an entire chapter of Tertullian [Apol. 5),
if. jEJ. ii. 2. 25 ; iii. 20; v. 5.
* Appendix Illc-e.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 5
manuscript containing a corrupt text, or that Hegesippus
was a very unskilful writer.^ But it lias all the appearance
of having been transcribed in its entirety. There is no
evident indication that Eusebius has omitted any part of
it. We shall find, nevertheless, when we consult another
writer who knew and read the Memoirs, Epiphanius,
bishop of Constantia, that this appearance is delusive.
For he brings to our knowledge some sentences which
must have belonged to this passage, and of which
Eusebius takes no notice.
Before attempting to prove this it is necessary to assure
ourselves that Epiphanius had direct knowledge of the
Memoirs of Hegesippus, or at any rate that for what he
knew of them he was not entirely dependent on Eusebius.
This fact — for that it is a fact I hope to show — cannot be
established beyond controversy from any express state-
ment in his writings ; for he never mentions Hegesippus,
and though it is highly probable that he more than once
refers to the Memoirs by name, in doing so he gives them
a title which is not assigned to them by other writers.
It is quite certain, however, that several passages of his
Pancu'ion are based on portions of the Memoirs quoted
verbatim by Eusebius ; and a careful examination of
those passages gives us reason to believe that in writing
them Epiphanius used a text of the Memoirs which
differed considerably from that which was known to
Eusebius. He has, for example, in Haer. 78. 7 a descrip-
tion of James the Just which is plainly borrowed from the
fragment now before us. This will be obvious to any one
who compares the two together.^ It is only necessary to
call attention to one clause in which his indebtedness to
Hegesippus is less evident than elsewhere. He writes
' See the notes in Schwartz's edition of the History.
^ See Appendix III c, e.
6 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
that James ' was a Nazoraean, which being interpreted is
holy '. Now in the Memoirs as quoted by Eusebius the
word 'Nazoraean' does not occur. What according to
him Hegesippus said was, ' He was holy from his mother's
womb, he drank not wine and strong drink, neither did
he eat flesh, a razor did not touch his head, he did not
anoint himself with oil, and he did not use a bath.' That
the greater part of this sentence might be fairly epito-
mized in the statement . that James was a Nazoraean
(i. e. Nazirite) many will agree. That Epiphanius thought
so is clear. For in another place, after quoting part of it
almost as it stands in Eusebius — 'In a bath he never
washed, he partook not of flesh ' — he adds the comment,
' If the sons of Joseph knew the order of virginity
and tJie work of Nazoraeans, how much more did the
old and honourable man {sc. Joseph the father of James)
know how to keep a virgin pure, and to honour
the vessel wherein, so to speak, dwelt the salvation of
men ? ' ^ Now it will be observed that in Epiphanius the
information that James was called OMlas is given near
the beginning of the passage, immediately before this
reference to his asceticism. In Eusebius it is lower down,
after the account of his prayers.^
Let us glance at the statement as it appears in Eusebius's
text. It runs thus : Sid ye tol rrji/ vTrep(Bo\r]v ttj^ Sikulo-
(Tvvrj^ avTOV eKaXeTro 6 SiKaio? kol co^Xia^, o karLv iWrji/icTTl
Tr€pLO)(r] Tov Xaov, kol BiKaioavurj, coy ol 7rpo(f)TJTai SrjXovaLv
■rrepl avrov. Several facts rouse the suspicion that the
text is corrupt in this place. That James was named * the
Just ' was already said, and enlarged upon, only two
^ Haer. 78. 14 et yap ol TraiSes tov loiafjcp ijdeicrav irapdevias rd^iv Kal
Ka^(t>pal(ou to epyov, tt6(T(o ye fxaXKou 6 npi(jfivTr]S kul Tipaos dvfjp //Set
(pv^aTTeiu napdfvov dyvqv Koi Ttp,di> to aKfvos, evda nov ivibr]fxri(jiv r] tcov
ni'ffpwncov aiOTrjpia ;
2 § 7. See Appendix III e.
THE HYP02IXEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 7
sentences higher up ; the explanation of the title here
given is mere tautology ^ — he was called righteous because
of his righteousness ; further on, the word hiKaLoa-vv-q,
whether it be taken as another name of James, as
Schwartz's punctuation seems to suggest, or as a second
translation of Oblias, is almost certainly TVTong; and
finally no satisfactory explanation of the allusion to the
prophets in the last clause has ever been offered. Now
in Epiphanius, Haer. 78. 14, there is a passage which is,
at any rate in part, a paraphrase of the opening sentences
of our fragment.- In it we find the words 8l' vnep^oXr^v
evXa^eta^. They evidently correspond to Sid ye tol rfji/
v7r€p(3oXrju Trj9 SiKaioavyrj^ avrov in the sentence just
quoted ; for the two phrases are not only strikingly
similar, they occur also in the same position, immediately
after the notice of James's habit of prayer. But Epipha-
nius differs from Eusebius in two respects. He reads
euXa/Semy instead of SiKaLocrvi'T]^, and he connects the
clause, not with the statement that James received the
name of ' the Just ', but with the assertion that he was
a man of prayer. So taken it yields admirable sense.
James prayed unceasingly ^ because he was a man of
much piety. There can be little doubt that here Epi-
phanius had access to a better text of Hegesippus than
Eusebius. We can give a good account of the difficulties
raised by the remainder of the sentence as read by
Eusebius if we follow him in other matters.
"We may suppose the passage, as Epiphanius knew it, to
have run somewhat as follows : (§ 4) oS-oy iKaXeho co^Xias,
6k(TTiv iXXrji/iarl 7r€pto)(rj,a)9 ol npocp-qrai SijXovcrii'Trepl avrov,
' Eusebius avoided the tautology by paraphrasing {Dein. Ev. iii. 5,
p. 116), Sta TO. Tr]S cp€Tf,s TrXeoffKrij^xarn.
^ Appendix III c-e.
^ Perhaps we should rather say, for a reason that will appear later,
' with prevailing power '.
8 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
Kai covofidaOi] vno Trdvrcov SiKaio^ . . . (§ 6) Kal jiovos €larjp)(€To
€t? Toy vaov rjvpiaKeTo re Kcifievos ... coy direaKX-qK^vaL to,
ydvara . . . Sia to . . . aLTelo-OaL d<l)e<nu Ta> Xaw (§ 7) 8id Tr]v
virep^oXrjv rfjs €v\a^€ias avTov. If some of the words here
given from § 4 were transferred to the end of those taken
from § 7, and others repeated at the same place, the passage
would assume the form 6 ovofiaaOeh vtto Trdvrcdv Sikulos . . .
8id rrjv vnep^oX-qv rrjs evXa^eia^ avrov. kKaXeho co^Xias, o
kcTTLv iXXr)VL(TTl'n-ipLO-)(rj,ods OLTrpo(f)r]TaL ktX.^kuI SiKaios. The
change of evXa^eia^ into SiKaioavyrj9, and the connexion
of the clause in which the word occurs with what follows
(leading to the insertion of ye roi), are now easily explained.
The further removal of Slkulo? to an earlier place, and the
insertion of SiKaioa-vvr), are no doubt attempts of scribes
to improve the logical nexus of the sentence.
One other point must be noticed. Epiphanius explains
Ohlias as meaning rerxoy, which is equivalent to -rrcpioxv-
Thus he vouches for the genuineness of the latter word.
But he omits the words tov Xaov which follow it in
Eusebius's text, and which thereby fall under suspicion.
They were probably the gloss of a reader who took co/SXt'a?
to be a transliteration of DP ^sV.^ Assuming that they are
a later addition to the text, the passage of the prophets
referred to by Hegesippus was probably regarded by him
merely as an illustration of the application of the word
Trepioxq to James. It may be suggested that he had in
view Isaiah xxxiii. 15 f. in the version of Symmachus :
TTopevofievo^ kv SLKaioa-vvrj . . . avT09 kv vy\rr}XoLs KaTacrKtj-
ydxrei, toy 7repio\al Trerpa>v to vyjros avTov.^
^ Reading perhaps o)/3Xia/M.
^ There is nothing chronologically impossible in the use of the
version of Symmachus by Hegesippus. That one who quoted the
Gospel of the Hebrews (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 8) should also refer to a
translation of the Old Testament by an Ebionite is within the bounds
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 9
It is perhaps already clear that the text used by Epi-
phanius differed considerably frora that quoted by Euse-
bius in this passage, and was freer from corrupt readings.
It may be added, as a further proof of its comparative
excellence, that it presents a more satisfactory arrange-
ment of the clauses. In Eusebius the order is : James
was called 'the Just', he was an ascetic, he had priestly
privileges and was constant in prayer, he was called ' the
Just ' and OhUas. In Epiphanius, on the other liand, the
names by which he was known are first fully dealt with,
and thus the way is opened for a description of his cha-
racter, which proceeds without inteiTuption.
Now it is evident that if Epiphanius used a better text
of the Memoirs than that which is preserved in Eusebius's
extracts, he cannot have depended on Eusebius for his
knowledge of them. He must have had either another
series of excerpts, or more probably a complete copy of the
work itself.
Two other passages which point to the same conclusion
must now be examined.^
In Haer. 27. 6 Epiphanius discusses the chronological
difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was
appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and
Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession.
His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric,
and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anen-
cletus ; and in the course of his argument he appeals to
a passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians : ' He
of probability. Compare Did. of Christ. Biog. iv. 748 f., s.v. Sym-
machus (2).
^ On them see Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, i. 328 ff. ; Harnack, in
Sitzutigsberichte d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1892, pp. 639 ff. (re-
printed in his Chronologie, i. 180 ff.) ; Zahn, Forschungen ziir Gesch. d.
NTlichen Kanons, vi. 258 ff.
10 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
himself says in one of his letters, I withdraw, I will
depart, let the people of God remain at peace.' And
Epiphanins adds, ' For I have found this in certain
memoirs' (eV tl(tl vTrofxi^rjfiariarfxoTs).^ Epiphanins therefore
did not quote Clement at first hand. From what source
then did he take this excerpt ? When we bear in mind
that perhaps Hegesippus himself,^ and certainly Eusebius,^
called our Memoirs by the title vTro/jLurjfxara, and that the
latter applies to them the cognate verb virofivqixarL^eaOaL,'^
Lightfoot's suggestion that the same work is here desig-
nated by the word vnojxvrjixaTicyiioi is very probable. And
its probability is increased when we remember that
Hegesippus certainly gave some account of Clement's
Epistle in his MemolrsJ'
In a subsequent passage "^ Epiphanins writes of James
the Just, ' For he was Joseph's eldest bom and consecrated
[as such]. Moreover, we have found that he exercised a
priestly office according to the old priesthood. Wherefore
it was permitted to him to enter once a year into the Holy
of Holies, as the law enjoined the high priests in accordance
with the Scriptures. For so it is recorded concerning
him by many before us, Eusebius and Clement and others.
Nay, he was allowed to wear the (high priest's) mitre on
his head as the afore-mentioned trustworthy persons have
testified in the same memoirs ' {vTrofivqiiaTLo-iioh).
Now of the various statements here made about James,
only two— that he was ' consecrated ' '^ and that he was
permitted to enter the Holy of Holies — can be traced to
' The translation of this and the next passage quoted from Epipha-
nins is that given by Lightfoot, I.e.
2 H. E. ii. 23. 8. See Appendix III e.
3 H. E. iii. 23. 3 ; iv. 22. 1. See Appendix V d.
' H. E. iv. 8. 2. ■■ H. E. iv. 22. 1. See Appendix V a.
" Haer. 29. 4. See Appendix IIIc.
'' r]yia(Tfj.evos, equivalent to ciyioi in H. E. ii. 23. -5.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 11
the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and both of them
appear there in an extract from Hegesippus.^ None of
them are found in the extant writings of Clement of
Alexandria. And independent evidence will be produced
presently that all of them came from the Memoirs of
Hegesippus. This is in fact antecedently probable, since
Hegesippus is named by Eusebius as his main authority
for St. James.- and is also used by him as supplying
information about other relatives of our Lord." And the
word vTrofivrj/jLaria/xoi once more suggests a veiled reference
to that work.
The special importance of these two passages lies in the
fact that, if they have been correctly interpreted, at least
in the former Epiphanius claims first-hand knowledge of
the Memoirs. It will soon appear that the second of them
has a direct bearing on the extract from the Memoirs
with which we are now concerned.
If it be admitted, as a result of the foregoing argument,
that Epiphanius had before him the Memoirs or a catena
of passages extracted therefrom, independent of Eusebius,
we can with the help of his Panarion considerably extend
our knowledge of Hegesippus's work. If we find Epipha-
nius making statements obviously borrowed from frag-
ments of the Blemoirs embedded in the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius, and in the same context making
other statements intimately associated with them, though
not vouched for by extracts in Eusebius. we are entitled
to conclude, with such reserve as may be necessary, that
the authority for the latter is a portion of the Memoirs
not otherwise known. Let us take some examples.
In Haer. 78. 7 we have two passages, one of which we
have already shown to be founded on the excerpt now
' Appendix III c, d. ^ jj e. ii. 23. 3.
3 H. E. iii. 11 ; 20 ; iv. 22. 4. See Appendix III g-i, IV f, h, k.
12 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
before us/ while the other will hereafter be proved to be
borrowed from a later section of the Memoirs} The latter
of these is immediately followed by a sentence about the
first wife of Joseph and her children, ^ which leads up to
and is immediately followed by the former. It may reason-
ably be inferred that this sentence, like the two between
which it stands, is taken from the Memoirs. It is true
indeed that elsewhere in this chapter Epiphanius gleans
information from the apocryphal Protevangelium of James;
but from it the information given in this sentence could
not have been derived. It records that Joseph's wife was
of the tribe of Judah and that she had six children,
facts which are not mentioned in the Protevangelium.
To the description of James succeeds an argumentative
passage, which occupies the remainder of the chapter,
and then comes (Haer. 78. 8) * an enumeration of the
children of Joseph by his first wife and other particulars
not contained in the Protevangelium. These may on
similar grounds, but with less confidence, be referred to
the Memoirs.
The description of James in Haer. 78. 7 begins with
words to which nothing corresponds in the text as given
by Eusebius : ' He (Joseph) had therefore as his first-born
James.' For like reasons this clause may be considered
as borrowed from the Memoirs. The inference is con-
firmed by the passage already quoted, which claims for the
statement the authority of the vnoiivr^ixaTLaiioi of Eusebius,
Clement, and others.^ It is there associated with the
statement that James was 'sanctified' (rj-yiaa/xei^o?), which
corresponds with Hegesippus's ' he was holy (dyios) from
his mother's womb '. ,
^ Appendix IIIc. - Appendix IIIj ; see below, p. 35.
^ Appendix Ilia. * Appendix III b.
'•" Above, p. 10. Appendix III c, d.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 13
In Haer. 78. 14 ^ we are told that James wore the mitre
— a statement which the passage just referred to has
already led us to ascribe to Hegesippus — and that in
answer to his prayer rain descended in a time of dearth ;
and these statements are followed by information, evi-
dently drawn from Hegesippus, that he did not wear
woollen garments, that by his constant prayers his knees
had been hardened like the knees of camels, that he was
called 'the Just', and that he did not partake of flesh.
This is succeeded by the observation, not found elsewhere,
that he did not wear sandals.^ The inference suggests
itself that the first two and the last of these sentences
came from the same source as the others, the Memoirs of
Hegesippus. It is confirmed by the fact that in the same
chapter there is an account of the martyrdom of James
taken from Hegesippus.
Elsewhere {Haer. 78. 13) " Hegesippus's enumeration of
the ascetic practices of James is reproduced, upon which
a few sentences follow mainly taken up with statements
to the effect that the sons of Zebedee adopted a similar
mode of life, and that James was called the brother of our
Lord because he was the son of Joseph, who became the
husband of Mary under compulsion,* and then the remark,
in part agreeing with words in the same context given bj^
Eusebius, ' only to this James was it permitted to enter
once a year into the Holy of Holies, because he was a
Nazoraean, and took part in the office of the priesthood '
{liilxt\6aL TTj kpoocrvvrj). This points to the fact that in the
Memoirs mention was made of the exercise of sacerdotal
ftinctions by James. In a passage already quoted ■' the
vTTOfiuTjixaTLafxot are given as the authority for this.
' Appendix III c-e. ^ Ibid.
' Appendix III c, d.
* This is from the Protevangelium. ' Page 10.
14 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
We liave now reasons of varying force for believing
tliat we have recovered from the Panarion of Epiphanius
no less than seven passages not quoted by Eusebius.
They contain the following statements : —
1. That by his first wife, who was of the tribe of Judah,
Joseph had four sons and two daughters.
2. His sons were James, born when he was about forty
years old, Jose, Symeon, and Judas, and his daughters
Mary and Salome. After a widowhood of many years he
took Mary when he was about eighty years of age.
3. James was his first-born.
4. James did not wear sandals.
5. He exercised priestly functions.
6. He wore the mitre.
7. At his prayer the heaven gave rain.
To these we may perhaps add
8. That he was appointed first bishop by the Lord.
Now it is plain that we shall hold the opinion that
these statements came from Hegesippus with more con-
fidence if it can be shown that they may be placed in
contexts with which they obviously cohere, that they do
not interrupt the continuity of Hegesippus' s periods.
Of the first two little need be said. They evidently
serve suitably enough as an introduction to the whole
passage in connexion with which they appear in Epipha-
nius. From the nature of their contents no. 2 may be
assumed to follow rather than to precede no. 1. No. 3 of
course gives no fresh information. But it may be regarded
as a separate assertion of Hegesippus, not only because it
appears twice in Epiphanius, the word ttpootStokos being
used in each case, but also because it is connected with
no. 1 ijiHaer. 78. 7 by the particle ow, and closely linked
with the description of James's mode of life both there
and in Haer. 29. 4. The argument seems to be : James
THE HYP0MNE3IATA OF HEGESIPPUS 15
was the eldest son of Josepli ; being therefore the first-
born of such a household he was, as we might expect, a
man of holiness.
The omission of no. 4 by Eusebius may be due to the
corrupt state of the text of his exemplar. It fits in well
with the details that are given of James's asceticism.
Nos. 5 and 6 are naturally taken together. They might
well introduce the statement that James had access to the
Holy of Holies, with which they are expressly connected
by Epiphanius.^
Epiphanius puts no. 7 after the notice of the wearing
of the mitre by James and before the statement that he
wore linen garments. That may be very nearly its true
place. But perhaps it stands most fitly after the state-
ment that he asked forgiveness for the people. If we
insert it there, as an example of the efficacy of his prayer,
and suppose that it was followed by the words Sea rrju
v7r€p(3oXT)u Tfj9 evXa^eias avTov, which almost certainly had
their place at the end of the section, we have a most
interesting parallel to Heb. v. 7, he was ' heard for his
godly fear '.^
As to no. 8. It seems likely that Hegesippus, who
gives further on a full account of the election of Symeou
to the bishopric, would have told something about the
appointment of James. And an examination of the
opening words of the section relating to him quoted by
Eusebius lends colour to the supposition that something
of the kind was recorded immediately before them, which
has been omitted. To the words StaSixerai ti]v kKKX-qaiav,
indeed, I have observed no exact parallel elsewhere. In
similar connexions the most common formula in Irenaeus,'^
^ Haer. 29, 4 Bi6 koL
^ OS . , . Sei^cTf 19 Ti Koi iKerripias . . . npoaeityKas koi flaaKovadels and rrji
(iXa^eias. ^ Three times, ap. Eus. H. E. v. 6. 2, 4.
16 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
the anonymous writer against the Montanists,^ and
Eusebins ^ is SiaSix^rai (SieSe^aTo) ^ rh Ttva, the person
who last liekl the office or privilege referred to being in
the accusative. But another construction occurs fre-
quently in which the office is in the accusative, the name
of the previous incumbent being given in an earlier
clause, e.g. SiaSi^eraL ttju kinaKOTTr^v Ao/ivos.^ The word
eKK\r](TLa does not of course denote an office ; but since
Hegesippus certainly regarded James as the first bishop
of Jerusalem, we seem justified in taking it here as a rough
equivalent of 17 kinaKOTrrj ttjs kKK\-qata^ or d Opovos rfj9
iKKXrja-La^. In all the passages referred to above 8ia8i)(e-
a-Oai involves the notion of succession ; it does not denote
merel}'- receiving office. And the predecessor is always
named. Hence we may translate ' The brother of the
Lord, James, succeeds to the oversight of the Church '.
But who was his predecessor ? He need not,^*^ and cannot,
have been a bishop. Epiphanius says, quite distinctly,
and apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, that he
was the Lord himself, and that by Him James was
appointed to the episcopate.^ The addition of a fcAv words
to the text of Hegesippus, as Eusebius gives it, would be
^ Once, ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17. 4 row otto Moirai-o? . . . Tlva . . .
2 Thirty-two times, H. E. i. 7. 3 ; ii, 8. 1; iii. 13 (bis); 14; 15;
21 ibis); 26. 1; iv. 4 ; 5. 5; 14. 10; 19; v. Praef. 1 ; 22. 1 ; vi. 6;
8. 7 ; 10 ; 21. 1, 2 ; 23. 3 ; 26 ; 28 ; 29. 1 ; 39. 1 ; vii. 1 ; 27. 1 ; 28. 3 ;
.32. 1, 2, 24, 30. And so Africanus ap. H. E. i. 7. 12.
^ The aorist is found in Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 6. 4 ; Anon. 1. c. ; and
Eus. H. E. i. 7. 3 ; iii. 26. 1 ; vi. 6 ; vii. 82. 2.
* H. E. vii. 14. I have noted twenty-one examples : i. 9. 1 ; ii. 24 ;
iii. 35 ; iv. 3 ; 5. 5 ; 10 ; 20 ; v. 5. 8 ; vi. 11. 4 ; 21. 2 ; 29. 1, 4 {his) ;
34 ; 39. 1 ; vii. 10. 1 ; 14 {bis) ; 32. 4, 29, 31.
^ H. E. ii. 24 irpwTOS fierh MapKov . . . r^s iv ^ hXe^avbpeia TrapoiKias
\\vi'i(iv6i Trjv XeiTovpyiav BiaBexerai. Annianus was first bishop, iii. 14.
* Haer. 78. 7. See Appendix III c. Cp. the Menology quoted below,
p. 44, note.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 17
sufficient to convey both these pieces of information.*
But if Hegesippus wrote this Eusebius would probably
have regarded his statements as unhistorical, if not blas-
phemous. Hence we can readily account for the fact that
he never refers to Hegesippus as a source of information
in regard to the appointment of James. For this he
prefers to depend on Clement of Alexandria, according to
whom James was elected bishop by the Apostles Peter,
James, and John, who did not claim this glory for them-
selves.^ But this statement is at variance with the
intimation of Hegesippus that James exercised co-ordinate
authority with the apostles." If we abandon the supposi-
tion that Hegesippus said what Epiphanius seems to
impute to him, we must, I believe, accept the alternative
theory that he said nothing on the subject of James's
appointment, which does not commend itself as probable.
And it is at any rate certain that Eusebius was not ignorant
of the view that James was appointed bishop by the Lord.
In one place he describes him as ' having received the
episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem at the hands of the
Saviour himself and the apostles '.•* Is he not here making
^ Cp. //. E. i. 9. 1 eV SiadrjKcov 'HpwSou tov TTarpof, fniKpi(Tto)S re
KatVapos Avy ovcrTov, rfjv Kara 'lov8aia>u 0aaiK(uii' 8ie8f ^qto [6 'Ap)((Xaos].
^ H. E. ii. 1. 2f. See also ii. 23. 1, where Eusebius is clearly not
relying on Hegesippus.
^ iy. £". ii. 23. 4. See Appendix III c. By the way of parallel compare
such passages as H. E. iv. 14. 10 MapKor . . . avv koi Aoukiw abeXcf)'^
8ia8ex(Tai. The fact that Hegesippus describes James as ruling ' with
the apostles ' appears to me fatal to Zahn's contention (pp. 271 ff.) that
Clement derived his statement from Hegesippus. It may be added
that, if he did, it is hard to understand why Eusebius should have
quoted Clement rather than Hegesippus as his authority.
* H. E, vii. 19 TOV yap 'Ia/ca)/3ou Bpovov, tov nptaTOV Trjs 'ifpoaoXifiaii'
fKKKTjcrias Trjv fTTi.<TKont]v rrpos tov crioTTJpos Koi tS>v anocnoKav vnoBe^afievov
(crX. My attention has been called to this passage by Mr. C. H. Turner,
Jouni. of TheoL Studies, i. (1900) 535 f., where reference is also made
1353 C
18 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
an attempt to combine the statements of Hegesippus and
Clement ?
II
We turn next to another passage which Eusebius states
that he transcribed from Hegesippus, and the opening
sentences of which run thus {H. E. iv. 23. 4) : ^
' And after James the Just had borne witness (fxapTvprj-
aai), as did also the Lord, for the same reason, again [irciXLv)
the son of his paternal uncle, Symeon the son of Clopas, is
appointed (KaOiaTaTat) bishop ; whom all put forward as
second [bishop] since he was a cousin of the Lord. On
this account they called the Church a virgin ; for (ydp) it
was not yet corrupted by vain teachings.'
The text of this passage presents features which suggest
that Eusebius has not transcribed his source correctly, or
that he has tacitly omitted some sentences which were
essential to a full understanding of those which he has
preserved.
We notice first the statement that ' again ' {ttccXlv)
Symeon was appointed bishop. Since it cannot be sup-
posed that Symeon was made bishop twice the word
' again ' must, if the text is sound, refer to the appointment
of James the Just. But if his appointment was mentioned
at all by Hegesippus it must have been in a much earlier
part of his narrative — so far back, it would seem, that the
word ' again ' would not naturally be used in reference to
it.^ Indeed we have found reason to suppose that Hege-
to Cltm. Recog. i. 43 as stating (probably after Hegesippus) that James
was appointed bishop by Christ.
* For the Greek see Appendix Illg-i, 1.
"^ Rufinus and the Syriac translator seem to have felt the diflBculty
of TToKiv, for both of them omit it. The clause has been rendered so
as to mean that again one was appointed bishop who was a cousin of
the Lord, a translation which is sufficiently disposed of by Lightfoot
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 19
sippus represented the designation of James as so entirely
different in its character from the designation of Symeon
that the two could hardly be connected by the word irdXLv.
According to him, if we are right, he was promoted to
the episcopate not as the result of an election, but by the
personal act of the Lord. We may suspect then that
some words have here fallen out of the text, among them
being the verb with which ttoKlv was connected.
The next sentence also causes considerable difficulty.
The phrase ' on this account ' hangs in the air ; for the
mere fact that Symeon was unanimously elected to the
episcopate cannot account for the Church being called
a virgin. Zahn, it is true, will not admit this. The
unanimous election he holds to have been the outward
sign of the unity of the Church, and that unity to have
been the justification to Hegesippus of the title • virgin '}
But to interpret thus, I venture to think, is to read into
the final clause of the first sentence what must have been
clearly expressed if the phrase ' on this account ' had
reference to it. Moreover Symeon was not elected to the
bishopric by the unanimous vote of the Church ; but this
will be made clear in the sequel. Valois cuts the knot by
emending to fi^XP^ tovtov. Heinichen prefers to follow
Stroth, and talks of the badness of Hegesippus's style,
{Galatians'', p. 277) and Zahn (p. 237). Lightfoot himself translates
miXiv ' next ', which is not satisfactory. Zahn thinks that ndXiv may
introduce the second of two events which are not identical in their
circumstances, but merely resemble one another, citing as examples
Matt. iv. 8, Rom. xv. 12, Mark xv. 13 (see vv. 3, 11), Mark iii. 1. The re-
semblance between the appointments of James and Symeon was that
both were relatives of the Lord, the one a brother and the other a
cousin. But, apart from other objections, this seems to assume that
James, like Symeon, was appointed because of his kinship to Christ,
of which there seems to be no indication.
1 Op. cit., p. 237.
C 2
20 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
which is perhaps hardly fair. But a sohition lies close at
hand, so obvious that I can scarcelj'- imagine that no one
has hitherto suggested it. What is to hinder us from
supposing that Eusebius has omitted a passage, not rele-
vant to his immediate purpose, before the Avords ' on this
account ' ?
We seem then to have some ground for supposing that
in the quotation now before us Eusebius omitted two
portions of the text of Hegesippus. It may be urged,
indeed, that this would not be in accordance with his
usual method of citation. When he quotes two passages
from an early writer which are not consecutive, he usuall}^
introduces the second with some such phrase as tovtovs
8e /xeO' €T€pa errKpepei Xeyoov. But this is not an over-
whelming difficulty.^ Nor is it unreasonable to suppose
that Eusebius was guilty of so quoting Hegesippus as to
leave his expressions without meaning. He does the same
thing with other writers.^ But our conjecture will be
made much more probable if we can supply, from other
parts of the History, the passages, or a considerable part
of them, which we suppose Eusebius to have here omitted.
This we shall now endeavour to do.
It is first necessary to rescue for Hegesippus two frag-
ments which are not obviously his. I begin by translating
two closely connected chapters of the Ecclesiastical History
(iii. 11, 12): 3
* In his quotation from Clement of Alexandria, in//. E. v. 11, he,
in like manner, omits a sentence. And it is at least possible that
some of the passages which we have added to Hegesippus's account of
St. James were omitted of set purpose. Cp. also //. E. i. 2. 3, 15 ;
X. 4. 30, 32, 48, 49 if., 71.
* See, for examjile, his quotation from Dionysius of Alexandria,,
H.E. iii.28.4f., which can only be understood when read with its context
in H. E. vii. 25. 1-5.
" For the Greek see Appendix III g-j, IV a.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 21
' (c. 1 1) A record preserves the following story {\6yos
KaTix^t) : After the witness iiiapTvpiav) of James and the
capture of Jerusalem which immediately followed it, such
of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord as still
remained alive came together from every direction to the
same place, together with those who were of the same
race, according to the flesh, as the Lord — for many even
of these were still living — and all of them took counsel
together whom they should adjudge worthy to succeed
James. And then with one mind all of them approved
of Symeon the son of Clopas, of whom the passage of the
Gospel makes mention, as worthy of the seat of the com-
munity there, since he was, if report is to be believed (aJy
ye (pacTL), a cousin of the Saviour. For, in fact, Clopas
was brother to Joseph : so Hegesippus relates (Hyrja-LTnros
iaropu), (c. 12) And besides these things [the authority
cited adds] {kol k-rrl tovtols) : Vespasian after the capture
of Jerusalem commanded that all who were of the race of
David should be sought out, to the end that there might
not be left among the Jews any of those who belonged to
the royal tribe ; and from this cause a very great perse-
cution was again stirred up against the Jews.'
Before entering upon a discussion of this important
passage something must be said in justification of the
translation which has been given of the introductory
words, Aoyoy Karix^i. This phrase has been often as-
sumed to indicate no more than an oral tradition, and so
in the latest, and I believe the best, English translation of
the History ^ it is rendered ' it is said '. But this is incor-
rect. As Lightfoot has observed, the expression Aoyos
Acarexet ' is not confined to oral tradition, but may include
contemporary written authorities, and implies authentic
and trustworthy information '.^ I have myself collected
a number of instances of the use of this and similar phrases
from the History, which completely corroborate this
1 That of Mr. McGiflert, in Nicene and Fost-Mcene Fathers, vol. i.
* Ignatius, vol. i, pp. 58, 238. Cp. Harnack, Chron. i. 128, n.
22 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
remark. In the majority of cases where Eusebius intro-
duces a narrative with the words \6yo^ (KaT)exei, the
document on which he relies is either indicated in the
immediate context/ or may be discovered by a search
through the passages from previous writers scattered
over his pages.^ Only a few instances of the phrase
remain, in which it does not seem possible to name the
document referred to," and in none of these is the use of
documentary evidence excluded, or improbable. It may
be regarded therefore as much more likely than not that
in our passage the use of the phrase implies that Eusebius
» H. E. ii. 7 ; 17. 6, 19 ; 22. 2 (see §§ 3-7) ; iii. 19 ; 32. 1 (see § 2) ; 86. 8
(see § 7 : the passage cited does not, of course, prove that Ignatius was
actually martyred, though, judging from H. E. iv. 16, it is not im-
possible that Eusebius thought otherwise) ; iv. 5. 1 (see § 2 : the state-
ment that the bishops were short-lived may be an inference from the
number of names in the written lists— the StaSo;^at of v. 12; but see
below, p. 92) ; iv. 28 (see 29. 3) ; v. 5. 1, 2 (see §§ 3-7) ; vi. 28.
2 H. E. iii. 87. 1 (see v. 17. 8) ; v. 10. 1 (see vi. 19. 13, where, how-
ever, it is not stated that Pantaenus was a Stoic. Observe that Xoyoy
«;(et is here, as it seems, contrasted with (paai). In H. E. iii. 24. 5 we
have the statement, depending on \6yos Karex^h that Matthew and
John wrote their Gosj)els 'of necessity' {(TnifayKfs). It is possible
that Eusebius intended \oyos Karix^i to cover only his assertion about
St. Matthew. For when in §§ 7 ff. he recounts a story of the origin of
St. Johh's Gospel, for which no earlier authority is known, he refers,
and apparently with some emphasis, to common report as the evidence
for what he tells ((paa-i, §§ 7 bis, 11). His assertion about St. Matthew
is scarcely more than a fair inference from extracts which he gives
elsewhere from Papias (iii. 89. 16), Irenaeus (v. 8. 2), and Origen (vi.
25. 4). That it was made by Papias in so many words, in the passage
of which no more than the two concluding sentences are now pre-
served (iii. 39. 16), is far from incredible.
^ H. E. i. 12. 3 ; ii. 17. 1 ; vi. 4. 3 (perhaps referring to a letter of
Origen, as in the next sentence, as nov (f)t)a-\v avros) ; vii. 12 ; 32. 6 ; viii.
6.6 (cp. below, p. 268); App. 1. In ii. 1. 13 reference is, no doubt,
made to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 12. 8, while for the statement in
v. 19. 1 there can be no question that a written list of bishops of
Antioch was the voucher. H. E. iii. 18. 1 ; 20. 9 will be discussed
below.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 23
is not merely reporting a current tradition, but para-
phrasing a document.
If this be granted, several arguments, which taken
together amount to practical demonstration, may be urged
in proof of the conclusion that the document which lay
before Eusebius was in fact the Memoirs of Hegesippus.'
The first is based on the evidence supplied by the text
of the passage itself. It consists of five distinct state-
ments, three in chapter 11 and two in chapter 12, in the
oratio oUiqua, the subject in each case being in the accusa-
tive and the verb in the infinitive, and each statement
depending on Aoyo? Kareyei or 'Hyrja-nnros la-ropeZ Con-
fining ourselves for the present to chapter 11, it is obvious
that \6yo9 KaTex€t controls the first statement. But the
first and second statements are so closely connected that
it is impossible to suppose that they were derived from
different sources. Hence the ' record ' must have con-
tained all that is told in chapter 11, with the possible ex-
ception of the last clause, which might also have been
regarded as controlled by Xoyoy Karix^i if the words
'Hyrja-LTTTro^ laTopeT had not followed it. Now the word
i(TTopa could scarcely be used of such a simple statement
as that Clopas was Joseph's brother : it almost always
implies a narrative, however brief- Hence 'Hyrja-iTriros
t<TTop€? must include the second statement, and therefore
also the first, as well as the third. The conclusion is plain
that Xoyoy Karex^i and 'Hyfio-Linros lo-rope? are in the
present instance equivalent statements. One of the two
is redundant, since Hegesippus was actually the author of
the ' record '. We may suppose that by the time Euse-
bius reached the end of chapter 11 he had forgotten that
' Cp. Hort, Judaistic CJiristianifij, p. 170.
^ Many passages might be cited in support of this statement.
But on the other hand see H. E. ii. 17. 2 ; iv. 22. 7.
24 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
he had introduced his indirect quotation with the former
phrase, and so came to repeat it in another form. An
exact parallel for this grammatical confusion is not per-
haps to be found elsewhere in the History. But some-
thing like it occurs a little further on (iii. 19),^ where to
an indirect quotation from HegesipjDus the words jraXaibs
Karix^L Aoyoy are prefixed, after which a direct quotation
immediately follows, prefaced with ' These things Hege-
sippus makes plain, speaking as follows '.^
But again the note of time in the very first clause of
chap. 11 is distinctly Hegesippean. The assembly of the
apostles and disciples is said to have taken place after the
martyrdom of James ' and the capture of Jerusalem ichich
immediately folloioed it '. Now Eusebius follows two main
authorities for the martyrdom, Josephus and Hegesippus.
The former dates it between the death of Festus and the
arrival of his successor Albinus," i. e. a.d. 61-2. This date
Eusebius adopts in his Chronica, Avhere he assigns the
murder to An. Ab. '2077 = 7 Nero.* But Hegesippus puts
it immediately before either the Jewish war or the siege
of Jerusalem.^ This is the date given in the passage
before us.
1 See Appendix IV c, f.
" Compare iii. 32. 1 f. rbv Ka6* fjfiwv KaTe^fi \6yos avaKii/rjdrjvm
diayfioi/ . , . KOI toCtov fidpTvs avros tKelvos . . . HyrjcrinTros.
3 H. E. ii. 23. 21 ff. = Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 1.
* See also //. E. ii. 23. 2. See C. H. Turner in Journal of Theological
Studies, i (1900), p. 533.
=5 Ap. H. E. ii. 23. 18. See Appendix Ille. Zahn (p. 234) adduces
strong reasons for the view that in the words Ka) tldvs Ovfanaaiavoi
TToXiopKel avToiis Hegesippus is alluding to the war, not to the siege. In
thatcase the date indicated by Hegesippuswould be Passover 66, amonth
before the uproar in Jerusalem mentioned by Josephus {B.J. ii. 15. 2),
which took place in May and may be regarded as the beginning of the
war. But Eusebius certainly understood the words to refer to the siege,
which began shortly before Passover 70 ; for he immediately afterwards
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 25
And lastly, when we place chapter 11 beside the passage
translated above/ which is expressly stated to have been
from the pen of Hegesippus, we discover that a great part
of the first sentence of the latter appears in slightly altered
form in the former. There are, it is true, three important
additions in the passage now before us : the mention of
the siege of Jerusalem, the account of the assembling of
the apostles and relatives of the Lord, and the remark
that Clopas was Joseph's brother. But the last two of
these occur at the very places where we have already
found reason to suspect omissions in the quotation first
considered, one preceding and the other following the
statement that Symeon was unanimously elected. And
now that the substance of the omitted sentences is known
to us we can easily understand why Eusebius passed them
over in his transcript in H. E. iv. 22. 4. For his purpose
there was to give an account of the introduction of here-
tical teaching into the Church ; and to that purpose the
details of the election and the exact relationship of Symeon
to the Lord were not pertinent. The remainder of the
passage, however — standing now as the first sentence of
the direct quotation — was necessary to fix the date, and
to explain the allusion to the heresiarch Thebuthis which
immediately follows." For no doubt it was the intention
of Eusebius to convey that Thebuthis was proposed as a
rival candidate for the bishopric when Symeon was elected.
Anyhow it is very probable that this actually took place.
He was a convert from one of the Jewish sects, and the
majority of such converts were won through the influence
of James the Just.^ He belonged, it would therefore
seem, to a later and perhaps less conservative generation
paraphrases them thus : t^j Trapaxprjixa ^.tra to fxaprvpiov avrov noXinpKiai
rfjs 'l(povaa\r]fji. ^ Page 18.
2 See Appendix III 1. ^ jj ^ jj 23. 9. See Appendix III e.
26 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEQESIPPUS
of believers. It is quite likely that when the bishopric
became vacant they would propose a candidate of their
own in opposition to the candidate favoured by those who
survived from the period which closed some forty years
earlier. It appears certain therefore that H. E. iii. 11 is
a paraphrase of the earlier part of the passage of the
Memoirs from which we have in H. E. iv. 22. 4 a series of
extracts.
It is not unimportant to observe that on the hypothesis
that Thebuthis was a rival of Symeon, the electors of the
latter were not the general body of the faithful, as we
might have expected, but the surviving apostles and
disciples — i. e. those who had believed on Christ before
the Ascension — and His relatives. Their unanimity was
therefore not an indication of the unity of the Church of
Jerusalem. It only showed that the followers of Thebu-
this, if he had any, were not included among the privileged
persons who had the final voice in the election of the
bishop. Thus Zahn's explanation of the puzzling words
Sia rovTo ^ can hardly be maintained.
It has been debated whether the indirect quotation in
chapter 12 depends on Aoyoy Karix^i at the beginning, or
on 'HyTjaLTTTTo^ car ope? at the end of chapter 11.^ For us
the question is jDurely syntactic, or even without meaning.
If our reasoning has been correct it is certainly derived
from Hegesippus. But it must be remarked that the
opening phrase Kal im tovtols seems to mark it as not
continuous with the passage paraphrased in chapter 11.^
* See above, p. 19.
- The third alternative suggested by Zahn (p. 238j, that the con-
struction depends on ws ye 0ncrt (which he regards as a resumption of
\6yos (carexfi)) seems highly improbable. The meaning of ci's ye (^ao-t
will be discussed below.
=> Cp. H. E. i. 8. 16 ; ii. 1. 14 ; 6. 7, 8 ; iii. 32. 7 ; vii. 25. 6, &c. But see
also iv. 15. 15. Compare Heinichen ad loc.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 27
We may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs
of the passage represented by H. E. iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It
began, as we have seen, with some such words as ' And
after James the Just had borne witness . . . and Jerusalem
had immediately afterwards been captured '. This seems
to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had
preceded it ; and if so there can be little question that the
narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted
from the Memoirs} If the whole of that section is sum-
marized in the words • after James the Just had borne
witness ', its closing words, Koi ^vOvs Ovecnraa-iavo^ noXt-
opK€c avTov9, are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the
sack of Jerusalem. But while it seems plain that the
passage now under consideration followed the account of
the martyrdom of St. James, it is less easy to decide
whether it followed it immediately or was separated from
it by another passage. On the one hand, the abrupt close
of the story of the martyrdom with the sentence just
quoted certainly suggests that some account of the Jewish
war followed.- And the inference is supported by the
first sentence of our passage. Would Hegesippus have
resumed his narrative in so elaborate a fashion if nothing
had intervened between the close of the section about St.
James and the beginning of that about Symeon ? But on
the other hand it is difficult to believe that if Hegesippus
had enlarged on this subject Eusebius would have failed
to quote him. For the war the historian depends wholly
on Josephus, though when he comes to the murder of St.
James he places his account side by side with that of the
Christian writer. Had Hegesippus dealt with the subject
of the war at any length he would certainly have told
much that would have been of interest to Eusebius, and
' H. E. ii. 23. 4-18. See Appendix Illc-e.
'^ Compare Zahn, p. 236.
28 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
of no little importance in regard to the history of the
Church in Palestine.^ On the whole it seems most pro-
bable that our passage was introduced by a short section
concerning the war, which however did not tell its story
in such detail as to call for comparison with the fuller
narrative of Josephus.
Now Zahn ^ holds the opinion that Hegesippus included
in his Memoirs a notice of the flight of the Christians of
Jerusalem to Pella, immediately before the siege. The
arguments by which this hjrpothesis is supported may be
stated as follows. Epiphanius has three short narratives
of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters
of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the
origin of the Nazoraeans, and in the second, in similar
fashion, of that of the Ebionites {Haer. 29. 7 ; 30. 2) ; the
third is found in his treatise De Mensuris et Ponderibus
(c. 15).'^ And the three accounts are characterized by
remarkable similarities of phraseology. Thus in Haer.
29 the flight is -q dno ricv 'lepoa-oXvficof /leTaa-racris, and in
De Mens. 15 we are told that the Christians were enjoined
fi^TaaTrji'UL dno t^9 TToXecoy. In Haer. 30 they are described
as [xiTavaaTavTOiv, and in De Mens. 15 as furavdcrTai yivo-
fxevoi. The fugitives are ' all the apostles ' "* in Haer. 29,
' all the disciples ' in De Mens. 15, and in Haer. 30 ' all
^ It may be added that if Hegesiijpus intended to date the martyr-
dom of James immediately before the outbreak of the war (i.e. April
66) Eusebius could not have misunderstood him and dated it imme-
diately before the siege (i.e. Spring 70) if Hegesippus had given an
account of the military operations between the former and the latter
date. See above, p. 24.
- Op. cit., p. 269 f.
' These passages are printed in Appendix Illf.
* So Dindorf with the Venetian MS. But the reading is rendered
suspicious by Eusebius's implication (see below, p. 33 f.) that the
apostles did not go to Pella. The "older editors read [j.n6rjTal, which
would make the agreement between Haer. 29 and De Mens. 15 yet closer.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 29
who believed in Christ '. In Haev. 29 we have the phrase
kv niXXrj (oKrjKOTOiv, and in De Mens. 15 aiK-qaav kv UiWrj.
In Haer. 29 we find the words ttjv Uepatau oUi^crai^Te^
iKuae . . . Siirpi^of, which are matched by rrji^ H^paiau . . ,
Kara)Kr]crau . . . Kal eKeiae SLaTpL^oi'Toav in Haer. 30. In
Haer. 29 it is said that Jerusalem TJjjLeWe Trda-x^^i' iroXiop-
Kiav; Haer. 30 does not mention the impending siege,
but in De Mens. 15 it is alluded to in the expression ejxeXXe
aXtaKeaOai ktX .and /xc\Xou'ctt]s dpBrjv diroXXvaOat. The word
aXoiCTL^ for the capture of the city in Haer. 30 is balanced
by the use of the cognate verb dXicrKeadaL with the same
reference in De Mens. 15. And finally Pella is said both
in Haer. 30 and De Mens. 15 to have been a city of the
Decapolis,^ a coincidence all the more remarkable because
the name ' Decapolis ' was obsolete in Epiphanius's day.
This fact he plainly intimates, in one case by observing
that the Decapolis is mentioned in the Gospel, and in the
other by his disclaimer of first-hand knowledge — ' the
city is said to belong to the Decapolis.'
The greater number of these words and phrases may be
supposed to have come from the source from which Ejji-
phanius derived his knowledge of the flight, especially
since it is known that the composition of the treatise
about weights and measures was separated from that of
the Panarion by an interval of fifteen years or more.
Can we discover what that source was ? We turn natu-
rally to the only extant account of the flight of earlier date
than Epiplianius, that which is given by Eusebius.^ It is
evident, however, that Epiplianius did not depend on it,
for he states definitely that the Christians left Jerusalem
* So also in Haer. 29. 7, in the sentence immediately preceding the
passage given in Appendix III f., the Nazoraeans are said to have dwelt
(V TTj AfKanoXei jrepl ra t^s HfWrjs fieprj and elsewhere.
2 H. E. iii. 5. 2 f. See Appendix III f.
30 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
in obedience to a command of Christ (Haer. 29) which was
conveyed by an angel {De Mens. 15), while Eusebius merely
says that they had ' some sort of {tlvo,) divine intimation
{\prj<Tfi6v) granted by revelation '. And several of the
phrases quoted above do not occur in Eusebius. Never-
theless between Eusebius and Epiphanius there is no
contradiction, and there are many points of contact. If
according to Eusebius the Christians received a xp^cr/z6?,
in De Mens. 15 it is said irpoexpr]iiaTia6rj(Tav. "We have
in Eusebius the phrase fi^TavacrTrjvai rfjs TroAecoy corre-
sponding to /xerao-TTJuai dno ttjs TroAecoy in De Mens. 15,
and reminding us of d-n-b toov 'lepoaoXv/xcou fj-erdcTTaa-t? in
Haer. 29, jjL^TavacrrdvT^s in Haer. 30, and jx^Tavdarai in De
Mens. 15. Jerusalem is 17 ttoXls in Eusebius and De Mens.
15, and Pella is tl^ ttoXis in Eusebius and Haer. 30. The
verb otKeip is used in relation to Pella in Eusebius exactly
as in the three passages of Epiphanius, ol e/y Xpia-rbv n^Tn-
arevKOTis as in Haer. 30, apSrjv of the destruction of
Jerusalem as in De Mens. 15, XpiaTov ^rjaavro^ as in
Haer. 29, though in a different connexion. "We may also
note that ttoXlv . . . IleXXau avrrjv ovofid^ovaiu in Eusebius
and niXXj] . . . noX^i KaXovfxivr) in Haer. 30 read very like
different paraphrases of the same words.
All these facts lead to the conclusion that Eusebius and
Epiphanius relied on a common document for the flight
to Pella. What was it ? In the earlier part of the long-
sentence in which Eusebius mentions the flight an indirect
reference is made to Hegesippus, when the death of James
the Just is said to have been ' already recounted ' ; and
Epiphanius, in that part of the Patiarion in which occur
his first two accounts of the same incident, is probably
depending on the Memoirs for some of his statements
about other things.^ It is not rash to infer that both
^ See above, p. 10.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 31
writers learned also what they knew of the flight to Pella
from that work.
This reasoning, no doubt, does not compel assent. But
it is materially strengthened when we take account of
another consideration. If Hegesippus alluded at all to
the flight, it is obvious that in his work the narrative of
it would most naturally follow that of the martyrdom
of James, and thus, if we have argued correctly, precede
the story of the election of Symeon. Let us then try
the experiment of putting the story which lies behind
the four passages of Eusebius and Epiphanius into that
place, and see whether it fits comfortably into the niche
which has been provided for it. We shall find, if I am
not mistaken, that it harmonizes admirably with its
surroundings.
In the first place, it satisfies the expectation raised by
the closing sentence of the narrative of the martyrdom of
St. James, that Hegesippus had something to say about
the Jewish war, and said it in a passage immediately
following, which Eusebius has not quoted. The Pella
narrative, moreover, can have been of no great lengtli.
A sentence suffices for a summary of it in three of our
passages, and little more than a sentence in the fourth.
This also is in accordance with our anticipation. We
can understand too why Eusebius does not compare it
with the history of the war which he extracts from
Josephus ; for the only incident with which it is concerned
is not recorded by Josephus at all. And it is quite in
keeping with what we know of the design of the Memoirs
that Hegesippus should restrict his notice of the war to
this one event. For he was not at all concerned with the
misfortunes of the Jewish people as such, or with the
sack of the city for its own sake, but only with these
things in their relation to the Church of Jerusalem. The
32 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
war, in fact, caused a lacuna in the history of the Church
of that place. Hegesippus had only to explain how
this happened, and how the total destruction of the Church
was avoided ; and that is fully done in the Pella storj'.
Then again, we have already observed that Eusebius
introduces his account of the flight with a reference to
the Memoirs. It is not without significance that the
passage to which he alludes is that which, on our
hypothesis, immediately preceded the Pella story as
told by Hegesippus. Again, Hegesippus closes his account
of St. James with the words koL €vdv? Ovea-rracnavo^ iroXi-
opKiT avTovs : ^ we are reminded of it by the remark in
Haer. 29 that Jerusalem rj/xeXXe irdcrxiLv TroXiopKiau.
Again in Haer. 30 we meet with the phrase, fieTcc ttjv toou
'lepoaroXvficov aXaxTLv : it occurs again with trifling varia-
tions in Eusebius' s paraphrase of the first sentence of
the section of the Meinoirs about Symeon, /lera . . . tt^v
avTiKa yevofi^vrjv aXcocriy rfj^ ' lepoucra At; //.-
But further, a close examination of the account of
Symeon's election seems to reveal the fact that it was
introduced by a notice of the departure of the Christians
from Jerusalem. "We have seen that the portion of this
passage which followed the introductory clauses is
represented in the direct quotation by the single word
irdXiv ; and we have learned from the paraphrase that its
* It is not altogether impossible that these words may really belong
to the Pella story. We have seen that Eusebius is quite capable of
tacitly omitting part of a passage in quotation ; and there is force
in Schwartz's remark, though perhaps he expresses himself rather too
dogmatically, that this and the preceding sentences are alternative
endings to the narrative, both of which cannot have stood in the
original text. However, it must be remembered that wherever the
words were in Eusebius's copy of the Memoirs they must have been in
sufficiently close connexion Avith the martyrdom to convince him that
the latter took place immediately before the siege.
2 //. E. iii. 11. See Appendix III g.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 33
substance was that as many of the apostles, disciples, and
relatives of the Lord as survived assembled from all
quarters to elect a bishop to succeed James the Just.
Eusebius also informs us that Symeon was elected bishop
of the Church in Jerusalem,^ a statement which he
probably derived from the portion of Hegesippus's
Memoirs now under consideration. It seems to imply
that the Christians had returned thither on the con-
clusion of the siege. These facts determine with high
probability the verb with which TrdXtv was connected in
the text of Hegesippus. We can scarcely doubt that it
wasavvipxovTaL, or an equivalent, represented by a-vveXOuv
in the paraphrase. But the phrase ttccXlu a-vvepxovraL
— ' they assemble once more ' — involves a scattering
recounted in the preceding context. Thus our hypothesis
that the flight to Pella was recorded before the election of
Symeon is confirmed.
It does not follow of course that this was the record of
which Eusebius and Epiphanius made use. But now we
must notice another fact. Hegesippus stated, if we are
to believe Eusebius, that those who elected Symeon
' came together from all directions ' [Travra^oBev). We
might have expected him to say ' from Pella ', or at any
ra.te ' from Peraea '. Again, the electors are divided into
three classes — apostles, disciples who had heard the teach-
ing of the Lord, the kindred of Christ. But the first class
is evidently comprehended in the second. Why then
are they treated as distinct ? Various reasons might be
suggested ; but let us turn to Eusebius's account of the
flight. There too there is the same sharp distinction
between apostles and disciples. Both left Jerusalem,
and both, as we see when we read Eusebius and Epi-
phanius together, in obedience to a command of Christ.
» H. E. iii. 32. 1.
1353 D
34 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
But the former obeyed tlie command of St. Matthew xxviii.
19; they went to preach the Gospel 'to all the nations' :
the latter obeyed a command given at the time ; they
sought safety by going to Pella and the neighbouring
district. And so after the siege the former came to
Jerusalem from all directions, only the latter from Peraea.
And further it would seem that in the original narrative
the second of the three classes of electors was dis-
tinguished from the general body of the faithful, though
neither Eusebius nor Epiphanius has caught the point.
The whole body might very well be represented by the
word fiadrjTai, used in Haer. 29 (?)^ and De Mens. 15 ; but
oi e/y Xpiarbu TrnnaTiVKOTe^, the phrase which takes its
place in Eusebius and Haer. 30, may have indicated the
smaller company who had followed the Lord during His
public ministry. Thus we find not a few indications that
the passage about Symeon and the narrative of the flight
from Jerusalem which Eusebius and Epiphanius consulted
are of a piece. And on the whole I see no reason to doubt
that it was taken from the Memoirs, and in them imme-
diately followed the story of the martyrdom of James.
This long discussion of the story of the migration to
Pella, though it has in some directions illustrated the
narrative of the election of Symeon, has nevertheless
withdrawn our attention from it. To it we must now
return. It appears from Eusebius's paraphrase that
Hegesippus not only stated that Symeon was chosen as
bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord, but also added
the explanation, which is omitted in the direct quotation,
that Symeon's father Clopas was Joseph's brother. Of
the contents of the passage of Hegesippus thus summarized
we gain fuller knowledge from another source.
It will be remembered that we have already shown
' See above, p. 28, note.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 35
that a description of James tlie Just given by Epiphanius,
Haer. 78. 7, is founded on a passage of Hegesippus of
which his knowledge, if not direct, was at least inde-
pendent of Eusebius.^ In the earlier part of the same
paragraph he maintains the opinion that Mary was only
the nominal wife of Joseph. He professes to base his
argument on the tradition of the Jews {Kara ttju (zkoXov-
Otav eK rfj^ t5>v 'lovSaicou TrapaSocrecos), and then proceeds to
make some statements which could not have been derived
from such a source, and are, in fact, in the main based on
the Protevangelium of James. But he immediately adds
that Joseph was the brother of Clopas, both being sons of
one James, surnamed Panther. Afterwards he gives the
names of Joseph's children, and speaks more at length
about the eldest of them, James the Just, in the passage
just referred to. It would seem to have been these latter
particulars, or some of them, and especially the assertion
that Joseph and Clopas were sons of James Panther, that
Epiphanius or his authority connected with Jewish tra-
dition. Now it is quite impossible that Epiphanius
could have gathered his material from Jewish tradition ;
but, on the other hand, it is certain that Hegesippus,
whom he follows closely in certain parts of this very
passage, did make use of it. This is the direct statement
of Eusebius.2 The inference at once becomes highly pra-
bable that Epiphanius is here reproducing the earlier
Christian writing. Its probability is enhanced when we
observe the striking similarity between the words of
Epiphanius, 05x09 fi^v yap 6 'Icoar)(p a(5eA0oy yCveraL rod
KXcond, and Eusebius's paraphrase of Hegesippus, KXco-rrdv
dSeXcphu rov 'loocrTJcf).^
But there is more to be said. Epiphanius implies that
1 See above, pp. 5 ff. ^ //. E. iv. 22. 8.
^ In this paragraph I have closely followed Zahn, pp. 266 ff.
d3
36 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
the writer of whom he made use professed to have drawn
his information about the relationship between Joseph
and Clopas from Jewish tradition, and Eusebius makes
Hegesippus say the same thing — dvey\n6v, ws y^ 4)ao-i,
yeyovora rov acoTfjpo^' The words cJ)? ye ^acrt are not to
be understood as an addition by Eusebius. Still less are
they a mere variation of \6y09 KaTe^eiJ They represent
something that stood in the text of the Memoirs. And
they may very well be a paraphrase of a clause nearly
identical with the KaTo. ttju uKoXovOiau e/c rrjs roov 'lov-
Saicou TrapaSoaecos of Epiphanius, since (paat is a favourite
word of Eusebius for unwritten report.^
Thus there is little reason to doubt that Eusebius and
Epiphanius had the same passage of the Memoirs before
them, and that it contained the statement, which Eusebius
passes over, that James, sumamed Panther, was the father
of Joseph and Clopas.
Two further remarks may be made. If I am right,
Eusebius has deliberately omitted the name of the father
of these two men. This is not to be wondered at ; we
shall presently come across another passage in which he
1 As Zahn holds, p. 238.
"^ I have noticed only one passage in which Eusebius uses the word
^ao-i as equivalent to \6yoi Kmex^h H. E. vii. 12. He sometimes
indicates by it information derived from written records, e.g. H. E i.
12. 1, 3 (cf. 13. 10) ; ii. 2. 2. On the other hand it api ears to be con-
trasted with Xo-yoy KaTexfi (implying documentary evidence) in H. E.
ii. 16. 1; 17. 1; iii. 24.5,7,11. Eusebius tells us that he gathered material
for his account of Origen partly from Origen's own epistles and
partly from the oral testimony of elders who had known him (H. E.
vi. 2. 1 ; 33. 4). Facts related on the evidence of the latter are sparingly
given, and are introduced by <f>(ia-L in H. E. vi. 2. 11 ; 3. 7 ; 5. 2 ; 36. 1.
The word is not apparently used of information dei'ived from the
epistles. For other instances of the application of (paal to oral
tradition see H. E. ii. 15. 2; iv. 29. 6; 30. 2 ; v. 10.2; vii. 17 (a
narrative of the surviving friends of Astyrius) ; 32. 6, 8 ; and perhaps
vi. 29. 2.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 37
omits names that were before liim in tlie Memoirs.^ But
it is to be observed that in the present case he had a
special motive for the omission on account of the hideous
fables that the Jews had made to centre round the name
of Panther.
And again, if coy ye ^aaL and Kara ocKoXovdiap €k ttj? twv
'Iov8aL(ov napaSoaecos are independent paraphrases of
words used by Hegesippus, it is worthy of note that the
former in Eusebius does not appear in immediate con-
nexion with the assertion that Joseph and Clopas were
brothers. It is in the previous clause, in which Symeon
is said to have been a cousin of the Lord. Thus these two
clauses are bound together and must have been originally
parts of the same context. It is most unlikely that the latter
of the two was taken from another part of the Memoirs,
as might perhaps have been thought probable if Eusebius's
History had been our only source of information.
Now this conclusion is very much to our purpose. For
it goes to show that in the direct quotation there is
a lacuna, as we have already had reason to suspect, before
the words 'on this account they called the Church
a virgin '. But the omitted portion must have included
more than the clause concerning Clopas ; for the words
' on this account ' still remain without justification. In
other words, we have not yet found the concluding
portion of the omitted passage. But if the omission is
once granted it is not far to seek. Eusebius tells that
Hegesippus, when narrating the events of the times of
Trajan and his predecessors,- relates 'that until the times
then present the Church remained a virgin pure and un-
corrupt,since those, if there were any inexistence,whowere
1 See below, p. 78, and Appendix IV g.
2 Ta Kara rovs driXovfievovs. Trajan has just been mentioned ; Nero
and Domitian are spoken of in an earlier part of the chapter.
38 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
seeking to corrupt the sound rule of the saving doctrine
were still at that time in obscure darkness somewhere, as
it were hiding '.
'But', he proceeds, 'when the sacred company of the
apostles attained, each in his own way, the end of life, and
that generation of those who had been counted worthy to
hear with their own ears the divine (euOiov) wisdom had
passed away, then the conspiracy of atheistic (dSeov)
error took its origin through the deceitfulness of the
teachers of strange doctrines, who also, now that none
of the apostles any longer remained, henceforth with
naked head were attempting to proclaim the knowledge
falsely so called in opposition to the proclamation of the
truth.' 1
A hasty reader might assume that all this was a para-
phrase of Hegesippus. But Zahn^ points out that the
oratio ohllqua is confined to the first sentence : and it
must be added that the second sentence reminds one
rather of the ornate periods of Eusebius than of the ' very
simple style ' of the earlier writer. If it is ultimately
based on Hegesippus it must have been entirel}'^ recast
by Eusebius. But this is unlikely. The ' Church ' which
according to Hegesippus was styled ' a virgin ' was the
Church of Jerusalem,^ while the Church referred to in the
second sentence is clearly the Universal Church. What
would give increased courage to the heretics at Jerusalem
would not be the death of the last of the apostles at
Ephesus, but the withdrawal from their neighbourhood
of those who had elected Symeon. On the whole, there-
fore, it seems that while the first sentence is an indirect
quotation from Hegesippus, the second is Eusebius's
commentary. And the commentary appears to be based
* H. E. iii. 32. 7 f. For the Greek of the first sentence see
Appendix Illk. ^ p 24I,
3 See Heg. ap. H. E. iv. 22. 5 f. (Appendix III 1.) That Eusebius
understood the passage to refer to the Church universal is clear from
the preceding context, §§ 1-4.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 39
on a misunderstanding. Eusebius supposed that Hegesip-
pus was speaking of the origin of heresy in the Church as
a whole, and he probably interpreted a reference to the
departure of the apostles from Jerusalem as indicating
their death. ^
Now the first sentence of the quotation, which is cer-
tainly from Hegesippus, may with some confidence be
regarded as the passage of which we are in search. It
would be a very suitable introduction to the following : —
' On this account they called the Church a virgin ; for
it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But Thebuthis,
because he was not himself made bishop, begins to corrupt
it from the seven heresies among the people — to which
he himself belonged . . . Each [of the heretical teachers]
severally and in different ways introduced their several
opinions. From these came false Christs, false prophets,
false apostles, men who divided the unity of the Church
with corrupt words against God and against His Christ.' ^
In other words, the first sentence of the quotation is
the close of the portion omitted by Eusebius in his tran-
script of the passage of Hegesippus which leads up to that
which is here translated. Whether it immediately
followed the statement that Clopas was Joseph's brother
is not capable of confident determination. Some sentences
may perhaps have intervened ; but it must be added that
there is no obvious reason for thinking so.
But however that maybe, it is easy to fix upon the passage
which followed that which has just been quoted, since
Eusebius himself helps us to find it. ' Hegesippus', he
1 Valois seems to regard the whole passage as a paraphrase of that
which is quoted next. But this cannot be. On the other hand, Zahn's
view (p. 241), that at least the first sentence is based on a passage in
which the substance of the latter was repeated in a different connexion,
seems to me unsupported by evidence, and a in-iori not very probable.
2 H. E. iv. 22. 4 ff. See Appendix III 1.
40 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
says,^ ' in liis narrative about certain heretics goes on to
state that by these at tliat time the above-mentioned
person [Symeon] was subjected to accusation, and after
being tortured for many days in various manners as being
a Christian, and very greatly astonishing the judge and
his attendants, won as his reward a death which resembled
the passion of the Lord.' The first words of this sentence
plainly allude to the passage quoted above. The allusion
would have been more obvious if the list of heresies and
false teachers which it contains had not been omitted in
our translation. The succeeding clause will be at once
recognized as a condensed paraphrase of the following: —
' Certain of these (namely the heretics) accuse Simon
the son of Clopas as being a descendant of David and a
Christian. And so he bears witness at the age of 120
years under Trajan Caesar and the proconsul Atticus.' ^
The parenthesis ' namely the heretics ' is clearly an
addition of Eusebius. It is necessary when the sentence
is quoted, as it is by him, apart from its context, but need-
less when it is led up to by the section dealing with ' the
heretics '. It will be found hereafter that the remainder
of the sentence, about the sufferings of Symeon, corre-
sponds to another extract from Hegesippus preserved by
the historian.
Ill
We have now placed a considerable number of passages
from the Memoirs in their proper sequence. "We have in
fact before us, either in the ipsissima verba of Hegesippus
or in the paraphrase of Eusebius, the whole of a section of
his work which dealt with the history of the Church of
Jerusalem during the later years of the episcopate of
1 H. E. iii. 32. 2. See Appendix III 1, m ; IV 1.
2 H. E. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III m.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 41
James the Just, and that of his successor Symeon, with
the possible exception of some sentences here and there
not quoted by Eusebius. Our main difficulty in regard to
this group of extracts has been the discovery of the order
in which they stood in the Memoirs. In the case of the
series next to be considered the arrangement of the frag-
ments will give us less trouble, and with three exceptions
the determination of the passages which belong to it is
easy, since they are expressly stated by Eusebius to have
come from the pen of Hegesippus.
To the task of setting forth the evidence for the
Hegesippean authorship of the three anonymous fragments
referred to we must now address ourselves.
By way of preliminary two passages must be exhibited
side by side. The first is reproduced, with some omissions,
from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapters
xvii-xx. 5. This I designate by the letter E. The
second has been edited from the Paris MS. 1555 a by
J. A. Cramer in his Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis
Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, Oxford, 1839, ii. 88, and
from the Bodleian MS. Barocc. 142 by C. de Boor in
Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 2. 169. I call it C, and
indicate the four sentences of which it consists by nu-
merals. "Words which are common to the two are under-
lined.
E C
xvii IIoAAt^v yc fxr]v eU ttoXXovs 1 Ao/>c€Ttavos vios Ovea-TracrL-
cTTiSct^a^evos 6 Aoyu.€Tiai'os w/xo- avov ttoAAo. KaKo. ei<; tous iv xeAei
TT/Ttt, oi'K oktyov T£ Twv €7rl 'Pw^T^s "Pw/mtovs evSci^o/Acvos
ttiTraTpiSciJv TC Ktti (.TricrrjixisiiV avopwv
ttXtjOos ov ixer evXoyov KpLO-€<ji<i
KTClVaS, flVpLOVS TC oAAoVS CTTl^a-
vciv avSpas Tttis VTTcp TTjv ivopLav
t,7]p.i(i)cra<; (fivyal'S Kai rats tCjv
ov<TL(i)v dTTO^oAais dvatTtws, reXiv-
4.2 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEaESIPPUS
E c
TU)v Trj<; Nepojvos 6eoex9pias re koI Tr]v Ne'pwvos VLKrjcras w/moTrjra
ueofxa)(^La<; SluSo^ov eauTov Kare-
(TTrjcraTO. Aet^repos Si^ra tov KaO" Sevrepo^ Kara XptcrriavaJz/
•>7/x(iiv dvcKiVet Siojyp-ov, KatVcp Stwy/^ov iiroirjcrev.
Tov Trarpos avrw OiiecrTrao-iavoJ)
fxrj^ilv Kai
rjfxwv aroTTOV eTrivorj-
xvui, 1 Ei/ TOi^TO) KaT€;^€i Xdyos
TOV aTToo-roAoi/ ayu,a xai eriayyeAt-
0-T17V 'Icuai/vT^v £Tt Tw /:/taj iv^iarpi-
/Sovra, Trj<; eis tov ^eiov Aoyov
cvtKcv ixapTvpias IlaTytAov otKctv
KaTaotK'acrpiyvai t'^v vrjcrov . . ,
XIX . . . TaiiTa 8e 817X01 Kara
Xe$iv wSe TTOJs Ae'ywv 6 'Hyr^o-iTTTros.
XX. 1 Eti 0€ TrepLrjcrav ol airb
yevous toS Knptou i;t covot 'louSa,
TOV Kara crapKa Xiyofiivov avrov
aoeXcfiov' ovs iSrjXaTopeva-av ws
€K yeVous ovTas Aaut'S . . .
5 i(fi oi<s /AT^Sev avTMV Kareyvu)-
Kora TOV Aoyu.€Ttavov, dAAa koi Jj?
euTcAwv KaTa(}>povrj(TavTa, iXevOi-
pov<; fi€v avTov? dvtivai, KaTa-
Travcrai 0€ oia TrpoaTa.yp.aTO<i tov
Kara t^s eKKA->/o-tas 8iwy/xov . . .
7 TaviTa /tev o Hyryo-tTTTros.
2 KttP bv Kai TOV d7rdo"ToAov
Kat evayyeXLg- Trjv 'luidvvrjv iv
HaT/jni) TrepnopLcrev.
3 o"WTu^aJV Be Aop,eTtavos TOt?
viots lovSa TOW d8eA0o{; toi! K.vpiov,
Kttt yvovs Tryv apeTyjv twv dvSpwv
TOD Kac/ rjfLUiV eirava'aTO biMyp-ov.
4 'Avat^c'pei 8e 6 HyT^criTTTros
Kat Ta ovd/AttTa aiTwv, Kat (jtrjcrLV
OTl 6 fJikv iKaXcLTO ZojKT^p, 6 8e
'ldK0)(3o<;. ['IcTTopet 8e Kai dAAa
dvayKata.]
A comparison of these two passages clearly proves that
there is a literary connexion between them. But it is
manifestly impossible that ^ is a mere expansion of C.
May we then suppose that C was derived from E by way
of abridgement ? This is certainly a possible hypothesis.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 43
But it appears to me to be improbable for several reasons.
In the first place we are informed in C 4 that the names
of the sons, or as E calls them grandsons, of Jude were
Zocer and James. This fact the writer cannot have learnt
from E ; for it is not recorded there. And he expressly tells
us that he bases his statement on the authority of Hege-
sippus. Now it is a priori probable that C 1-3 is imme-
diately derived from the same source as C4. And, indeed,
this seems to be indicated by the very phrase of the
epitomizer : 'Avac^kpei Se 6 'HyqcnTrnos Kal ra 6vo[xaTa
avrSiv. C, then, may fairly be assumed to be founded not
on E^ but on the Memoirs of Hegesippus. And this is the
work from which, as Eusebius himself says, E xx. 1-6 is a
quotation. Thus we are led to the conclusion that from
the Memoirs E and C are alike derived as their common
source.
And this conclusion is confirmed by other considerations.
There is nothing in C to correspond to J^Jxviii. 2-4. Now
on the supposition that C is an epitome of E this omission
is not easy to explain. For the latter part of £'xviii gives
information which is both important and interesting.
In §§ 2, 3 evidence is given as to the date of the Apoca-
lypse ; § 4 records the banishment of Flavia Domitilla.
Why should such things have been passed over by one
who undertook to give a summary, however brief, ot E?
On the other hand, on the theory which is here advocated,
their absence from C is accounted for without difficulty.
For §§ 2, 3 are a quotation from Irenaeus ; and § 4 is based,
as we are told, on tov? dnodev rov Ka$' rifid^ Xoyov avy-
ypa(p€i9. AVhatever the latter phrase may mean, it is at
least certain that Hegesippus cannot be among the writers
whom it includes ; and it is abundantly evident from the
parallel passage in the Chronicle ^ that Bruttius, or Bret-
1 Ed. Schoene, ii. 160, 163. Cp. Lightfoot, Clement of Borne, i. 46 ff.
44 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
tins, was the principal, if not the only, authority on
whom Eusebius relied for his account of Flavia Domitilla.
Thus on the supposition that the writer of C had before
him not E, but the Memoirs of Hegesippus, it was im-
possible for him to include in his summary the facts
recorded in E xviii. 2-4.
But again, according to the narrative of E, quoted
verbatim from Hegesippus, the persons who were brought
before Domitian were the grandsons {vlcovoC) of Jude. And
that this is the true reading of Eusebius's text is manifest,
for he himself paraphrases it by the word dnoyouoL.^
But according to both the manuscripts of Cthey were the
sons (vloi) of Jude. This might be set down to mere
clerical error. But that would be a too hasty conclusion.
Two other authorities have been found for the names
James and Zocer,^ and both call them sons of Jude.^
1 H. E. iii. 19. See Appendix IV f.
' A Menology quoted by C. F. Matthaei, Evangelium sec. MattJiaeum,
Rigae, 1778, p. 138, and the monk Epiphanius, Life of Mary, 14. I owe
the references to Zahn, p. 240.
^ Matthaei's Menology has the following at 26 May: 'O ayios
an6(TToXos ^lov8as, 6 Kal ^A\(paios, fls tmp t/3 dnoaroXcov r5>v fityakoiv.
ovTos vlos Tjv 'laxrficf) tov fivr)aTfjpos, ws elvai Koi avrov d8eX(f)6v tov Kvpiov.
ovTOS *crx€ Svo vlovs, 'laKuPov tov aTrooroXoj/, ovra (Is rovs ifi, os Xtytrai
laK(ol3os A\c()aiov, 8ia tov narepa 'AKcpaiov. 6 8* tovtov d8€\<j>os -fJKove (sic)
ZcoKTjp. yeyove df rpiTos enia-KOTTos 'lepoaoXvpcov. npwTOS yap iirlaKonoi
lepoaoXvptov rjv 6 tovtov ddfXcpos 'Iukoj^js, 6 dSeXcjiodeos, SevTfpos ^vpfmv
u vlos KXfona, rp'iTos fie '\ovhas err] (. And again at 23 October: 'Oayios
aiToaToXos loKa^os 6 d8fXcf)6dfos. ovtos 6 dyios dTToaToXos iepopdpTvs
laKwPos, 6 d86X4>os tov Kvpiou, rjv vlos 'IwcrT|(j) d8eX(})6s 8« tov Kvpiov 8id
TTJv TOV Icocn^()> irpos ttjv dytav 0€ot6kov p.VT)crT€Lav. cKaXciTO 8i -irpOTepov
opXias, o lpp,T)V€V€Tai irepioxTl iraOwv. 'la/cco/Sos fie TtT(pvi(TTi]S. €x«ipoTOVTiOTi
VTTO TOV KVplOV tmO-KOTTOS 'l€pO<roXv(10)V, (l.T|T€ oIvOV fJlT|T€ aiKCpa TTeTTOKjis,
|iTiT£ «p.\j/vxdv Ti <|)aYcJVs fiTiTe (Xaicp fATiTe ^aXavciu dwoXovcras to (TQ)^a..
OVTOS evopodeTei to. fdvi] ktX. tovtov ol 'lovSatoi drro tov TrTspvyiov tov
lepov i5cravT«s KaTto Kal JvXtp Kva^xico Kara ttjs Kt<})aXTJs iraTafavTcs
TtXos avTw tTreO-tjKav. And again : lo|3Xias kiyirax. d<t)9aXp.ds Xtta pXcirwv.
In Epiphanius Monachus, De vita B. Virg. 14 (P. G. exx. 204), we read :
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 45
Moreover, they exhibit, in addition to the names, traces
of the influence of Hegesippus which are obviously inde-
pendent of Eusebius. There seems to be no escape from
the inference that f/ot' was a variant fovvtcovoLVH some manu-
scripts of the Memoirs, and that C follows a text different
from that used by Eusebius. It might even be contended
that u/oi'is the correct reading, for the sonsof Jude are more
likely than his grandsons to have been contemporary with
his cousin Symeon and the Apostle John. But, however
that may be, if C is based on a different text of Hegesippus
from that used in E it cannot be a mere epitome of E.
Assuming then the correctness of our hypothesis as to
the relation between C and E, we can now form a pretty
accurate conception of the method of work of the compiler
to whom we are indebted for C. For E xx. 1-6 is a quo-
tation, in part direct, in part indirect, from Hegesippus.
We have in it, in great measure, the very words of the
passage of which C 3 is a summary. Comparing the two
Kai eXa^fv tt]V dvyarepn Mapiav 6 d8(X(t>os awTuiv (sc. tov ^laxrqcf) Koi rrjs
OfOTOKov) KXwiras yvvaiKa tavra' KXfoiras Se 6 a8f\(f)6i avrov 'Iokw^
[1. 'l(0<Tr](f)) ofjionaTpios eV tov 'laifwjS, (cat t-ytwqo-fv t£ auTf,s tov 2u[i.€uva.
OVTOS 8i 6 SvjiCtbv |Jl,€Ta 'laKUpOV TOV d8tX4)6v ToO KVplOV tTTlCTKOirOS
ylyovtv «is 'I«po<r6\v(Aa* Kai «m AoiitiiavoC PacriXccos 'Pai|iT)S |X€Td
iToWds Pacpdvovs ijcrrtpov ia-ravpi^Qr], i>v irwv pK'. 'laKw^os be 6 vlos
'l(0(TT)(f), tof (paaiv rivis, fax^" ovtco yvfaiKn enl eVrj dvo' Kai reXevrrjaacrrjs
airfjf erfpnv ovx i'crxev. 'lovSas 8e 6 a8e\(f)os avrov tiTOiT]o-€v Svo viovs,
Z(OK-f|p Kai 'IdKwPov, otJTco ■TT-pocra-yop€uop.«vovs. ovptoi irapao-TdvTes Ao}ji€-
Tiovcii PacriXti 'Pol)|ir]S Bid ttjv dpeTTiv aviTuv Kai (ro«f)iav tt^v KaTd twv
XpicTTiavwv eiravo-avTO 8ia>Y^6v.
It will be observed that in the Menology two interpretations of
&)/3Xias are given — irf pioxn Tra6a>v and ocpOnXpos Xela ^Xenav — neither of
which is in Eusebius. And James is said to have been appointed
bishop by the Lord. Epiphanius Monachus, in the story of the sons
of Jude, agi'ees with C (see p. 42) in using (nau(Ta{v)To where Eusebius
has Karanavarai, and in speaking of the dpfrr] of the brothers. He has
also the phrase kutci Xpia-nnvoiv 8i<i>yp6s, which occurs in C in a different
connexion (Appendix IV b), but not in this section of Eusebius.
46 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
together we observe, in the first place, that the writer of
C has much reduced the length of his original : C 3 con-
tains only twenty-one words, E xx. 1-5 contains 200.
But we notice also that he has been careful to preserve,
as far as possible, the phrases of Hegesippus. Of his
twenty-one words, thirteen are found in E. In fact, it
would scarcely be untrue to say that he never departs from
the words of Hegesippus except for the purpose of abbre-
viation. Thus (rvvTvya>v sums up the series of events re-
counted in E XX. 1^ — the laying of an information against
the sons of Jude, and their appearance before the emperor
in charge of the evocatus ; while tt^v dperrju t5)v dv8pS>v
indicates by a single word their hard-working honesty
and faith, described in detail in E xx. 2-4.
Now we find that the relation between (7 1,2 and E
xvii, xviii. 1 is similar to that which exists between C 3
and E xx. 1-5, though the disparity in length between the
passages to be compared is not so marked in the former
case as in the latter. In E xvii there are seventy words ;
in C 1 twenty, of which thirteen are in E. And E xviii. 1
has twenty-six words, six of which are found among the
eleven of which C 2 consists. Moreover, as indicating
anxiety on the part of the writer of C to retain the words
of his source, we may mention the strange phrase, ttoWcc
KaKoc e/y tovs . . . ' Poo/xaiovs euSd^dfiei^os: we can under-
stand it when we remember that E has noXXriv . . . e/y
7roXXov9 e7n8€L^d/j,€U09 . . . (o/xoT-qra.
It is true that some words are found here in C which do
not occur in E. Such are KUKd, tov9 ^v riXei, vLKrjaa^,
XpL(TTiavS)v, knoirja^v, vepLcopia-ey. Most of them may be
accounted for as arising from the desire of the compiler to
be brief. In all but two cases (XpLo-TLavcov and inoirja-eu)
they are in truth shorter equivalents of phrases in E. But
another fact has to be kept in view. We are here com-
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 47
paring C, not with the text of Eusebius's source, but with
Eusebius's presentation of the source in his own language.
Now we can form some idea of the way in which Eusebius
dealt with Hegesippus when he made use of his Memoirs
without actually transcribing them ; for in two places we
are able to compare the text of the earlier writer with a
paraphrase which the historian gives, not in the imme-
diate context of his direct quotation.^
The passages transcribed from the Memoirs contain
together about 80 words, the paraphrases almost exactly
the same number ; and there are common to the two
about 30 words. "We conclude that in paraphrasing
Eusebius does not abridge, but that he deals with the
phraseology pretty freely.^ In the passages referred to
not half of the words of Hegesippus remain. Hence it
might be expected that if the compiler of C worked
directly on the Memoirs he would preserve in his summary
not a few words of the original which Eusebius has not
retained in his paraphrase. Such may be the words
Xpi(TTLava)v for rj/xcoi^, knoi-qa^v for dv^KiveL, and others of
those mentioned above. Such also may be rina>v for rrj^
iKKXrjaias and dperrji/ in C 3.^
The obvious inference from these facts seems to be that
E xvii, xviii. 1 adheres pretty closely to Hegesippus. And
we may, at any rate, feel confident that the expressions
which are common to E xvii. xviii, 1 and C 1, 2 were also
used by him.
If it were possible to leave the matter at this point, a
good many of my readers would perhaps concede that the
^ H. E. iii. 32. 6 (= iii. 20. 6 ; 32. 2) and iv. 22. 4(= iii. 11). See
Appendix III g, i ; IV k.
^ He omits phrases here and there, but makes up for this by
substituting for others more wordy equivalents: e.g. KaBlaTarai
(TriaKonos becomes tov t'^s avrodi napoiKiHS dpovov a^iov elvai SoKi/xdcrai.
" Compare above, p. 45, note.
48 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
hypothesis here suggested has a reasonable degree of pro-
bability. But it now becomes my duty to mention some
facts, which, though I do not regard them as destroying the
validity of my argument, must be regarded as in some
degree mitigating its force.
The passage which I have called C is, in the Bodleian
manuscript from which C. de Boor extracted it, one of a
series extending from f. 212 to f. 216. At the beginning
of the series stands this title, Xwaymyr] la-Topicou Siacpopcoi'
ccTTO Trj9 Kara crdpKa yevprja-eco^ rod Kvpicv Kal i^rJ9 rrju dp'^rjv
'iy^ovcra dnb rod rrpdorov \6you TrJ9 ^KKXrjaLaa-riKfj? laropias
Evae^Lov rov TIafx(f)iXov. At the end is the note, ecoy tovtodv
ta-Topei 6 Eva^^Los- It is thus clearly intimated that the
whole series of passages is a collection of excerpts from
Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. Moreover, the passages
are arranged in groups, each group having a heading
indicating the book of the History from which the excerpts
in it are taken.^
Now it appears that these notes so far agree with the
phenomena of the passages to which they refer, that the
large majority of them have a manifest connexion with
the text of Eusebius, if they cannot in all cases be reckoned
as summaries of it. It may be asked, Does not all this
directly contradict the theory that C is an excerpt not
from Eusebius, but from the source which Eusebius used ?
And, that being so, is not the theory untenable ?
Several considerations forbid us to give with confidence
an affirmative answer to this question. For it must be
remarked that the notes to which our attention is directed
are not in complete accordance with the facts. Several
of the passages in the manuscript are not, as they stand,
mere epitomes of Eusebius. There is, for example, a
^ C. de Boor in Zeitsch.f. Kircliengesch. vi. 486, Texte u. Untersuch.
V. 2. 168.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 49
reference to Nestorius, in connexion with. Paul of Samo-
sata. There is also a citation from St. Ch.rysostom. And
there is a passage about the later kings of the Jews which
could not have been compiled from Eusebius alone. And
besides these there are seven pieces, the earlier part of
each of which may be a summary of a passage in Euse-
bius, while the latter part is certainly taken from the
writer whom Eusebius happened to be using at the moment
— Papias, Hegesippus, Origen, or Pierius — but from a
passage which he does not quote.^ Since the notes in the
Bodleian MS. are not strictly accurate, it is legitimate to
inquire with regard to each of these seven, whether the
compiler has been content to follow Eusebius as far as
he went, or whether he did not resort in each case for the
whole of his summary, and not only for its closing
sentences, to Eusebius's source.
But, further, these notes are peculiar to the manuscript
used by C. de Boor. We have therefore no right to
assume that they were in the collection of excerpts from
which both it and Cramer's Paris manuscript were ulti-
mately derived. It is at least conceivable that they are
due to an editorially-minded scribe — the writer of the
Oxford manuscript, or of an exemplar from which it is
descended. In that case they have no more authority as
a description of the procedure of the original compiler,
though they doubtless agree more closely with the facts,
than the note which appears in the Paris copy as the title
of the series, EvaraOiov 'EirLCpai^icos Svpias iiriTOfif) ttj^
dp\aioXoyia^ laxxTjnov.
^ Texte u. Untersuch. v. 2. 168 ff. One of these passages is, of course,
that with which we are immediately concerned. At least one of the
others occurs also in the Paris MS., but without the passage of Eusebius
{H. E. iii. 25) which precedes it in the Oxford MS. In the Paris MS. it
immediately follows our extract from Hegesippus. See Cramer, ii. 88.
50 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
But whatever weight the objections drawn from the
notes in the Oxford manuscript may seem to have against
the argument with which it and its companion manu-
script at Paris supply us, our original conclusion may be
reached b}'' an entirely different process of reasoning which
they do not affect. This I shall now proceed to show.
In passing from the tenth to the eleventh chapter of
the third book of the Ecclesiastical History we experience
one of those jolts to which readers of Eusebius soon
become accustomed. Chapters v-x have dealt with the
siege of Jerusalem and its historian Josephus, and they
have been entirely based on his writings.^ Chapters
xi-xxiii are a fairly consecutive narrative, dealing for the
most part with the history of the Christian Church, and
covering the period from Vespasian to Trajan. Eusebius
leaves the impression that for it he had recourse to many
authorities, from one to another of which he passes
rapidly. I shall here set out a table of the contents of
chapters xi-xx, stating under each head the authority
which Eusebius consulted. In doing so, however, I omit
the records of the successions of emperors and bishops
which, according to his wont, he inserts here and there
in his narrative.
Chap. xi. The election of Symeon as bishop of Jeru-
salem : Aoyoy Kare^^i = Hegesippus.^
Chap. xii. Vespasian's proceedings against the descen-
dants of David : \6y09 /fare^ei = Hegesippus.^
Chap. xvi. Digression on the Epistle of Clement. For
the disturbance at Corinth which gave occasion to
it reference is made to Hegesippus.
Chap. xvii. The persecution of Domitian. No authority
given.
' Except the part of chap, v which mentions the flight to Pella.
^ See above, p. 23. ^ See above, p. 26.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 51
Chap, xviii. § 1. St. John's banishment : Kurix^'^ X6yo9.
§ 2. The date of the Apocalypse : Irenaeus.
§ 4. The banishment of Flavia Domitilla :
01 diroOev tov Kad' r]fids Xoyov avyypatp^h.
Chap. xix. Summary account of Domitian's proceedings
against the grandsons of Jude: TraXaibs KUTex^i
X6yo9.
Chap. XX. § 1. More detailed account of the same : Hege-
sippus.
§ 7. General account of Domitian's reign :
Tertullian.
§ 8. Nerva's reversal of Domitian's policy :
01 ypa(f>fj rd Kard tovs \p6vovs irapaSovr^s.
§ 9. Eeturn of St. John to Ephesus : 6 tmu
nap' tifiiu dp\aL(iiv TrapaStScocri Aoyoy.
An examination of this table reveals the fact that for
four of the twelve sections into which chapters xi-xx
may be divided Hegesippus was used as an authority by
Eusebius, while statements are introduced by the formula
/carexet Xoyo^ or an equivalent four or five times, in all
but two of which the X6yo9 referred to is the Memoirs of
Hegesippus. And the phrase Kare^^L Xoyos seems every-
where to imply a written document.^ It is natural
to assume that throughout the narrative which we are
considering it always refers to the same authoritative
writing. And further, few will read together chapter
xviii. § 1 and chapter xx. § 9 without being convinced
that they are based on a single document. It would
be arbitrary in the extreme to postulate one source
for the statement that St. John went to Patmos, and
another for the statement that he left it. There is
a minimum of assumption in the further inference that
that document is the same as that from which Eusebius
^ See above, p. 21 f.
E 2
52 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
drew the information contained in tlie two or three
remaining paragraphs in which he uses the words
xrarexei Xoyoy. The assumption is made, if possible,
less formidable when we remember that elsewhere in
his third book Eusebius uses the same formula for the
Memoirs. In chapter xxxii. §§ 1, 2, he writes, 'A record
contains the information (Karix^i- Xoyos) that after Nero
and Domitian, under him of whose time we are now
treating, in various places and different cities persecution
was stirred up against us by risings of the people, in
which . . . we have ascertained that Symeon ended
his life by martyrdom. And the witness for this fact
is . . . Hegesippus.' And then he proceeds to paraphrase
the account of the martyrdom of Symeon with which we
are already familiar.^
Eusebius gives us no hint as to the source from which
he borrowed his general account of the reign of Domitian
in chapter xvii. But its closing words fit in most appro-
priately with chapter xii. Vespasian, says Eusebius in
chapter xii, attempted to extirpate the house of David,
and in consequence the Jews were persecuted. The very
same policy, he says in chapter xvii, led Domitian
further than his father had gone : he persecuted the
Christians. The antithesis may appear to suggest that
these two chapters were founded on passages which lay
not far apart in the same treatise. But chapter xii
certainly, as we have seen, came ultimately from
Hegesippus. And it will be remembered that Hege-
sippus was in the mind of Eusebius, if the Memoirs
were not actually open before him, when he began to
write chapter xvii. For chapter xvi ends with a
reference to that work. And finally it may be added,
by way of confirmation, that Rufinus believed that
* See above, p. 40, and Appendix III 1, m.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 53
chapter xvii was a quotation from Hegesippus. For
he renders the closing sentence of chapter xvi thus:
' Verum de seditione facta apud Corinthios ac dissen-
sione plebis testis valde fidelis Hegesippus indicat, hoc
modo dicens.' Rufinus, it is of course admitted, was mis-
taken in supposing that the sentences which follow make
any allusion to the aifairs of the Church of Corinth.
Let us assume, then, that all the passages of Eus. H. E.
iii. 11-20 which we have examined were taken from the
Memoirs. On that hypothesis we find ourselves able to
give a reasonable account of the construction of this part
of the Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius acted, it would
seem, exactly as we might expect that a historian would
act whose design was to give a narrative of a series of
events, which should practically consist of extracts from
earlier writers. He took as his basis Hegesippus, who
gave the fullest account known to him of the history
of the Church during the period with which he was
concerned. And here and there he added to his Hege-
sippean narrative illustrations from other authorities —
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Brettius, and the rest.
Thus by a completely different path we have arrived
once more at our former conclusion, that Eusebius drew
from Hegesippus the account of Domitian in chapter xvii
and the statement of chapter xviii that the Apostle
St. John was banished under Domitian to Patmos ; and
we have extended it by tracing to the same source the
further statement in chapter xx that the apostle returned
to Ephesus in the reign of Nerva.
"We are now in a position to collect the passages which
form the second series of extracts from the Memoirs.
I give a brief summary of each, prefixing to it the
reference to the place at which it may be found in
Eusebius's History, and a letter indicating its position in
54 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
Appendix IV. The summaries are arranged in the order in
which, as I believe, the passages appeared in the Memoirs.
H. E. iii. 12. (a) Vespasian ordered members of the
family of David to be sought out. A second
persecution of the Jews ensued.
H. E. iii. 17. (b) Description of the cruelty of Domitian,
resulting in a second persecution of the Christians.
H, E. iii. 19. (c) Domitian ordered the descendants of
David to be slain.
H. E. iii. 18. 1. {d) At this time St. John was banished.
H. E. iii. 20. 9. (e) He returned to Ephesus under
Nerva.
H. E. iii. 20. 1. (/) Under the above order (c) the
grandsons of Jude were arraigned.
Cramer and de Boor, 11. cc. (g) Their names were
Zocer and James.
H. E. iii. 20. 2-4. {h) They were examined by
Domitian.
H. E. iii. 20. 5 f. (/) After further examination they
were dismissed and the persecution was stayed.
H.E. iii. 32. 6. {Tc) The grandsons of Jude presided
over every Church and lived until Trajan's reign.
H. E. iii. 32. 6. (Z) Under Trajan Symeon was accused,
tortured for many days, and crucified,
//. E. iii. 32. 4. (m) His accusers were slain as being of
the Jewish royal family.
The reasons by which the order of the fragments here
epitomized has been determined must now be stated. We
may confine our attention for the moment to the group
b-m, the consideration of a being postponed to a later
stage of the inquiry.
In H. E. iii. 20 /, h, i form a continuous narrative,
the former part of which is quoted from Hegesippus in
the oratio recta and the latter part in the oratio obliqua,
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 55
including as its closing section a paraphrase of h.
Eusebius has here, in fact, treated a portion of the
Memoirs precisely as in H. E. iv. 15 he treated the
letter of the Smyrnaeans, reproducing it in the manner
partly of direct and partly of indirect quotation. There
can be no doubt, therefore, that /. h, i, k stood in the
Memoirs in the order which we have assigned them.
Again, that I followed k is manifest since they are con-
secutive parts of a passage transcribed from the Memoirs
in H. E. iii. 32. 6. Further, the epitome quoted above
from Cramer and de Boor summarizes h, d, h, i in
this order. Thus the order of the fragments h-m is
fixed with the exception of c, e, g, m.
The clause g is known to us from the Cramer-de Boor
epitome only, and there, though it follows i, its position
in the Memoirs is obviously undetermined. But it is
evidently connected with the narrative in /, h, i, and
I have inserted it after /as the place at which the names
of the grandsons of Jude would most probably be given.
If the method of Hegesippus had been strictly chrono-
logical the return of St. John from Patmos in the reign
of Nerva (e) would have followed i or perhaps k. But
it is not easy to find room for it there. And in fact
Hegesippus does not arrange his material chronologically.
The narrative of the election of Symeon to the episcopate
in or shortly after a.d. 70 is followed by a short account
of his martyrdom under Trajan.^ Just in the same way
it may be supposed that he passed immediately from his
notice of the banishment of St. John to Patmos, to
a statement that he left the island some years later.
Hence e has been placed after d.
In H. E. iii. 19 c is immediately followed by a para-
phrase of /; and apart from this evidence it is obvious
* See Appendix III g-m.
56 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
that Hegesippus must have mentioned the decree under
which proceedings were taken against the descendants
of David before recording the trial of Zocer and James
which presupposed it. But c need not have immediately
preceded / if this trial was not the first of the kind
mentioned. It is probable, however, that it came after
rather than before the general description of Domitian's
policy in h. Hence in regard to its position it has only
to be determined whether it preceded or followed d, e.
NoAv it is fairly certain that St. John was nearly related
to Christ,^ and was therefore a descendant of David and
liable to be proceeded against under the edict referred
to in c. We may suppose then without improbability
that he was banished in accordance with its provisions,
and that Hegesippus said so, though the summaries of
his statements about St. John which are in our hands
do not inform us of the fact. If we make this assump-
tion and place c before d the whole passage acquires
a logical coherence which it otherwise lacks. Domitian
issues the edict against the descendants of David. Under
it John is banished, and Zocer and James are brought
before the Emperor.
As to the position of m I do not feel so confident. It
certainly followed one of the two accounts given by
Hegesippus of the martyrdom of Symeon. Eusebius
seems ^ to connect it with the earlier of the two.^ But
on the other hand the incident occurred under Trajan,
and would naturally find place in the record of the
events of that reign. Moreover, the later account of the
martyrdom is fuller than the earlier, and the fate of the
accusers of Symeon is just such a thing as might be
^ See Westcott on St. John xix. 25.
2 H. E. iii. 32. 3 f.
» //. E. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III m.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 57
passed over in the more succinct and related in the more
detailed narrative. For these reasons I have put it after I.
A few words must here be said about the statement
made by Eusebius, in a passage in which he is para-
phrasing Hegesippus, that Symeon ' attained an end like
to the suffering of the Lord '.^ Of this clause Lightfoot
remarks ^ that it is ' apparently in the words or at least
according to the sentiment ' of Hegesippus, and one is
tempted to assume that it is a comment by that writer
on the fact that Symeon was crucified. But, though it
is certainly in Hegesippus's manner,^ it is also in the
manner of many of the early martyrologists, not except-
ing Eusebius himself, as Lightfoot has shown.* And
what appears to me conclusive against the claim of this
clause to represent otherwise unknown words of Hege-
sippus is the fact that Eusebius elsewhere, in a precisely
similar connexion, uses a phrase almost, if not entirely,
identical with it. Of the Apostle Peter he is represented
by an early Syriac translator as saying, ' In the likeness
of the suffering of our Lord he suffered '.^ The under-
lying Greek perhaps only differed from our clause in one
word. In the one place as in the other we have a mere
1 H. E. iii. 32. 2. See Appendix IV 1.
2 Ignatius, vol. i, p. 596.
3 See H. E. ii. 23. 10, 11, 16, and Lightfoot, 1. c.
* Lightfoot quotes M. P. (Grk.) 6. -5, to which may be added ib. 8. 10,
11; 11. 1, 24. It is remarkable, however, that in paraphrasing
documents Eusebius sometimes omits comparisons between the
sufferings of the martja-s and the passion of Christ. Cp. H. E. iv. 15.
11 f. with Mar. Pol. 6 f., and note that in his paraphrase {H. E. iii. 11)
of the passage quoted from Hegesippus in H. E. iv. 22. 4 he takes no
notice of the words as Ka\ 6 icvpios en\ rw avrw Xo-yw : see Appendix Illg.
^ M. P. (Syr.) Pref. (Cureton, p. ^) j^ y^9 o^a*.? )l(a20^o.
In the immediately preceding words ^^.Xol/ ^l oo we have
perhaps an attempt to bring out the force of anr]veyK.aTo rfKos. Cp.
Cureton, p. 44.
58 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
peripkrasis of Eusebius for the statement of the source
used that the martyr was put to death by crucifixion.
We are now able to regard the whole group h-m as a
series of consecutive, or nearly consecutive, passages from
the Memoirs of Hegesippus. In what relation does this
group stand to that with which we were concerned at an
earlier stage, and which ended with the shorter account
of the martyrdom of Symeon ? It is evident that the
arrangement of each group is roughly, though not exactly,
chronological. That this arrangement was deliberate is
implied in the formal introduction to the reign of
Domitian in the second group, which I have marked h.
But if so the inference is near at hand that the group
which on the whole deals with the later period followed
that which deals with the earlier ; or, in other words, that
h-m had a place in the Memoirs subsequent rather than
anterior to the first group.
That this was the case will further appear from a
passage which has been already quoted. According to
Eusebius ^ ' Hegesippus in his narrative about certain
heretics goes on to state that the above-mentioned
[Symeon], having at this time been charged by these, and
having suffered many and various tortures as a Christian
for very many days, and very greatly astonished the
judge himself and his attendants, attained an end similar
to the passion of the Lord '.
It has been pointed out that the first clause of this
sentence refers to the passage in which Hegesippus
speaks of Thebuthis as the earliest propagator of heresy in
the Church of Jerusalem.^ There are, it is true, other
references in the extant fragments to heretics,^ but an
1 H. E. iii. 32. 2.
2 H. E. iv. 22. 5. See Appendix III 1.
^ H. E. ii. "l^j. 8 ; iii. 19 ; iv. 22. 7. See Appendix II, III e, IV f.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 59
inspection of the passages will satisfy the reader that none
of them could have introduced an account of the martj^r-
dom of Symeon. The second clause couples with it the
shorter notice of the death of Symeon.^ That notice is
quoted by Eusebius immediately after the sentence which
we are considering ; and it accounts for the statement
that Symeon suffered torture because he was a Christian,
though it does not fully justify it, since it makes his
descent from David the primary charge. The statement
could not have been founded upon anything in the second
narrative of the martyrdom, nor upon any of the other
fragments of the Memoirs. But from this second narra-
tive the remainder of the sentence is plainly drawn. It
alone mentions the prolonged torture of Symeon, the
amazement of the judge and others who were present,
and the precise manner of his death. And the second
narrative is actually transcribed lower down in the same
chapter of the History y^ Thus in one sentence Eusebius
alludes to three distinct fragments of the Memoirs ; and
the probability is that he alludes to them in the order in
which they followed one another in that work. Hence
we conclude that in it the fuller account of the martyr-
dom, and along with it the whole group of passages to
which it belongs, followed the shorter, though not neces-
sarily in immediate sequence.
The order of the two groups of extracts from the
Memoirs having been determined it becomes possible to
discuss the question, To which of these two groups does
the passage about Vespasian {a) belong, if indeed it is to
be reckoned with either ? And what was its place in the
Memoirs ?
If Hegesippus had adopted a strictly chronological
' H. E. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III ru.
2 Ibid. § 6. See Appendix IV 1.
60 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
arrangement, it manifestly ouglit to liave been assigned
to the first group. But it is exceedingly difficult to find
a place for it there. Chronologically it might be put after
the notice of the election of Symeon, but in such a posi-
tion it would cohere very imperfectly with the context.
And we have seen that Eusebius seems to imply that it
did not immediately follow that section of the Memoirs.^
We may conclude that it is not to be placed before the
first notice of the martyrdom of Symeon.
On the other hand, it has a remarkable feature charac-
teristic of the second group. In the passages belonging
to that group special prominence is given to kinship to
Christ or descent from David as a ground of accusation
before the magistrates. This is first alluded to at the
end of the first group as the main reason for the con-
demnation of Symeon.^ It is explicitly mentioned as
the charge made against the grandsons of Jude.'^ And
it was because they were said to be of the Jewish royal
family that the accusers of Symeon were put to death.*
Moreover, as we have seen, it is not improbable that it
was alleged as the reason of St. John's exile at Patmos.
All this is in keeping with the information given in a
that Vespasian ordered the descendants of David to be
sought for. Such a statement may very well have
followed immediately, or at no long interval, after the
end of the first group, and as an introduction to the
second. We may suppose the sequence of thought to
have been of this kind. Hegesippus gave an account of
the episcopate of Symeon, ending with a short statement
of the issue of the malice of the heretical informers.
This involved the assertion that the principal charge
against him was his connexion with the family of David.
' See above, p. 26. ^ Appendix III m.
' Appendix IV f. * Appendix IV m.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 61
Now this was a charge which many of his readers might
not understand. It was probably unique in the annals of
martyrdom that a Christian should be put to death on
such a pretext. It was necessary therefore for Hegesip-
pus to show that his narrative was not encumbered with
an improbability. He had to find other cases in which
trials took place on the charge of relationship to the
Jewish royal family. The first of his precedents is the
persecution of the Jews, based on the principle that the
descendants of David ought not to be permitted to live,
and inaugurated by an order that inquisition should be
made for them. He passes on to Domitian's persecution
of the Christians. It also began with a similar order.
As a result St. John, the Lord's kinsman, was sent into
exile, and the two grandsons of Jude were dragged before
the Emperor himself. It was nothing wonderful if
Symeon was arraigned before Trajan's proconsul on a
similar charge.^ And so he returns once more to the
incidents of the martyrdom.
That we have found the true position of the reference
to Vespasian is confirmed by a fact which has been already
mentioned for a somewhat different purpose.^ This
passage is continuous with what we regard as its follow-
ing context, not only because it is the first of a series of
precedents, but because it stands in a relation of antithesis
to the passage which comes immediately after it in our
arrangement.^ The review of the policy of Domitian
^ iir\ T(3 avrc3 Xo-yw. This plirase indicates the real significance of the
naiTative about the grandsons of Jude. Valois takes it to mean ' quod
Christi fidem praedicaret ' ; but I do not think his reference to the
use of the same words in a wholly different context (B. E. iv. 22. 4)
will carry conviction. It appears obviously to signify here ' on the
same charge as the grandsons of Jude ', i. e. of relationship to David.
- Above, p. 52.
' II. E. iii. 17. See Appendix IV b.
62 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
demands, by way of introduction, some notice of Ves-
pasian ; for it indicates a contrast between the policy of
the two Emperors. If the passages about Vespasian and
Domitian are both from the pen of Hegesippus they must
have been in close proximity in his book.
IV
There remain no more than three or four short passages
of the Memoirs of Hegesippus expressly quoted or alluded
to by Eusebius in his History. The discussion of them
will be fitly introduced by pointing out the probable
bearing on Hegesippus' s argument against his heretical
opponents of the page of history contained in the
frao-ments with which we have till now been concerned.
Amongst those with whom he contended, as Eusebius
implies,' were the Saturnilians, Basilidians, and Carpocra-
tians, with possibly the Simonians and Menandrianists.
All these were the offspring, according to Hegesippus, of
the seven Jewish sects.^ Accordingly he shows, in the
passages quoted above, the evil deeds of their progenitors.
From them sprang false christs, false prophets, false
apostles, who destroyed the unity of the Church at
Jerusalem ; ^ they were the informers at whose instance
the trial of the two grandsons of Jude was held ; * they
brought about the death of Symeon.^ And he is careful
also to record the retribution which came upon them
when their own weapons were turned against themselves.
The accusers of Symeon were put to death on the very
charge which they preferred against him.^
Again, a stock argument with controversial writers on
' H. E. iv. 7. 15 ; 8. 1. ' H. E. iv. 2'2 5.
» Appendix III 1. * Appendix IV" f.
« Appendix III m, IV 1. ^ Appendix IV m.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 63
the orthodox side was the recent origin of heresy, as
contrasted with the deposit handed down from the
apostles by the regular episcopal succession. This argu-
ment is applied by Hegesippus to the case of the Church
of Jerusalem. He tells us that heresy first sprang into
avowed existence there under the leadership of Thebuthis,
in the time of Symeon.^ On the other hand, James the
Just was the first bishop and a colleague of the apostles ;
Symeon succeeded him after a regular election with
apostolic sanction. But here there comes into view a
feature of the argument which is not found in other
writers. "We have seen that kinship with the Lord is
prominent in the second group of fragments as rendering
persons who could claim it liable to persecution. In both
groups stress is laid upon it from another point of view.
Relatives of Christ had special honour in the Church.
The}' with the apostles were recognized as in a unique
sense guardians of the deposit of truth. James the Just
was the Lord's brother.- Symeon was His cousin ; and
he was chosen as bishop on this account." Those who
elected him were the surviving apostles and disciples of
Christ, together with His kinsmen according to the flesh.*
The grandsons of Jude 'presided over every church as
martyrs and of the Lord's kindred '.^ Thus James and
Symeon seem to have been custodians of orthodox
doctrine not more as bishops of Jerusalem than in virtue
of their close relationship to Christ.^ Accordingly it
^ Appendix in 1. - Appendix IIIc. ^ Appendix III i.
* Appendix Illh, i. ' Appendix IV k.
* In common with the other relatives of the Lord they had an
additional claim to be authoritative exponents of orthodoxy. They
were ' martyr-: '. Such also were St. John, Zocer, and James, in the large
sense in which Hegesippus used the word. That Hegesippus laid
stress on this fact in the connexion which has been indicated is
64 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF JIEGESIPPUS
was in the reign of Trajan — when the grandsons of Jude,
possibly the last surviving near relatives of Christ, had
passed away,^ when Symeon was crucified,- when St. John
was in extreme old age living at Ephesus,'^ or already
dead ^ — that heresy gained a firm foothold in the Christian
community.
It must be observed that just at this point, when he
has indicated the moment of the introduction of hetero-
dox teaching, Hegesippus's sketch of the history of the
Church of Jerusalem, and consequently the argument
founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For
though Eusebius gives a list of the bishops up to the reign
of Hadrian, and tells us that they were short-lived,^ and
later on adds a list of their successors,*^ he tells us nothing
else about the fortunes of the Church from the reign of
Trajan to the end of the second century, except the fact
that after the siege under Hadrian it became a Gentile
community. For the siege itself he seems to depend on
Aristo of PellaJ It is scarcely conceivable that if
Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of
Symeon Eusebius would not have used the material thus
afforded.
If I have with any measure of correctness interpreted
the argument of Hegesippus based on the history of the
Church of Jerusalem, we shall gain from it some help
towards surmounting the difficulties which encompass the
group of passages which must next claim our attention. It
relates to a journey of the writer to Rome, in the course
of which he made a stay of some length at Corinth. This
obvious from the remark about the last two quoted in the text. He
was but following the tendency of his age.
^ Appendix IV k. ^ Appendix III m, IV 1. ^ Appendix IV e.
* Irenaeus ap. H. E. iii. 23. 3.
5 H. E. iv. 5. « H. E. iv. 6. 4 ; v. 12. ' //. E. iv. 6. 3.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 65
journey would not have been recorded in the Memoirs
if it had not supplied material for his polemic. And if
Hegesippus used the knowledge acquired during his tour
about the Church of Corinth or those of Rome and other
cities as a basis of argument, we might expect that the
argument founded upon it would be of much the same
kind as that which he founded upon his fuller knowledge
of the Church of Jerusalem.
The group with which we are now concerned is not a
large one. Eusebius's contributions to our knowledge of
it are almost confined to a single chapter of his History
— Bk. iv, chap. 22. In that chapter we have a direct
quotation from the Memoirs containing a succinct
account of the journey. Eusebius tells us that it
was preceded by some information about the Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians. Now from an earlier part
of his work we learn that Hegesippus had written about
the schism which was the occasion of the Epistle.^ Since
the narrative of the schism would naturally precede the
account of the letter which it called forth, we may count
it as the first passage of the group. Of the second pas-
sage, containing ' some things ' about the Epistle, we
have information independent of Eusebius. It included at
least one quotation which, as we have seen,^ Epiphanius
reproduces.
Passing now to Eusebius's direct quotation from that
section of the Memoirs which immediately followed the
notice of Clement's letter, we find indications that it is
not a single fragment, but a collection of two or more.
Eusebius here, as in other extracts from Hegesippus,^
omits passages which do not suit his purpose, without
directing attention to the fact that he has done so. He
1 H. E. iii. 16. See Appendix Va.
^ Above, p. 9 f. See Appendix V b. ^ Above, pp. 20 if.
66 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
begins this quotation witli a sentence to the effect that
the Cliurch of Corinth remained orthodox to the time
€f Bishop Primus. And then he proceeds, ' with whom
{oh) I made acquaintance {<TVvk[XL^a) on my voyage to
Rome.' ^ The relative ' with whom ' has no antecedent.
Thus we have reason to suspect a lacuna between the first
and second clauses of the transcript. Our suspicion is
confirmed when we turn to the paraphrase of the passage
given earlier in the chapter.^ In it Eusebius says that
Hegesippus made the acquaintance {avveixL^^iev) of very
many {ttX^lcttols) bishops on his way to Rome, and found
all of them orthodox. This would be a gross exaggeration
if only Primus of Corinth had been visited by Hegesippus ;
scarcely less so if Eusebius intended to include the three
bishops of Rome subsequently mentioned. Before the
relative clause there must therefore have been a passage
in which appeared the names of many bishops. It
probably contained much more, but how much, or of what
kind, it is vain to speculate.
Having stated that he stayed with the Corinthians for
a good while, and was refreshed by their orthodoxy," the
quotation goes on to relate that he reached Rome and
' made a succession-list' (or, as some will have it, "remained
there ') up to the episcopate of Anicetus, 'whose deacon was
Eleutherus. And after Anicetus', proceeds Hegesippus,
* Soter succeeds, and after him Eleutherus.'^ Then comes
the remark, ' In every succession and in every city (the
doctrine) is such as the law and the prophets and the
Lord proclaim.' ^ Here several reflections suggest them-
selves. The extreme brevity of the notice of the Roman as
compared with that of the Corinthian Church is surprising.
For the latter included much to which Eusebius barely
' Appendix V c, d. ^ Appendix Vd.
^ Appendix V e. ■• Appendix V f . ^ Appendix V k.
THE HYP0MNE2IATA OF HEGESIPPUS 67
alludes, and apparently some things to which he does not
even allude. Then the character of the notice is peculiar.
In the single sentence quoted by Eusebius an act of Hege-
sippus after his arrival at Rome is mentioned, and the
names of three successive bishops are given ; but there is
nothing more. There is not a word which could have con-
tributed anything to his contention against the heretics.
Most remarkable of all is the absence of any special com-
mendation of the Church of Rome for orthodoxy, such as
that which had been bestowed on the Church of Corinth.
For the next sentence does not relate specially to Rome.
It is a summing up of the experience of Hegesippus through-
out the entire period of his travels. It speaks of every city
and every succession as being sound in the faith. It is
impossible to believe that it could have followed without
break on the bald statement that Eleutherus succeeded
Soter as bishop of Rome. It seems manifest, therefore,
that there is here another lacuna in Eusebius's transcript.
He has omitted almost all that Hegesippus himself would
have regarded as of special importance in his account of
his stay at Rome.
"Whether the two lacunae which have been pointed
out are the only ones in this quotation it is impossible to
determine. I am content to say that we are not entitled
to assume so much. Not only, however, does Eusebius
omit portions, and apparently large portions of the
section which he transcribes ; it is clear that he also
leaves unnoticed much of the preceding context. Only
the scantiest allusion is made to Hegesippus's remarks
about Clement's Epistle. The historian has no interest
in them ; they are referred to, not for their own sake,
but merely for the purpose of indicating the place in the
Memoirs of the passages on which he desires to fix
attention. He saj's nothing at all about the schism at
F 2
68 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
Corinth. And he gives us no information about the pur-
pose of the journey, though there must have been some
formal intimation of these things in the Memoirs}
Now why did Eusebius omit so much and quote so
little ? What was his principle of selection ? "We may
infer it, I believe, from the summary with which he
introduces his quotation. His main interest, it appears,
was the testimony of Hegesippus to the universal agree-
ment of the bishops in doctrine. To mark its significance
it was essential to mention the voyage to Rome which
gave Hegesippus the means of knowing the opinions of
the bishops of Western Christendom, and to give a general
indication of his route. It is evident that there was
much more than this in the passage which lay open before
him. But with the exception of part of one sentence
Eusebius actually quotes nothing which is not included
within the limits thus defined. The exception is easily
explained. He had evidently little material for fixing
the chronology of Hegesippus's life.^ But this section of
the Memoirs supplied an indication of date in the reference
to Bishops Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherus. Accordingly
the sentence in which they are mentioned is given in
full. And elsewhere Eusebius seems to use it for the
purpose of determining the duration of Hegesippus's
sojourn at Rome.^
Now pruning carried out on so drastic a method is
certain to result, not in the clearing away of useless
branches, but in the loss of some parts of the main stem.
^ As Zahn remarks (p. 246), such expressions as TrXewf els 'Pwn-qv,
yevofxevoi iv 'P<i>fj.r] cannot have been the earliest references to the
journey.
^ Note the very unsatisfactory evidence made use of in H. E. iv.
8. 2.
» H. E. iv. 11. 7. See Appendix V f.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 69
Eusebius no doubt retained all of Hegesippiis's travel
narrative that mattered from what happened to be his
point of view at the moment. But it is probable that
what he omitted was not only of greater bulk, but also,
from the point of view of the modern historian or
the ancient theologian, of greater value than what he
preserved.
This may be made clearer by an examination of the
portion of our document relating to Corinth. It has been
suggested that Hegesippus's treatment of this Church
probably resembled his treatment of the Church of Jeru-
salem. And what we know of the facts answers to this
expectation. Hegesippus gave some account of the history
of the Jerusalem community from the Apostolic age
onwards. There was a sim.ilar narrative of the history of
the Church ofCorinth, which certainly included the schism
in the time of Domitian, and may have begun much
further back. In regard to Jerusalem, again, he mainly
concerned himself with the qualifications, the appointment,
and the death of the successive bishops. It may have
been so in regard to Corinth also ; for it is significant
that the Epistle of Clement is treated of in connexion
with that Church, and not in connexion with Rome. It
may be (who can say ?) that the outcome of the schism,
and the letter which followed it, was the appointment of
the first monarchical bishop in that city, and that in that
fact lay the interest of both for Hegesippus. If so, we
are much the poorer for the loss of the part of the Memoirs
which had to do with the Corinthian divisions and their
consequences. But again, the remark that the Church of
Corinth was orthodox till the time of Primus recalls the
parallel statement that the Church of Jerusalem was
a virgin, untainted by false teaching, up to the time
of Symeon. The parallel may extend further. It is
70 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
commonly assumed that Primus was bishop of Corinth
when Hegesippus journeyed to Rome, and that he was one
of the bishops (he is sometimes spoken of as if he were
the only one) whose acquaintance Hegesippus made on the
voyage. But there is no warrant for the hypothesis in
the extant fragments of the travel narrative. We cannot
be sure that he was still bishop when Hegesippus touched
at Corinth, but even if he was, it is quite possible that he
was mentioned, and that the survey of the history of the
Corinthian Church ended with him, because in his epis-
copate heresy got a foothold in the Christian community
there, just as the history of the Church of Jerusalem ended
with Symeon because in his days Thebuthis introduced
false doctrine. And lastly, at Jerusalem the bishops and
relatives of the Lord were the guardians of the faith. In
like manner these fragments show that in Corinth and
other western cities, according to the view of Hegesippus,
the bishops — for here obviously kinship with the Lord
was out of the question — were invested with the same
trust. And thus his intercourse with many bishops in
the West provided him with a fresh argument against
heresy. Wherever he went he found the rulers of the
churches professing a doctrine identical with his own.
Orthodoxy was maintained, to use the language of a later
age, not only semper but uhique et ah omnibus.
Before leaving the fragments preserved by Eusebius it
may be well to say a word about a reading which has
given rise to much discussion — the words SiaBoyjqv
€7roir](Tdfir]u.^ With the single exception of the version
of Rufinus, who renders ' permansi inibi ', all the diplo-
matic evidence is in favour of the genuineness of these
words. It has been supposed that Rufinus read SiaTpi/Srii/
eTToir^a-afxriu. But this is far from certain : he may have
^ § 3. See Appendix V f.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEaESIPPUS 71
resorted to conjectural emendation, or, as Harnack
suggests,^ lie may simply have borrowed ' permansi ' from
H.E. iv. 11. 7. The fact is that Rufinus deserted his Greek
on very slight provocation. A few lines higher up it can
scarcely be doubted that he had before him the words
OLS crvi^ifii^a nXicov els 'Pcofxrjv, koL crvvStiTpt\j/a roTs
KopivOioLs, and he translated them ^ quern Eomam navi-
gans vidi et resedi cum eo apud CorhitJium'. But even
if Rufinus could be shown to have used a copy in which
the reading differed from that of the printed texts, its
testimony could not stand against the consent of all other
authorities, including the Syriac version, which is of a date
only a few years later than the autograph.
But it is said that the words are meaningless and
therefore must be emended. Without subscribing to the
dictum that the phrase is absolutely without sense, one
may admit that it is difficult. The Syriac translator,
Nicephorus, and Eufinus (if he read as we do) could make
nothing of it.^ But is not that very fact an argument in
favour of its genuineness ? Eusebius's History was a much
read, much copied, and early translated book. If Eusebius
wrote the word SiaSoxrju in error, why did no one correct
it ? Had none of the scholars into whose hands the History
came a copy of Hegesippus with the true reading ? The
wonder is that with or without such authority words of
so great difficulty remained without alteration. But
Harnack^ argues that we have an authoritative pro-
nouncement on the question from Eusebius himself. He
appeals to the statement,* ' Hegesippus relates that under
Anicetus he took up his abode at Rome and remained
there {Trapaixdvai re avroOi) until the episcopate of
Eleutherus.' This, it is urged, proves that Eusebius either
1 ChroHoIogie, i. 182 f. - Ibid. ; cp. Zahn, p. 244.
M. c. * H. E. iv. 11. 7. See Appendix V f.
72 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
read in our passage diarpi^rjv {ras StarpL^a?) eTroLtjad/xrjv
or else understood SiaSoxv^ eTroirja-d/xrju as meaning ' I
remained '. I cannot but think that this criticism is
somewhat hasty. It seems to take for granted that a
single sentence quoted by Eusebius is all that Hegesippus
wrote about his visit to Rome. Otherwise, why is it
impossible that Eusebius should have learned the date of
his arrival there from some other sentence ? But whether
based on our fragment or not Eusebius's statement really
makes the reading SLarpi^rjv eTroLrja-d/xrjv impossible. How,
after reading Hegesippus's own words that he ' remained
in Rome up to Anicetus ', could any one suppose that he
arrived under Anicetus and remained until the time of
Eleutherus ? ^ On the other hand, if Eusebius took the
words SiaSo^^rju e7roir]ad/j.r]P, as they have been generally
understood, to mean 'I made a succession-list', the inference
that Anicetus was bishop when Hegesippus reached Rome
and made the list was just as logical as the inference that
he was still in Rome when he ascertained that ' Eleutherus
succeeded Soter '.
Since it seems now to be a commonly held opinion that
Hegesippus wrote SiarpilSrjv i-rroirjad/xTju or some similar
phrase, it may be well to point out that in two other places
he expresses the sense which such a phrase is supposed to
convey, and that in neither does he use a periphrasis. He
remained with the Corinthians many days, and in telling
us so he writes a-vvdiiTpLy^ra.^ In an earlier passage he
tells us that after taking up their abode at Pella the
Christians of Jerusalem ' remained there '. And again he
^ Harnack goes near to giving up bis case when he writes, * Er (Eu-
sebius) erinnert sicb der Stelle als laute sie, •yei-o/xej/os- be. iv 'Pco/mj; kut
AviKrjTov Tcts diarpi^as (Troirjadfirjv axiTodi fiexP'-^ 'E\(v6epov.' So after all
H. E. iv. 11. 7 witnesses to a text absolutely different from any that
has ever been maintained to be genuine !
' H. E. iv. 22. 2. See Appendix V e.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 73
seems to have used the verb SiaTpt^^Lv} It may also be
remarked that in the two examples cited as parallel to
8LarpL^r]v €7roLr)(rdfi7)j/ in the sense • I tarried ', the phrase
actually used is ray Siarpi^a^ eTTOieiro.- The article, the
plural instead of the singular, and the imperfect tense
instead of the aorist are all worthy of note. And we must
not fail to observe that if in our passage we read SiarpL^rjv
€7roLr](ra.ij.r)v and translate ' I tarried ', some such adverb as
avToOt is necessary to complete the sense. The derivation
of SiaSoxvi" from SiarpL^^qv by mere clerical error is not
probable ; its derivation from ra^ Siarpi^ds is less so : that
it should have been deliberately substituted for either is
scarcely possible.
One may well be reluctant to abandon a reading so
strongly supported by external evidence and tran-
scriptional probability until it is clearly shown that no
meaning can be attached to it consistent with its probable
context, due allowance being made for the possibility ot
a solecism in such a writer as Hegesippus. But to this
question we shall return hereafter.
Meanwhile, an attempt must be made to recover some
passages of the Memoirs to which Eusebius makes no
reference. We again invoke the aid of Epiphanius. We
have already seen that he quotes from them a few words
of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.^ This
quotation is made in Haer. 27. 6. Let us see whether there
is any indication in the context that he made further use
of the book which is thus proved to have been open before
him while he wrote.
At the beginning of the same paragraph Epiphanius
1 Epiph. Haer. 29. 7 ; 30. 2. See Appendix III f., and above, p. 33.
2 H. E. iv. 11. 11 ; vi. 19. 16. And so also Epiph. Haer. 24. 1 (p. 68 c) ;
Chron. Faschal. s. a. 303 (Dindorf, p. 515).
' Above, p. 9. Appendix Vb.
74 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
speaks of one Marcellina, a follower of Carpocrates, who
taught in Rome under Anicetus. In doing so he evidently
uses the verj^ words of his authority ; for what he says is
this :
' A certain Marcellina who had been led into error by
them (the Carpocratians) paid us a visit some time ago.
She was the ruin of a great number of persons in the time
of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his
predecessors.'^
The words ' paid us a visit' (rjXOev els r}[ids) are evidently
taken over from a contemporary document, the phraseo-
logy of which Epiphanius, with a carelessness of which
we find other examples in the Panavion,^}m.^ forgotten to
alter so as to make it suit its new environment. Further,
if the next sentence is from the same document it would
seem that it was written after, though not very long after,^
the episcopate of Anicetus. And the expression ' bishop
of Rome ' may perhaps indicate that the writer was not
himself a Roman. That Epiphanius believed that he was
in Rome when he was visited by Marcellina, and that the
visit was paid under Anicetus, becomes plain when we
glance at the next page, where he repeats the information
in a somewhat different form ; ' In the times, as we have
said, of Anicetus, the above-named Marcellina having come
to Rome,' (fee* The record which Epiphanius uses in this
place seems, therefore, to have come from the pen of some
stranger who was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and
' Aj^pendix V h, i. The translation is that of Lightfoot {Clem. i.
329), I am not sure that the last words, Tmv avMTepm, should not be
rendered ' those mentioned above '. If so, the predecessors of Pius
must have been mentioned in an earlier passage of the writing from
which Epiphanius is quoting. Cp. below, p. 84.
2 See below, p. 127.
^ Cp. r]br) TTWf, 'some time ago,' which implies that the visit was
recent. ^ Both passages will be found in Appendix V h.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 75
to have been written not long after the death of that
bishop. Now if we are to believe Eusebius ^ Hegesippus
came to Rome under Anicetus, and there is evidence that
he wrote his Memoirs under Eleutherus,'^ who became
bishop nine years after Anicetus's death. Is Epiphanius
then quoting from the Memoirs'^ The suggestion is at
least plausible.
But there is other evidence in favour of it. The state-
ment about Marcellina is found also in the chapter about
the Carpocratians in Irenaeus's work Against Heresies.^
Now the whole of that chapter has obviously a close
connexion with the passage of Epiphanius in which the
notice of Marcellina occurs. In both we are told (1) that
the Carpocratians 'sealed' members of their sect by
branding them on the right ear, (2) that Marcellina made
many converts under Anicetus, (3) that the Carpocratians
were called Gnostics, (4) that they had images of Christ
painted or formed of ' other material ', which were said to
have been made by Pilate while Christ was on earth,
(5) that these images were placed beside images of philo-
sophers such as Pythagoras,Plato,and Aristotle,and (6) that
they were venerated with Gentile rites. '^ But Epiphanius
certainly did not here borrow from Irenaeus. Irenaeus
says that Marcellina came ' to Eome ', Epiphanius that she
came ' to us '. A late writer copying Irenaeus could not
have substituted the latter for the former. And Epiphanius
adds some particulars which are not in Irenaeus and
which he can scarcely have invented. He mentions the
instruments with which the branding was performed, he
1 H.E. iv. 11. 7. - Appendix V f.
'' Adv. Haer. i. 25. 6. See Appendix V h.
* The first statement in Epiphanius precedes the first, the last four
follow the second notice of Marcellina, where he returns, after a
digression, to his original authority.
76 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
expands the ' other material ' of Irenaeus into ' gold and
silver and other material ', and he refers at the end of the
passage to the doctrine of the Carpocratians that salvation
was of the soul only and not of the body. Thus it remains
that Irenaeus and Epiphanius based their statements on
a common document. No work, except the Memoirs of
Hegesippus, can be suggested which fulfils the necessary
conditions of time and place.^
Attention may be called to another point of contact
between this passage of Epiphanius and the Memoirs.
Hegesippus,^ like the author of Epiphanius's source, classed
the Carpocratians among the Gnostics, and it seems to
be implied by Eusebius that they were one of the heretical
sects against which he contended.^ But we may go
further. In the same context, and shortly before he
comes to name Hegesippus as one of the champions of the
faith against heretics, Eusebius makes reference to the
chapter of Irenaeus on the Carpocratians : ' Irenaeus also
writes that contemporary with these (Saturninus and
Basilides) was Carpocrates, the father of another heresy
called that of the Gnostics.' '^ Whence did he borrow
this description of Carpocrates? Not, certainly, from
Irenaeus ; for he says no more than that the followers of
Carpocrates called themselves Gnostics. But in the
parallel passage Epiphanius tells us that ' thence — i. e. from
the teaching of Marcellina at Rome, or perhaps from the
Carpocratians generally— has come the origin {ap-)(rj) of
those who are called Gnostics '.■" In tracing the origin of
Gnosticism to the teaching of Carpocrates did Epiphanius
^ Towards the end of the section Epiphanius uses the phrase
MapKeWlva iv 'Vafirj yevofievrj . . . 7]<j)am(re. Cp. HegesippUS (Appendix V f ),
yfi'ofxfi'os 8e iv Pco/jIJ/ . . . fnoirjcrafirjv.
2 H. E. iv. 22. 5. See Appendix III 1. ^ H. E. iv. 7 f.
* H. E. iv. 7. 9, referring to Iren. Adr. Haer. i. 25.
^ Haer. 27. 6 (p. 108). See Appendix Vj.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 77
follow the source more exactly than Irenaeus ? And in
dubbing him ' the father of the heresy called that of the
Gnostics ' does Eusebius echo the same phrase ? ^ If so,
we have an indication that the source was known to
Eusebius and was in fact the Memoirs. That dpxn (or a
cognate) was actually the word used by Hegesippus may
appear likely if we recall the words in which he speaks of
the first entrance of heresy into the Church of Jerusalem,
ovirci) yap €(f>dapTO aKoah \iaTaiai<i' apxexai <5e 6 Qk^ovQis . . .
vTro(f)6etpeLu ano tcov Inra aipia-ecou.^ In the present passage
all that is meant may perhaps be that the arrival of
Marcellina marked the beginning of Gnostic teaching in
Rome, just as the conduct of Thebuthis marked the
beginning of 'vain doctrine' in Jerusalem, though
Eusebius in both cases has given the words a wider
significance.
Immediately after his first notice of Marcellina Epi-
phanius proceeds to give a list of the bishops of Eome,
beginning with the 'apostles and bishops, Peter and
Paul', and ending with Clement. Then comes a long
digression about Clement, which has nothing to do with
his main subject, the Carpocratian heresy. Near the end
of the digression he mentions incidentally that the two
bishops who followed next after the apostles, Linus and
Cletus, ruled each for twelve years. Then he once more
sets out the order of succession of the bishops, this time
carrying it on to Anicetus, and resumes his account of the
^ The phrase in each case is remarkable : Eus. alpeaeas Ttjs rav yfco-
(ttikSdv fniK\r]6el(Tr}s. Epiph. yvaariKcov tS)v KaXoviJ.eva>v, Iren. ' Gnosticos
se vocant' (the Greek is unfortunately wanting). It seems as though
in the original document the assumption of the name ' Gnostics ' by
heretics was described as a new thing.
2 H. E. iv. 22. 4f. See Appendix III I. To the extract containing
these words Eusebius prefixes the remark, 'O 8' avroy Km t5>v kot' avrov
aipfdewv ras ap)(as VTrorideTai..
78 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
Carpocratians with a repetition in different words of
what he had already said about Marcellina. Thus he
returns to the document of whicli he had made use at the
beginning of the paragraph.
The list of Roman bishops, part of which Epiphanius
writes down twice, is taken from a document, and was
not compiled by Epiphanius himself. This fact is betrayed,
once more, by the carelessness of Epiphanius. The list,
on repetition, ends with the name of Anicetus, on which
follows, ' who has been already mentioned above in the
catalogue' (6 dvco kv rS) KaraXoyo) TrpoSeSrjXoo/j.ii'O'i). Now
there is in the Panarion no catalogue of bishops which
can be referred to here. The obvious inference is that
Epiphanius took his list from a writing in which its
position was considerably earlier than the note, and that
he has transcribed the latter, not observing that the
omission of the KardXoyos from its proper place rendered
it unmeaning.^
Further, most readers of this passage will probably
^ Zahn (p. 260 f.) suggests that, like the following 17 TrpodeBrj'Xw^ert]
Map/ceXX/crt, the words glance back to the beginning of the paragraph.
His attempt, however, to show that there Anicetus is named in a
catalogue is not very successful. But his reasoning is open to further
criticism. He argues, if I understand him, that because the remark
quoted above is made of Anicetus alone, and not of the other bishops
just named, the reference must be to an incomplete catalogue in
which all the other names were not given. But, if this be so, would
not the remark be somewhat pointless if any of the other names were
included in the earlier list ? On his own showing five out of the
ten are there. And what could be the purpose of saying that one
name in a complete list had been mentioned in an imperfect list now
superseded ? Once more, it is somewhat surprising to find that im-
jserfect list called the catalogue, as if there were no other, immediately
after a full series episcopormn had been written down. For that is
what Epiphanius calls it, if he really refers to it here, and not ' the
above catalogue ' [den ohigen Katalog) as Zahn translates his words.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPTJS 79
agree with Harnack when he says ^ that the list of bishops
and the episode of Marcellina are inseparably connected.
They must have been taken from the same document.
Hence, if the foregoing argument is sound the former as
well as the latter comes from the Memoirs of Hegesippus.
Thus we may account for the presence of such irrelevant
matter as a list of the bishops of Rome in a passage whose
subject is the heresy of Carpocrates. The account of the
Carpocratians, including the sentences about Marcellina,
was in the Memoirs inserted in the KaraXoyos after the
mention of Anicetus, in whose episcopate the heresy came
into prominence at Rome through the influence of that
lady. And Epiphanius when making use of it could not
refrain from adding some information from its context
which was little to his purpose. And so we discover that
the KardXoyos was not the mere list of names which the
word might seem to import,^ The name of each bishop
was associated with some account of his period of office.
This inference is supported by the fact that Epiphanius
tells us, no doubt relying on his /caraAoyoy, that Linus
and Cletus each ruled the Church for twelve years. It is
supported also by the digression about Clement. This
is really a digression within a digression. Epiphanius
breaks off his discourse about the Carpocratians to give
the list of bishops, and he breaks off the list when he
reaches Clement to explain the difficulty about his place
in the succession. It is natural to suppose that something
in the catalogue itself suggested this fresh interruption.
This can have been nothing else than an assertion that he
^ p. 184, following Lightfoot.
2 A different explanation, however, may be suggested. If each
historical note was headed by the name of a bishop as a sort of title or
rubric, the word Karakoyo^ might be regarded as applying to the list
of names as distinct from the notes.
80 THE HYPOMXEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
was a contemporary of the apostles and was appointed
bishop by St. Peter. The repetition of the former state-
ment in successive clauses ^ leaves the impression that it
was, as it were, the text of the discourse, and the use of
a Hegesippean phrase ^ in the latter is significant.
If all this is true the KardXoyos which Epiphanius had
in his hands must have been a kind of history of the early
Roman Church not at all unlike the history of the early
Church of Jerusalem which Hegesippus incorporated in
his Memoirs. Two special features of resemblance between
the two may be pointed out. As in the Memoirs the
manner of the appointment to the episcopate of James
and Sj^meon is dwelt upon, so here the appointment of
Clement by St. Peter while he and St. Paul were still
alive is recorded. And as there the introduction of
heresy into Jerusalem by Thebuthis under Symeon is
recounted, so here the introduction of Gnosticism into
Rome by Marcellina under Anicetus is duly noted, and
apparently dealt with at some length.
The conclusion to which we seem to be irresistibly led
by all these circumstances is that the whole of this para-
graph of the Fayiarion of Epiphanius, excepting only the
argument about Clement, is directly based on a passage of
Hegesippus's Memoirs. This conclusion is supported by
the high authority of Lightfoot, who, indeed, was the
first to suggest it. But distinguished scholars do not
accept Lightfoot's results in their entirety. Zahn ^ admits
^ 'S.vyx^povos a)v Uerpov Koi HavXov . . . om-os tovtov (TVy\pnvov Tlirpov
Kn\ UavXov, koi ovtos yap avyxpovos yiverni toiv aTioaToXcav.
^ "Eti irepuovTajv avTuiv. Cp. H. E. iii. 20. 1 (Appendix IV f) 'in 8e Trepirj-
crav OL anb ytvovs tov Kvpiov : H.E. iii. 11 (Appendix III h) rrXelovs yap
Kai TovTcoy rrfpirjcrav ds en rorf tw /3t&).
The same phrase may lie behind tovs tli en tw (iia Xfnvopevnvs a few
lines higher up in H. E. iii. 11 and eVi tw ^ta) ivbiarpl^ovn in H. E. iii.
18. 1 (Appendix lYd). ' ' » pp. 258 fF.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 81
the passage about Marcellina to a place in tlie Memoirs,
but rejects the hypothesis that that work contained a list
of the Eoman bishops. Harnack,^ holding "that the two
are inseparable, thinks it impossible that either can have
been in the Memoirs, though he admits the remote possi-
bility that they may have appeared in some other treatise
of Hegesippus. This possibility is, in truth, very remote,
since there is not a particle of evidence that Hegesippus
composed any work but the Memoirs. What then are
the arguments which are urged to prove that Lightfoot's
hypothesis is untenable ?
It is said, in the first place, that Eusebius, one of the
purposes of whose History was to record episcopal suc-
cessions,^ if he had known such a list drawn up by
Hegesippus, would have been certain to quote, or at least
to mention it. Does he not transcribe the later and very
meagre list compiled by Irenaeus ? ^ Now the argument
e silentio, though it cannot be altogether avoided, is always
treacherous. And it is not at its best when it is applied
to an unsystematic writer like Eusebius. It would be no
matter of surprise if for some reason not apparent he pre-
ferred the list of Irenaeus to one whose claim to precedence
was a somewhat higher antiquity. But if we might
hazard a guess, we should say that it was precisely the
meagreness of Irenaeus's list that secured for it the honour
of direct quotation almost in full. The catalogue, or his-
tory of the Roman bishops, fragments of which are
incorporated in the Pmiarion, may well have been so long
as to preclude such treatment. And it is quite possible
that Eusebius did not consider its compiler a first-rate
authority on Roman affairs, though he set much store by
what he related about the history of the Christian com-
^ Chronologie, i. 180 ff. ^ ^. ^. i. 1. 1.
3 H. E. V. 6.
82 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
munity at Jerusalem. Tliat he wholly abstained from
using his KaraXoyo? is, however, by no means certain.
Where else did he get the information that Linus and
Cletus each held oiEce for a period of twelve years ? ^
Hamack ^ makes an ingenious attempt to turn one of
Lightfoot's arguments against himself which must not be
passed over. He accepts the theory that when Epiphanius
says he found his quotation from Clement's Epistle in
certain virofxvqixarLcriioL he means that he took it from the
Memoirs of Hegesippus. But he thinks that by referring
to the Memoirs for this one extract he implies that the
facts recorded in the context were not taken from that
work. This argument will scarcely carry conviction. If
Epiphanius had given his references after the manner of
a modern critic it might have been valid, but that is far
from being the case.^ It is no doubt curious that one
who habitually gives no authority for statements taken
from Hegesippus does so just here. But a reason may be
suggested. Epiphanius was here not stating a mere fact
of history: he was quoting in support of a disputable
theory of his own a passage from a writing of which
elsewhere he betrays no knowledge, and of which he
probably expected his readers to be ignorant. He may
have thought it well to assure them that he had sufficient
ground for ascribing the saying to Clement. Moreover,
it will be observed that to copy this saying he was
obliged to turn to a different part of the Memoirs from
' H. E. iii. 13, 15. It will be remembered that Hegesippus is used
as an authority in chapters 11, 12, 16-20.
2 p. 185.
' See e.g. Haer. 29. 4 (Appendix IIIc, d), and especially Haer. 78.
7 (Appendix IIIj), where it might have been argued, on Harnack's
principle, that the only information guaranteed by Jewish tradition
was exactly that which in fact came from a wholly different source.
See above, p. 35.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 83
that which, ex hypothesi, he used in the preceding and
following context. For the Epistle of Clement was
noticed by Hegesippus in the section about Corinth, to
which neither the story of Marcellina nor the appointment
of Clement as bishop could have belonged. This in itself
might have provided a motive for giving the reference.
Finally Zahn ^ tells us that Epiphanius's list of bishops
cannot have been derived from the Memoirs because it
gives to the successor of Linus the name of Cletus, while
Eusebius and Irenaeus, who had read the ]\[emoirs, always
call him Anencletus. But why was Irenaeus bound to
follow Hegesippus in this matter rather than the authority
in which he found Anencletus ? And Eusebius had read
Irenaeus as well as Hegesippus. If he found Anencletus
in one and Cletus in the other, was it to be expected that
he would use both forms, or else of necessity prefer
Hegesippus to Irenaeus ?
I am not moved by such arguments to reject the view
that the authority for all the historical facts mentioned in
this paragraph is Hegesippus, and that all of them were
drawn from his Memoirs. And if this theory be accepted
there can be little question about the order in which the
several statements followed one another in the passage
from which Epiphanius took them. From this point of
view, however, one clause merits further discussion. We
have seen reason to regard the phrj se o dvoo iv rZ Kara-
Aoyco TrpoSeSrjXcofievo? as a direct quotation. But if so it
has wandered from its moorings. "W here did it originally
stand ? It may be assumed that it followed a mention of
Anicetus subsequent to the first occasion on which he was
named. Now if we suppose that it occurred in the Marcel-
lina section ^ in the genitive case this condition is fulfilled.
Hegesippus may have written eu xpovoi^ 'AvLKrjrov km-
' p. 260. 2 Appendix Vh,j.
g2
84 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
aKOTTOV 'Pco/nfji Tov di'O) kv Tcp KaraXoyco TrpoSeSr/Xcofiii^ov.
Since the notice of Marcellina occurs in the middle of the
account of Carpocrates it may have been so long subse-
quent to the introductory mention of Anicetus as to make
this cross-reference desirable. That Epiphanius should
have divorced it from its context and written it a few-
lines higher up is not surprising. He performed a similar
feat elsewhere.^ And in the place to which we have
assigned it we find in Epiphanius what may be counted
a paraphrase of it : ' who succeeded Pius Kal toov ducorepoo.'
The latter words have been rendered ' and his predeces-
sors '. But they may mean ' and those mentioned above '.
In that case we have an explicit reference to the Kard-
Xoyo9 as preceding the story of Marcellina.
It remains to inquire what was the position of the whole
passage in the Memoh^s. It is plain that it must have
belonged to that part of the record of Hegesippus's travels
which he devoted to the Church of Rome. It is equally
clear that it cannot have preceded the sentence in which
he records his arrival at the city.^ And it is highly im-
probable that it followed the notice of the orthodoxy of all
the cities about which Hegesippus had acquired informa-
tion in the course of his voyage.^ Between those two
passages, therefore, in spite of the fact that they are
successive sentences in Eusebius, we must insert it. And
we see at once that there it is in perfect harmony with its
surroundings. It enables us in the first place partially to
fill the gap left at this place in Eusebius's extract from
Hegesippus's account of his voyage.* And thus it saves us
from the necessity of thinking that Hegesippus treated of
the Roman Church in such scanty fashion as might have
been inferred from Eusebius. Moreover, it gives some
> See above, p. 35. " Appendix V f.
' Appendix V k. « See above, p. 66 f.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 85
sort of consistency to Hegesippus's method of argument.
We tind that, just as in the case of Jerusalem and Corinth,
so in that of Rome, what he wrote was mainly a resume
of the history of the Christian community, special atten-
tion being paid to the circumstances under which each
bishop succeeded to his charge and to the cause and time
of the rise of heretical teaching. This we have already
had occasion to observe. A further point may be noticed
now. The balance of probability seems to be in favour of
the supposition that the historical disquisition ended with
the episcopate of Anicetus,^ though there was material
for carrying it on to that of EleutheiTis. Why was this ?
Because, we may answer, it was under Anicetus that
heresiarchs began to congregate at Rome, to proclaim
their doctrines openly, and to win large numbers of
disciples. Such at least seems to have been the opinion
of the compiler ; and it is supported by the statements of
Irenaeus. It is true that from him we learn that the in-
flux of heretics to Rome began earlier. Valentinus and
Cerdon arrived during the short episcopate of Hyginus.^
But if Valentinus attained the zenith of his influence under
Pius, he was still in Rome in the earlier part of the rule
of Anicetus. On the other hand, Cerdon does not appear
to have been a formidable opponent of orthodoxy. When
he was excommunicated we do not know, but before that
' That is all that cau be said at the present stage of our argument,
for it is certainly possible that, as Harnack suggests (p. 185), Epi-
phanius interrupted his transcription of the list of bishops in order to
introduce the notice of the Carpocratians and had no further occasion
to refer to it. But on the other hand, if the Karakoyo^ was the list of
names as distinct from the historical notes appended to them (see
above, p. 79), the phrase 6 ai/co iv ra KarnXoya TTpo8f8r]X(ofjL€vo? seems to
indicate that it was already completed when the note about Marcellina
was written. If so, it did not extend beyond Anicetus.
2 Iren. Adv. Haer. i. 27. 1 ; iii. 4. 3.
86 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
event lie vacillated between avowal of orthodoxy and
furtive teaching of heresy.^ Of such secret propagation of
error Hegesippus took no account.^ Cerdon's successor
Marcion attained a position of influence under Anicetus,^
and it was probably at that time that he had his famous
interview with Poly carp. ^ The very fact that Poly carp
in the time of Anicetus succeeded in recovering to the
Church many followers of Valentinus and Marcion ^ is
eloquent testimony to the success of their propaganda.
And in the same episcopate Marcellina was no less success-
ful in spreading the doctrine of Carpocrates.^ Heresy
was in fact rampant at Rome under Anicetus as it had
never been before. If with him Hegesippus brought his
sketch of the history of the Roman Church to a close,
the correspondence between his treatment of Jerusalem
and Rome is complete.
Up to the present I have refrained from referring to
the statement of Hegesippus that on his arrival at Rome
he made a SiaSoxrj. I have contented myself with giving
reasons for the belief that the words SiaSoxriv iwoirja-dfirju
are genuine. "What then do they mean ? Mr. M^Giffert
remarks that ' if these words be accepted as authentic,
the only possible rendering seems to be the one which has
been adopted by many scholars, " Being in [rather, ' when I
arrived at '] Rome I composed a catalogue of bishops " 'J
But Harnack and Zahn agree that the words cannot possi-
bly have this meaning. No example, it is said, of the use
of SiaSoxr} in the sense of a list of bishops can be produced.
In H. E. V. 5. 9, to which Lightfoot appealed,^ as in other
passages, the StaSoxv is not a list, it is the matter of fact
which in the KaraXoyos is expressed in writing.^ Never-
1 Iren. iii. 4. 3. ^ H. E. iii. 32. 7. See Appendix Illk.
=» Iren. iii. 4. 3. * Ibid. iii. 3. 4. » Ibid. « Ibid. i. 25. 6.
^ Note 3 on H. E. iv. 22. ^ clement, i. 328. » Zahn, p. 245.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 87
theless the two words approach one another very closely in
their meaning. If SiaSoxTJ was sometimes used as equiva-
lent to KUToiXoyos it would be no more surprising than the
fact that Xoyos means not only ratio but verhum. It is hard
to see in what other sense Irenaeus uses the word SLaSoyji
when he says that Hyginus occupied the ninth place in the
episcopal succession from the apostles.^ Zahn admits that
in one passage the word is used of a written list of succes-
sive bishops ; ^ but he maintains that this passage is not to
our purpose inasmuch as it is there in the plural.^ But why
it should be assumed that at SiaSo)(ai means a single list,
and not several, I do not know. If the choice must be
made between altering the text and giving to the word
StaSoxv a meaning which is unusual, though not without
support, the latter is the alternative to be preferred.
But we are told that, whatever may be the meaning of
SiaSoxv elsewhere, here it cannot possibly indicate a list
of successive bishops of Rome. ' Hegesippus, who in the
preceding context had not spoken either of Roman
bishops or of the succession of bishops in other churches,
but of the Epistle of Clement, of his stay in Corinth, and
of his arrival at Rome, must in that case have written
something like rrji/ t5)v avroQi eTria-KOTrcoi' SiaSox^u kirotr]-
(Td/j.r]y.' ■* The answer is simply that we do not know what
Hegesippus spoke about in the preceding context, inas-
much as Eusebius has not quoted it fully. The only thing
that is certain is that he mentioned many bishops. And
with a similar answer we may meet Harnack's argument,
that since in the case of Corinth Hegesippus recorded the
1 Iren. i. 27. 1.
^ H. E. V. 12. 2 11(6' ov eViCTKOTreCcrai Kaacriavov al Tciv avToSi 5ta8o;^at
Trepuxovai,
' It will be remembered nevertheless that ras diarpi^as iiroidTo is
cited as parallel to dtarpi^qu eTroirja-dfir^v.
* Zahn, p. 244.
88 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
time of his visit and tlie orthodoxy of the Church, we
might expect him to adopt a similar procedure in the case
of Rome, and that therefore SiaSox^y eTroirjadfirjv or the
phrase which it displaced must express a date.' Such
expectations, indeed, are liable to disappointment ; but who
knows whether the date appeared in one of the passages
which Eusebius has omitted? There, at any rate, must
have been the commendation of the orthodoxy of Rome
if it was anywhere, since it is not in the present text.
Zahn 2 makes merry over the notion that Hegesippus had
no more important business to attend to when he got to
Rome than to draw up a list of the Roman bishops, ' that
his whole journey by land and water had actually no other
purpose than the construction of a catalogue of bishops ".
Certainly we find no hint of such a seeming absurdity in
the words ' when I reached Rome I made a succession-
list '. But what if the 8La8o\ri was not a mere list of
names, but such a document as lay before Epiphanius ?
If the purpose of the voyage of Hegesippus was to investi-
gate the history of the churches of Corinth and other
cities — above all Rome — and so to provide himself with
material for his refutation of heresy, is there anything
surprising in his announcement that he had no sooner
reached Rome than he set about the work which had
brought him there ?
Now if Hegesippus wrote that on coming to Rome he at
once engaged in historical research, this assertion has an
important bearing on our inquiry. For in the first place
it is improbable that the remark was wholly gratuitous.
It is a very natural inference that his investigation had
some connexion with the work in which the observation
occurs. In other words, we might expect that the SiaSoxTJ
which he made would in some form be incorporated in
' Chronologie, p. 181. "^ p. 244.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 89
the Memoirs, and, in all probability, it would follow this
reference to it after no long interval. Thus we are con-
firmed in our belief that the history of the early Church
of Rome which Epiphanius used was from the pen of
Hegesippus, and that we have restored it to its true place
in the Memoirs.
Again, on the same supposition, it is certain that the
terminus of Hegesippus's investigation was the episcopate
of Anicetus, a conclusion which on other grounds has
already appeared probable. Thus we have additional
reason for believing that the scope of his dissertation on
the Roman Church was similar to that of his dissertation
on the Church of Jerusalem.
And finally, whatever may have been the ground on
which Eusebius made the statement that Hegesippus went
to Rome when Anicetus was bishop,^ we are now able to
justify it. If immediately after his arrival at that city he
drew up an account of the succession as far as Anicetus, it
is plain that he cannot have made his visit to it before
Anicetus succeeded to the bishopric. And he cannot have
arrived under any later bishop, for under Anicetus he had
his interview there with Marcellina. Hence it follows
that it was during the rule of Anicetus that he took up his
residence at Rome.
We have now to ask the same question about this
whole section of the Memoir's which has been already
asked about the portion of it which has been recovered
from the Panarion of Epiphanius. What was its position
in the treatise of Hegesippus ? In this case the question
must be answered with some degree of hesitation. But
we may observe, in the first place, that, if we are correct
in supposing that its argument was similar to that of the
long section beginning with the account of James the
1 H. E. iv. 11. 7.
90 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
Just, tliat fact gives us some ground for holding that it
belonged to the same part of Hegesippus's work, or in
other words that it was part of the fifth Memoir. And we
may go further. The natural course of his argument
would be to begin with that which he knew best, the
history of the church of which he himself was a member,
and to pass on from it to that with which he was less
familiar, the knowledge of other churches which he
acquired during his travels. It may be reasonably con-
cluded that the notice of western churches, of which our
third group is a part, had its place in the fifth Memoir
after the notice of Jerusalem in the first and second
groups.
V
Three isolated passages remain to be considered. The
first is one in which a doctrine obviously based on 1 Cor.
ii. 9 is denied on the ground that Christ taught the con-
trary in St. Matt. xiii. 16.^ The persons whom Hegesip-
pus was refuting were probably Gnostics of some kind
who founded part of their teaching on St. Paul's words.'^
If we may trust Photius, to whom we are indebted for our
knowledge of the passage, it was in the fifth Memoir, but
it seems impossible to fix its position more accurately.
Another fragment consists of the end of one sentence,
and the opening words of a second, in which Antinous is
mentioned.^ It seems to be taken from a polemic against
paganism. It is therefore probably alien to the subject
of the fifth Memoir, and in consequence I regard it as
belonging to one of the first four.
1 Photius, Bill., 232. See Appendix VI.
2 Cp. Hippol. Philos. V. 24, 27. And see Milligan in Diet, of Christ..
Biog. ii. 877 ; Burkitt, Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire,
1899, p. 80 f.
3 H. E. iv. 8. 2. See Appendix I.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 91
The third fragment relates to the seven sects of the
Jews. About them Hegesippus tells us in his account of
James the Just he had already written in his Memoirs.^
The passage to which he refers therefore certainly-
preceded the first of our extracts from the fifth Memoir,
and probably belonged to one. of the first four.^ A portion
of it is no doubt preserved in the list of the sects quoted
by Eusebius, by way of comment on a reference to them
in connexion with Thebuthis.^ It is impossible to deter-
mine whether the position of this fragment in the
Memoirs was before or after that concerning Antinous.
VI
It will not be supposed that the passages to which
attention has been given in this Essay, and which are
collected in the Appendix, are regarded by the present
writer as the only ones in which Eusebius has made use
of the Memoirs of Hegesippus. In some of them we have
no direct statement of the historian as to the authority
on which he relied, and it would not be surprising if
proof were found hereafter that in other parts of his
History he in like manner quoted or paraphrased the
same work without express acknowledgement of his in-
debtedness to it.
One passage may be mentioned here which is reason-
ably suspected to have been in part based on the Memoirs,
though the evidence is not strong enough to warrant its
* H. E. ii. 23. 8. See Appendix III e rtfes ovv ratv i-nra nipe(T(a)VTa>v fv
rw Xaw, Tcov Trpoyeypafifxevaiv fj-oi [eV to7s viTOfjivr]ij.aaiv] ktK. The bracketed
words are regarded by Schwartz as an addition of Eusebius, and
Rufinus omits them. The question whether they are from the pen of
Hegesippus is for our purpose immaterial.
^ So Zahn, p. 232.
^ H. E. iv. 22. 7. See Appendix II.
92 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
inclusion in the Appendix. I refer to the chapter in
which he gives a list of the early bishops of Jerusalem.^
It is true that there is no probability that the list itself
comes from Hegesippus, Eusebius in fact tells us that he
found it in the succession-lists preserved on the spot.-
And Mr. C. H. Turner, after a careful examination of the
evidence, has come to the conclusion that if it was not
manufactured for his benefit, it was at least not long in
existence when he wrote his History.^ But it is not
unlikely that Hegesippus mentioned some bishops of
Jerusalem later than Symeon, just as he mentioned two
bishops of Rome later than Anicetus, and if he did the
names given by him would certainly be included in the
apocryphal list. That list, as it came into Eusebius's
hands, had no chronological notes. But after telling us
this he adds, ' To be sure a record informs us that they
were very short-lived.' * Now, as regards the thirteen
bishops who followed Symeon, this might have been
inferred from the list itself. Symeon was put to death,
according to Hegesippus, in the reign of Trajan ; Jeru-
salem was taken by Hadrian in a.d. 135. That is to say,
thirteen bishops succeeded one another in thirty-five
years. If from this we may not conclude that they died
young, it is at any rate a permissible surmise that none
of them ruled the Church for a long period. But the
form of Eusebius's expression does not favour the sup-
position that his statement was a mere corollary from
the number of names in his list. The remark would
appear to have been explicitly made in the record to
' H.E.iv.5.
^ H. E. V. 12. 2. This applies only to the list of bishops succeeding
Hadrian. But cp. Dem. Ev. iii. 6 (p. 124 C) ; Theoph. v. 45.
3 Journal of Tiieological Studies, i. (1900) 552.
* H. E. iv. 5. 1 KOfxi^rj yap ovv ^paxv^iovs avrovs \6yos KaT(\eL yeveadai.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 93
which he appeals. And it is not likely to have been
made in a bare list of names. It is also to be observed
that, though this remark is by Eusebius made to apply
to the whole series of bishops, it does not hold good of
the first two. For both James and Symeon were aged
men when they suffered martyrdom, and, according to
Hegesippus, the episcopate of each of them lasted some
thirty years or more.^ This encourages us to think that
Eusebius, borrowing it from a document in which it
referred to the thirteen successors of Symeon, carelessly
extended its scope. And it is at least a coincidence that
in introducing it he makes use of the very phrase which
in many other places served to indicate the Memoirs of
Hegesippus.2 A little lower down, too, he makes another
observation, which, as Zahn notes,^ has a Hegesippean
ring. Just as Hegesippus did in the case of the western
sees with which he became acquainted on his voyage, so
here Eusebius commends the orthodoxy of the bishops of
.Jerusalem, and that in words which recall his paraphrase
of Hegesippus's account of the election of Symeon:
' They say that being all Hebrews by descent they
accepted the knowledge of Christ in sincerity, so that in
fact by those who were able to judge of such matters they
were also approved as worthy of the office of bishops.' *
' Compare Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, i. (1900) 535.
^ See above, pp. 23. 50 f. I cannot think that Mr. Turner (1. c. 537) is
ricrht when he says that Xoyoy KaTc^et here means ' no more than the
local tradition of the Church at Jerusalem as it existed in Eusebius's
day '.
=» p. 287.
* § 2 ovs Trai-ras 'EiSpniovs (f)a(r]v ovras aviKodev Trjv yvaxriv tov Xpiarov
yvTja-ibds KnraSe^aadai, Sxtt rj8r] irpbi tCov to Toiabe eTTiKpivfiv bwaroiV Ka\
Tr)S rav eniaKoiraiV ^eirovpyias d^iovs SoKifinadrjvai.
Compare H. E. iii. 11 (Appendix 111 h, i) ^ovXtjv re 6p.ov tovs iravras
irepl TOV Tiva xp'l f^is 'lana^ov 8ui8ox>)S t-iriKpivai a^iov noirja-aadai, kri . . .
Toijs TTavrns Su/xcco^a . . . tov ri^s avTodi TrapoiKiai 6p6vov a^iov dvai
94 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
On the whole there is some ground for thinking that
parts of this chapter come from Hegesippus, though we
cannot attempt to determine how much may be referred
to him, and how much to other sources.
It is hardly necessary to point out that whatever
fragments of Hegesippus may lie buried in this chapter,
they must all have come from that part of the Memoirs
which intervened between our second and third groups
of passages.
VII
Before bringing this Essay to a close it may be well to
direct attention to some of the results to which our
investigation has led us.
In the first place, the thesis which I undertook to
maintain has, I believe, been fully established. We have
rescued from the pages of Eusebius and Epiphanius a
large number of fragments of the Memoirs, which fall
into three groups, and are the remnants of two long
passages. We have shown that the first of these passages ^
belonged to the fifth Memoir, and that the second ^ pro-
bably followed it in the same division of Hegesippus's
treatise. They embrace all the known fragments from
his pen dealing with the history of the Church. This
goes far to prove that there were few, if any, references
to Christian history in the earlier Memoirs, and to refute
the charge often made that Hegesippus arranged his
material at haphazard.
But in one or two other matters our researches have
incidentally increased our knowledge. Some of the
fragments included in the Appendix to this Essay are not
8oKi}jiao-ai. It is no doubt true that if in our passage Eusebius is
quoting Hegesippus he uses ^aji in a sense which is unusual with him,
though not altogether without example. See above, p. 36.
^ Appendix III, IV. * Appendix V.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 95
expressly cited by Eusebius or Epiphanius as from
Hegesippus, and a few of them have not been generally
recognized as his by modern scholars. The most important
of these are perhaps the two which relate to the banish-
ment of St. John.^ Now evidence from the second century
in regard to the date and authorship of the canonical
Apocalypse is both scanty and, in some respects, difficult
to interpret. But if the two passages referred to are
really from Hegesippus we have his testimony that St.
John the Apostle was banished to Patmos under Domitian,
and resided at Ephesus under Nerva. That is to say, he
must be added to the small band of early witnesses to the
late date and apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse.
And this is full of significance. It is not only that
Hegesippus is the earliest writer who can be quoted in
favour of that view. That, indeed, we may well claim for
him. Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of the exile in
Patmos, died no earlier than between 212 and 217;^
Irenaeus, who affirms that ' John the disciple of the Lord ' ^
resided in his later years at Ephesus, first comes into
prominence in 177 when he became bishop of Lyons,^ and
was little more than a boy in 155.^ But Hegesippus
would seem to have already held a prominent position in
the Church about 155, when he made his journey to Rome.
He may have been only a few years younger than Papias
of Hierapolis.*' But the importance of the evidence
^ Appendix IV d, e.
"^ Harnack, Chronologie, h. 6.
^ That by this phrase Irenaeus indicates the apostle is shown by
.7. H. Bernard in the Irish Church Quarterly, i. 52.
< H. E. V. 4 f.
5 H. E. V. 20. 5 ; cp. Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 107 f.
« Harnack, op. cit. i. 357, dates the f^rj-yqa-eis of Papias c. 145-160.
Others however put his floruit much earlier, e. g. Sanday, Criticism of
Foutih Gospel, p. 250 f.
96 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
supplied by Hegesippus seems to lie in another direction.
A fragment attributed to Papias, which is extant in two
manuscripts, contains the assertion that St. John the
Apostle was put to death by Jews.^ If this be true it
disposes of the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse.^
And the testimony of Papias has great weight. If the
apostle was martyred by Jews, he cannot have spent the
closing years of his life at Ephesus. And if he lived at
Ephesus, the bishop of Hierapolis cannot have been
ignorant of the fact. But, on the other hand, Hegesippus,
if he was not, as Eusebius supposed, a convert from
Judaism,^ was yet obviously in close touch with Pales-
tinian Christianity. It is very difficult to believe that if
St. John had suffered martj^rdom in Palestine he would
not have been aware of it. And if he had heard the story
and gave credence to it, he could not have said that the
apostle was sent to Patmos by Domitian, and lived at
Ephesus under Nerva.
Bat of more importance for the student of Eusebius than
fresh evidence on this disputed question is the light thrown
by our investigation on the historian's method of quoting
his authorities. Of the passages of his History with which
we have been occupied five are of considerable length and
claim to have been transcribed from the Memoirs of
Hegesippus.* In no less than four of them it has been
proved that the historian in copying omitted some parts
of the text. It is true that in one case the omission is of
^ On the question whether this statement was really made by
Papias see Lightfoot, Essays on Supetmatural Religion, p. 212 ; Har-
nack, op. cit. i. 665 ; Bernard, u. s., pp. 55 fF.
^ H. B. Swete, Apocalypse'^, p. clxxx.
3 H. E. iv. 22. 8.
* ^. £■. ii.23. 4-18, Appendix III c-e ; H. E. iv.22. 4^6, Appendix
Illg, h, i, 1; H. E. iii. 20. If., Appendix IV f, h; H. E. iii. 32. 6,
Appendix IV k, 1 ; H. E. iv. 22. 2, 3, Appendix V c-f, k.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 97
inconsiderable extent ; ^ but in others the omitted portions
were apparently nearly as long as those which have been
preserved,^ or even much longer ; ^ and in none can we
count them as of no importance. These are phenomena
which cannot be confined to passages in which the direct
quotation can be checked by comparison with a paraphrase
in another part of the History, or in another writer such
as Epiphanius ; nor can they be limited to excerpts from
a single source. It is clear that the direct quotations of
Eusebius ought to be subjected to a closer scrutiny than
they have yet received, with the special purpose of
detecting signs of omission.
^ Appendix IV f-h. "^ Appendix III g-1.
' Appendix V c-k.
H
APPENDIX
THE EEMAINING FEAGMENTS OF THE
HYPOMNEMATA
Passages quoted by our authorities in the ipsissima verba of the texts of
Hegesippus which lay before them are printed in larger type. Para-
phrases of Hegesippus's language are in smaller type. Words which
it has been found convenient to include, though they are not based on
phrases of Hegesippus, are enclosed in square brackets. Words in
columns other than the first, enclosed in angular brackets, are such
as are probably derived from the genuine text of the Memoirs, notwith-
standing the fact that they do not occur in the first column. Occasionally
words are conjecturally inserted in the first column enclosed in angular
brackets.
MEMOIRS I-IV
H. E. IV. 8. . . oU KevoTOLfjiLa kol vaov<s iiroLrjcrav w? fte'xpi vvv'
wv ia-TLV Kal 'AvtiVoos, SovXos 'ASpiavou Katcrapos, ov kol dywv
aycTat Avrtvoeios, 6 €'<^' rj/xuiv yevo'/Acvos. Kal yap ttoXlv Iktio-^v
iTTdJVVfJLOV AVTIVOOV Kttt TT/ao^i^Tas . . .
II
H. E. iv. 22. '^Ho-av Se yvwfxai. Sta^opot eV t^ TrepiTOfxy Iv niots
'la-parjXLTW^ Kara rrj? cf}v\rj<; 'lovSa Kal tov Xptarov avraL' 'Eo-o-atoi,
raAiAatot, 'BfxepofiairTKTTai, Ma(r^w$€OL, ^a/xapeLrai, SaSSouKaioi,
^apiaaloL.
MEMOIR V
III
^ Epipli. Haer. 78. 7 (p^ 1039 B). a. 'E^x* 5« ovros 6 'Iujar}<p rf/v nlv irpwTrjv
atTov yvvarita etc Trjs (pvKrj^ 'lovda, Kat KvtaKei ai/ro) avxTj rraCSas tov dpienov e£ ,
rtaaapas fiiv dppevas 0rjKdas Si dvo, KaOarrep to' evayyiXiof to KaTo. MdpKov
Kal Hard 'Icudvvrjv iaacpijviaav.
Epiph. Haer. 78. 8 (p. lOiO A), b. IUth hIvtovtov Tov'ldKQj^oviyyvsirov
■nepi fT7] yfjovwj TiaaapaKOVja TrAfi'oi (kdaaai. pitr' avTov b( yiverai irais 'lojarj
KaXovfievos. dra fiej avrbv 'S.vp.fwv, enftTa 'lovSas, Kal 5vo OvyaTipes, r/ Mapia
Kal fj ^aXwfiT] Ka\ovnivrj, Kal TiOvrjHiv avTov i) 71/1/7. koI fierd 'irtj TroKXd Xanfid-
VH TTjv Mapiav xhpos, KaTayaiv fjKiKiav nepi irov oySoTjKovTa kruiv koI -npuau o dvrjp.
H.E.n.2S. c. "Aia-
0€)(€TaL rrjv kKKXrjo-iav
fxera twv dTrocrToAwv 6
aoeA^os TOV Kvpiov
la/cw^os, 6 ovop.acrOei'i
VTTo TrdvTWV StKtaos aTro
T(i)V TOV KVpiOV )(p6v(i)V
fJ-^XP'- '^^'- ly/^wv, iirel
TToAAoi laKOijioL CKa-
XovvTO, 'oiiros 8k e/c
KoiAt'as fxrjTpos avTOv
UyiOS T]V, OLVOV KOL
(TLK€pa OVK CTTICV, Ov8k |
Epiph. ifaer. 78.
7 (p. 1039 B)
C. 'Effx's fieu oSf
(jt pCliTOT OKOVy
TOV 'Idncuffov
6. Tov iniKXTjOiV-
Ta w0Kiav, fpfirj-
VeVOpLiVOVTllXOS,
Kal Si/totoc ejr(-
KkrjOivra,
C. va^ojpatov 8e
ovTa, onep (purj-
vevfTai dyios. Kal
TTpaiTOS OVTOS fl-
Krjipf TTjv Kadi-
Spav TTJi (irt-
aKo-nrji, (S Trent-
Epiph. 29. 4
(p. 119 B). c.'H^-
yap (^ITpQJTOTO-
«oy) Toi 'lwcri)<p
Kai ■qyiaa^tvos
Epiph. Haer. 78.
13 (p. 1045 B).
c. 'O 'laKculSoi 6
dSf\(f>bs TOV KV-
piov, OS '^{^' wv
irwv TiXtvTa,
■napOfvos yeyovws'
«</>' ov KfcpaXfjs
aiSrjpoi OVK uvrjK-
0(v, OS OVK fKe-
XprjTO BaXavfio),
OS f/Jitf/V)(OV OV
j^fTfa^fv, OS X'- '
THE HYPOMXEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 99
i—l TTjv K€(j)a\i]v av-
TOii ovK avijSrj, cAatov
ovK rjXeLij/aTo, Kal (3a-
Aaj'eto) OVK i)(prj(TaTO
d. . . . " Tol'tco /xdvo)
e'c^v €1? Ta ayia (^rCiV
dyt'co)') elcrUrat'
ov'oc yap iptovv i(f)6-
piL, dAAa crtvSovas.
Kai p.OVO'i €la"qp)(€TO CIS
Tov vabv rjvpia-KCTO T€
KeLfievos eTTL tols yova-
CTLV Kat aiToi'yxevo? vTrep
TOV Xaov acfiecriv, ws
a.Tr€<jKXrjKivaL to. yo-
vara avrov hiK-qv Kapuq-
Aov, 8ia TO del Kot^TTTetv
eirt yovv TrpocTKVvoiJvTa
Tw ^€w Kat aiTelcrOai
afjieiTiv t(o Aaw. . . .
(TTevKt KVpiOS
TOV OpOVOV
avrov iTTi rrjS
7^5 TTpdlTCU-y
OS «at (KaXfl-
TO 6 dS(\(l>ds
TOV KVpioV.
d. 'Eti S€ KOi
{l i paT fvaavra^
avTov Kara Trjv
Tra\aiav hpaiav-
VTjV Tjvpofiev. 5io
icai fcpifTO avTO)
ana^Tov hviavTOV
SIS TO. ayta (^tujv
ay'icuvydai (vai ,ws
Tcts dpxifpfvffiv
€KfK(V(7fv6v6/XOS,
Kara rb yeypaft-
ixivov. [OVTCUS
yap taroprjarav
TToWoi irpo ^fiSiv
nepl avrov, Ei-
ffejSfos re koi
K\.rifji,T]i ical d\-
A.oi.] aWd (^Kai
TO triTaXov km
T^s Kt<pa\rj'i f^fjv
avTai (popui/ .')[Ka-
6ws 01 npoeiprjfii-
voi d^ioTTiffTOi av-
Spes ivTols avToh
VTTOfiUrjfiaTKJfloTs
kfxapTvprjaay^.
Epiph. Haer. 78. 14
(p. 1046 A), c. (See
below)
d. Ouros o 'laKcoBos
(^Kai TtiTaXov inl t^s
(^Koi noTf d$poxias
yfvop.ivq's ijrfjpt rds
\etpas th ovpavbv koI
irpoarjv^aTO, Kaliv6vs
b oiipavbs eSojKev vf-
TW.) eptovf 5e Ifxd-
Tiov ovSfjroTf eveSv-
(XaTO. Ta St yovaTa
avTov effKKijKiaaav
Siicrjv iianrj\ajv, dnb
TOV -rrdvTOTi KafJlTtTflV
aVTa (VUITTIOV Kvpicv
e. 5i' iivep^oXfjv (^iv-
\a^(ias.y
C, TOVTOV OVl' ovo/xaTi
ovKiTi fKaKovv, dAA'
b SUaioi ^v avTw
bvona. OVTOS OvSi-
TTOT( iv ^aKavfiai
tXovffaro' OVTOS ip.-
ifnJXOV OV pLfTiCTXi,
[/card's dvcu fioi npodf-
d'qXwTaiy (^ovTos crav-
SaKioy ovx vtkStj-
aaToy.
Tujviov Sevrepou
OVK (VfSvaaTo, os
TptPojviai (KiXPV'
TO Kivai porwrd-
Tw, KaOdirep kt\.
d. fiOVOV TOXITW
TW 'laKUJ^W (^T]V
dira^ iiaiivai tov
tTOvs ils rd dyia
(^T(uv d-yiW), 5id
TO va^wpalov av-
rov (tvat Kai (^pe-
puxOai rfi hpaicv-
H 2
100 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
©. ^Aia y€TOL Trjv vTrep^oXijv rrj^ hiKaioavvr^'i avrov iKaXelro 6 StKaio?
Kai toySAtas, o i(TTLV iXXrjVLCTTL Tr€pLO)(y] tov Xaov, Koi ^LKaLOcrvvrj, ws ol
Trpo(firjTai 8r]Xov(rtv irepl avTov.^ * Tive? ovv twv kirra. alpeaewv rwv
iv TU) Xa<2, TciJv Trpoyeypap.p.€v<i)v jxol iv tois virop.vrjfxacnv, eirvvOdvovTO
avTov Tt's r} Ovpa tov 'It/ctov, Kai eXcyev tovtov Etvat tov a-inTrjpa' ^ cf
wv Tivcs cTTtcrreucrai' on It^ctovs eo^rtv o Xpto-ros- ai 8e aipeVets ai
Trpo€Lpr]p.evai ovk iirLO-Tevov ovre avdcTTaa-LV ovt€ ip)(6fjievov airoSovvai
iKaaTio Kara to. epya avrov' oa-oi Se koI iTriarevcrav, 8ia 'la/cw/Jov-
^" iroXXwv ovv Koi Toiv dp^ovTiov Tria-TevorTiDV, rjv 66pv(io<i tCjv 'lovSaLiov
Kat ypa/Xyuarccov kol ^aptaaiuyv XeyovTwv on KLvSvvevei ttS? 6 Aaos
lr](rovv TOV UpLarbv TrpoahoKav. cAeyov oSv o-weA^dvTts tw 'la/cw^co'
IlapaKaAoDyLiev o^c, €7rto-;^€S tov Aaov, cttci lirXavrjOr] ei? 'J>;o-o{)v, d)S
airroi) ovtos tou XptcrTov. TrapanaXovp.f.v ere Trelcrai TravTas toli? eA^ov-
Tas €is T7JV TjfJiepav tov Tracr^a Trcpi I>^o-o{)' o^ot yap ttcivtcs ireiOop.eOa'
i^/Acis yap fiapTvpovp-ev aoL Kat ttSs 6 Aaos OTt St'/caios tt Kat oti
Trpoo-wTTov ou Aap./3av£ts. " Tretaov ovv crv tov 6)(Xov irepl 'It^o-ov p,^
TrAavao-^ai" Kai yap ttos 6 Aaos Kai TravTCS ireiOo/xeOa. aou orTrjdi ovv
CTri TO TTTepvytov tov lepov, iva dvuiOiv ■^s €7ri^avr/s Kai rj evaKova-TO. aov
TO, pr]p.aTa Travn tw Aaw. 8ia yap to 7rttO";^a crvveXr)Xv9aa-L TrdaaL ai
(f>vXai /x€Ta Kai twv idvwv- ^ earTrja-av ovv ol Trpoeiprfp-evoi ypap.p.a-
Ttis Kai $apto"atot tov laKcu^ov CTri to TTTepuyiov tot) vaou, Kai eKpa^av
avT(o Kai etTrav, AtVaie, w Travrts ir^idecrOai o^ccAop-tv, CTrei 6 Aaos TrAavaTat
07rio"a) It^ctoi) toi) o^Taupw^evTOS, aTrayyeiAov i^p-iv n's 17 ^I'pa tov 'Itjctov.
'^ Kai CLireKpLvaTO (ftoivy p.€ydXr}, Ti /ac cTrepwTaTe vrepi toC i;toS tov)
av^pwTTov, Kai a^Tos KaOrjTac iv tw ovpav(^ ck Sc^twv T^s p-eyaAiys
8x;vap,ews, Kai fxeXXei ip)(e(TOai iirl tojv vee^eAwv toS ovpavov ; '* Kai
TToAAoiv TrXyjpocfioprjOei'TMV Kai So^a^ovTOJV €7ri tt} p-apTvpta tov 'laKw^ov
Kai XeyovTMV Qcravva tw vtw Aaut6, totc ttciAiv ot avrol ypap.p.aT€L<s Kai
4>apto"atoi Trpos aAAiyAous eAtyov, KaKws €7rotryo"ap.€v TOtavTT^v p-aprvptav
■7rapa(T)(ovTe<; t<S It/o-ot)* dAAa dva/3dvTes KaTa/JdAwp-tv avrov, tva
(l)o(3rj6ivTe<; jxr] Trio-Tcvo-wo-iv auTW. '^ Kai tKpa^av AeyovTes, *0 w, Kai
6 otKaios IrrXavrjUrf , Kai iirXrjpwaav rrjv ypatprjv rrjv iv tw 'H(Taia y£-
ypap.p.ivr]v, Apwpev rov StKaiov, oti 8vo-)(pr](TTos rjplv iartv- roivvv ra.
yevr]p.ara twv epywv avrwv (jtdyovrai. '^ dvaf^dvTi'; ovv KarifSaXov rov
SiKato V. Kai e'Aeyov dAAr^ Aots, AtOda<j)p,€v
IdKw/?ovTov8tKaiov,Kai^p^avToAt^d^eiv
avrov, CTrei KaTaf3Xr]0€l<; ovk direOavev'
dAAa o"Tpa<^eis WrjKe ra. yovara Aeywv,
HapaKaAcij, Ki;pte ©ee HaTep, d^es ati-
Tots" oi yap oi'8ao"tv ti' 7rotoi}o"iv ^^ o^-
TtDS o€ KaraXLOofSoXovvrcDV avrov, cts
Ttijv iepewv twv niwv Prj^^a/S vlov
Pa^aySetp., twv p,apTvpovp.ivu)V viro
Epiph. Ifaer, 78. 14 (p. 1046
D). e. TeAevra Se oStoj o 'Ici-
KOJ^OS 6 d5e\(pds TOV Kvpiov kou
vlos 'laiaf)(p kv 'lepoaoXiifioii,
^iwaas fjKTo, rfju tov acuTrjpos
ara\Tj^iv 'ireaiv elKoairiaaapai,
it\uqj (kaaaci}, wv eruiv 'jS'', vtto
TOV yvafpfojs rai ^vXw TraiaOels rfjv
K((pa\T]v, piffxli d-no tov TtTfpvyiov
TOV ifpov, Kcu KUTeXOwv KOi fir)5iV
* The text of this fragment seems to be corrupt. For an attempt to
reconstruct it see above, p. 7,
THE HYPOMXEMATA OF H:EGESIFPUB I'Ol
lepe/xiov Tov 7rpo(f)i]TOV, eKpa^ci' Xeycov,
YlaTJcraa-Oe' ri TroietTe ', €u;^€Tai vvrep
vfjiMv 6 SiKaio^. '* Kttt \af3wv rts dir'
auToii', eis Twv yva(f>eo}i', to ^v\ov
iv <I) aTroTTie^ei to, iyu,aTia, ■^i/cyKev Kara
T-^S K€cl)aXrj<s TOV SiKatov, Koi outws
ifj.apTi'prj(Tev. kol eOaif/av avTOV ctti
TO) TOTTO) Trapa too vaw, /cat en avTOv rj
(TTTjXrj fjLevei Trapa. rco vaci). paprvs
ov'TOS a.\T]6rj^ loi'Sat'ots re /cat EAA?;-
trtv yeyevrjTai otl 'Ir](Tov<; 6 Xpicrro?
icTTLV. Koi cvOv'i Orecr7rao"iavos TroAt-
opKet at'Toi'S-
1^. £■. iii. 5. f. ^Merd 76 ^^v
TTIV TOV aCDTTipOS TjfliUV dud-
\r)\piv 'lovSaicuv Trpo? to) /^ar'
avToi) To\fiT]ixaTi tjSj] Kal Kara
rwv anoaTuXcxiv avTOV vKfi-
ara^ ocraj Im^ovAds fxefitj^a-
VrifXfVWV, TTpWTOV T€ 'ST«pdl'OV
X(dois VTT avTOJV dvripTjfxevov,
(Ira 5e fxtr' avrov 'laKuiSSov,
OS Tjf Zf^eSaiov /xiv ttoTj,
A5fX<pds d( 'laidi'Vov, ttjv ne-
<pa\T]i' dTTOTfiT]6euTos, tTTi irdai
T( 'laKwBoV, TOV TOV avToOi
TrjS (WiaKOTt^S OpuVOV irpWTOV
fxtrd Ttjv TOV aa}Tr,pos fjpwv
di'dKijifiv K(>c\T]pajp.(VOV, tov
vpohrjKwOivra Tpovov fxtrdK-
Xd^avTos, Twv Ti Xotiruv dito-
OToXojv fjLvpia (is ddvaTOV ini-
^e^ovX(vp.ivwv Koi Trji piv
lovhalas "^Tis dTTiXrjXapivojv,
(TTl 5* TJI TOV KTJpVfp.aTO'S 5l-
SaoKaXiq ttjv (h ovixiravTa Ta
(Ovq aTfiXapevaiv -nopdav Gvv
Svvdptt TOV XpiffTOV <pTj(TaVTOS
avTois, IlopevSfVTfS paBrj-
TtvaaTf TTavra Ta tOvrj fv tw
IvopaTi pov, ' ov prjv dXXa Kal
ToC Xaov TTJs iv 'lepoffoXvpois
tKKX-qcrias icaTd Tiva xprjapov
Tofs aVTodl SoKlpLOlS Si' dlTO-
KaXvipfais (KboOivTa irpo tov
TToXfpiov pfTavaaTTJvai Ttjs iro-
Xeais Ka'i Tiva TrjS Tlfpaias
TTuXtv oIkuv KfVfXevaptvov,
TlfXXav avTTjv ovopd^avaiv , Iv
Ti * TWV eh XpiOTOv TrcnKTTev-
Epipli. Haer. 29,
7 {p. 123 B). f.
'EKftOfv/dpfjdpx'fj
yiyove ptrd ttjv
diru Tail' 'lepoao-
Xvpwv ptTaaTacriv,
(^TTavToivy TWV dno-
aTo^wv^ TWV kv
TliXXri wKTjKoTwv,
XpiffTov (pTjaavTos
dSiHTjOfts, KXtvas 5e Ta yovaTa kcu
Trpo<j(v^dp.evos inrip Tttif avTov
pitpdvTwv, Kal (pdoKOjv 'S.vyx''^'
prjoov axiTols' ov yap oi5aai rj
voiovaiv, (Ly Kal 'Svpewv iroppw
karws, 6 TovTOv dvitpius, v'lbs hk
TOV KXwnd, eA.f7f, TlavaaaOe, ti
XiBd^tTe TOV SiKaiov ; Kal Ibov,
(vxfTai VTTtp vpwv Ta KdXXiara.
Kal ovTois yiyovi to ovtov pap-
Tvpiov.
Epiph. Haer. 30.
2 (p. 126 C). f.
riyovf St Tj dpxT]
TOVTOV (^ptTO. TTjV
TWV '\fpocoXvpwv
aXwaiv^. irrtiSrjydp
^TTOi'Tfs) ol eisXpi-
ffTOI' ITfTTiaTiVKOTa
TTjV Tlepaiav Kar'
(Ktivo Kaipov KaTw-
Epiph. De Mens. 15. (P. de
Lagarde, Symmida. ii. 167)
f. ^['OTOii'i/i''A/rt;Aas Sid^o;!'
ev TTJ 'lipovaaXT)pL kol opwv
roi/s puxOr]Tds twv paOrjTwv
TWV d-noGToXwv ktX.'\ — ^ f)a<w
yap vrroaTpeipavTfs diro TlfX-
Xrji T^y TToXfWi (Is 'Ifpovaa-
Xfjp Kal (V avTri SiaiTwpfvoi
Kal 5t5d(7KovT(s. ^ rjviKa yap
(l/ieAXei') 17 TToAis dXioKf-
a6at vwo twi' 'Pwfiaiwv Kal
iprjpovaOai^ ■npotxpflP^O'Ti-
aOrjaav vtto dyyfXov (^navTa
* The words kv rj are bracketed by Schwartz.
'' The reading paOrjTwv is perhaps to be preferred. See above, p. 28, note *.
im THE mYPOMnemata of hegesippus
KOTWV airo TTjS 'If-
povaaKijfx (xercuicia-
fjiiiaiv, cLy av vav-
Tf\cus eTTiKiKonro-
raiv dyiwu avSpuiv
avTTjv re ttjv 'lov-
Saioji' ^am\iKr}v
fJ.T]Tp6lT0\tV Kal
(xv/xnaaav rfjv 'lov-
Saiau yfjv, fj tK
@fov b'lKT] Xotnov
avToiis art roaavra
fU Tt rov XpiuTov
Kal Tovs dnocTToXovs
avTov vaprjVojxrjKO-
rai pLiTTjei, rwv
due^wv dpSrjv rTjv
fiVfdv aVTJ)V (Kfi-
vqv (^ dvdpdnrav
d>pavi^ov(ja.
KaraKftif/ai to. '1(-
poa6\vfxa Kal dva-
Xo^pfioai 6<' r)v
(jlpieWi) irdax^i-v
noKiopKiav. Kal Ik
TTJS TOtaVTTJS VITO-
Otcrews ttjv Hepaiav
oiK-qaavris (Ktiae,
ojs 'i^prjv, (biirpt-
Krjaav to irXdarov ,
evTliWr] rtvl ■noXtt
KaXoVfiiVTj (^TTJsAe-
KanoXewsy t^s fv
Tw fvayyekio) y(-
ypafxfj.(vr]';,TT\Tjaiov
TTji Baravaias Kal
BaaaviTtSos \wpas,
TO TTjVlKaVTa iKil
paravaaTdvTOJv Kal
(Keiae (bimpi^ov-
Tcuf ^ avTOJV, yeyo-
ViV (K TOVTOV TTpU-
(paaii to) 'E^iojvt.
ol fiaOrjTaiy para-
arfivai dnu t^s tto-
\eajs, (ftfA.Xou(7»;s)
dpbrjV dTToKKvaOai.
o'lTivis pLfTavdffTai
yivopLivoi wKrjaau
ev HfWri TTJ npo-
ytypaixpivT) ttoKh
nipavTov 'lopbdvov.
* fj h\ TToAis (e/c Af-
/faTToAecDs) XtytTai
tlvai. " piTa hi Tr)v
epfjfxcoaiv 'Itpovaa-
A^/u iTtavaarpii^av-
Tfy (iis i<pTjv) at]-
piia fXiydXa (ire-
TiXovv —
^ [(S oZv ''A.KvXas
ktK']
H. E. iv. 22. g. * Kat fjuera to
IxapTvprjcrai 'loiKw^oi' rov bUaiOV,
(1)9 Kai 6 Kvpio<;, cTTi TW avTw A.oya)
... h. TraAii'. . . .
H. E. iii. 11. g. Mera ttji/ 'laKwBov
pLapTvpiav («at t^v avriKa yivop.ivrjV
dXwffiv TTJi lepovaaXripiy [A070S kut-
«X"] h. (^Twv dnoOTuXaiv Kal Twv Tov
Kvpiov pLadrjTUJv Toi/i elaeTi tSi jS/o;
Xdvopivovs inl TavTov iTavTa\60tv avv-
(XOeiv dfxa tois npus yevovs Kara adpKa
rov Kvpiov {TrXeiois ydp Kal tovtoiv
TTtpi^ffav elaeTi Tore tw Pico), povXrjv
re opLuv Toxis navTas nfpl rov Tiva \prj
rfji 'IaKaj0ov 5ia8oxT]s eniKptfai a^iov,
1. 6 eK Oiiov avTOV ^Vfxeiov 6 TToifjeaa0at,y i. Kal Sij and pLidi yvcup.r]s
TOV KA-tOTra KadiO-TaTat eVio-KOTTOS, "rov^ Tiavjas -^vptwva rov rod KXojva,
A rn I It s I ^ oi) Kal v TOV evayyeXiov uvriuovivfi
ov 7rpoeu€VTO Travres, oi'xa aveu/iov ^ , - - , ,L > n >
^ '^ , ^ , ' ypo-i'Vy ■''<"' ■'"'?* avToVi rrapoiKias Bpovov
TOV KvpLOV, 0€VT€po\'. d^tov (Tvai SoKipiffai, dvixptov, Sjs ye
Epiph. Haer. 78. 7 (p. 1039 A). ^a<^'. yey°''ora rov awTrjpos.
j. Kara 5e rfjv aKoXovOiav tK ttjs rwv
'lovSaiwv napaSoafws [^BfiKwrai tl? ovx
ivtKiV TOV ^iV\OfjVai avTO) {SC. TW
'luafjKp) napeSidoro avrw fj irapOivos
[sc. Mapia), ktX. ttws ydp fjbvvaro 6
TOffovTos yipwv ttapOivov (^(iv yvvaiKa,
wv dird TTpwrrjs yvvatKos X^lpoi roaavra
errj^ ; ovros pikv ydp 6 ^Iwarjcp dStX<pos
yiverai rov KXwna, ^v 5« vlos rov
'laKw0, ImKXriv Sc HdvOrjp KaXovfievov.
dficportpoi ovToi dno rov HavOrjpos (tri-
kXtjv yfvvwvrai,
H. E. iii. 32. k. ^ ['EirJ rovrois 6 avros dvrjp 5ir]yovpi(vos rd Kara rots
drjXovptvov? {sc. Tpaiatov ktX.) iiriXeyfi ws dfpa] ^e'xpt twi- rore xpovwv napOevos
KaOapd Kal ddid(pOopos ijxuviv fj eKKXijaia, iv dSfjXw ttov OKOTfi ws d (pwXevovrwv
eicrtri rore twv, el Kai rivfs iiirrjpxov, irapaipGeipdv (TTixfipovvrwy rdv vyirj Kavuva
TOV ffurrjpiov KjjpiypLaTos,
j. rov ydp ovv KKwirdv d8eX(pov rod
'lwatj(p i/ndpxfiv [^Hyfjainnos laropti^.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 103
//. E. iv. 22. 1. ^ Ata TovTo
IkoXovv rrjv iKKXrjacav irapOivov,
ovTTOi yap ecjiOapTO (XKoais yaarataiS'
^ ap;!(eTai Se 6 ®efiov6L<; 8ta to
/:;-'^ yevecrdai avTOV iTnaKOirov vtto-
(fiOcipeLV diro raJv eTrra aipecrewv,
wv Ktti awTOS ^v, ev tw XauJ, d<^ cov
2i/xojv, o^tv 2t/>tcovtav(H, Kai KAco-
/8tos, o^ev KXeo^L-qvoi^ Kal Aoctl-
Oeos, o9iV ^oa-iOiavoi, KalVopOaios,
o^ev TopaOrjVOt, kol Mao-/3ai^eot.
aTTO TOUTcov MevavSpiavtcTTai Kat
MapKiavtcrrat koI KapTroKpartavoi
Ktti OuaAevTivtavot fcai BacriAeiota-
vol Koi SaTopvtAiavoi eKacTTOS tSt'ws
Kai irepoLWi ISiav S6$av irap^Lcryjya-
yoaav. * (XTro toutwv \j/ev86)(^pL-
(TTOi, {j/evSoirpocfirJTaL, (//€i;8a7roo-TO-
Aoi, otTivts ifxepLcrav tt/v cvcocriv
-njs iKKXr}o-ia<; (fi6opifJi.aLOL<; Aoyois
Kara to9 ©coi) Kai Kara rov Xpt-
CTTOV aVTOV.
H. E. iii. 32. m. ^ (xtto tou-
rcov [Sr/XaS^ twv aipcTiKwv] kott;-
yopowt TiV€S 2ip.wvo? ToJ) KAwTra
d)S 0VT05 aTTO AaviS Kai Xpicrria-
i/ov, Kai ovrtDS fiapTvpei Itwv lov
eKarov cikoctiv ctti Tpai'avoii Kai-
crapo'i Kal VTrartKov Attikov.
H. E. iii. 32. 1. ^ [Kai tovtov fiaprvi
avTcis kfceivos, ov Siacpopois t^Stj npoTtpof
()(pT]aafif6a (poovais, 'Hyrjcrnriroi' ts dr)^
TTfpi Ttl'aJV aipiTlKWV iffTOpuy,
m. [(VKpfptt SrjXwv wi apa] vno tovtojv
Kara r6v5f rov xpovov vno/xfivas Karrj-
■yopiav, TToXvTpoTTOJS 6 SrjKovfXfvos cLs av
'S.piariavd'i icrK.
IV
H. E. iii. 12. a. [Kai km toiItois ysc. 'HynaiTTros laTopu] Oi/eairaaiavov nera
rfiv rw'v •ltpo(To\vfiaJV aXojaiv irivras Toi-y and ytvovs Aam'S, ws ^ir) TrfpiXtKpefiT] rti
rrapa 'lovSaioti tSjv avb rfji /3a(T(A(«:^s cpvX^s, a.vaJ,T)rilaeai irpoaTO^ai, p-iyiaTOf re
•lovSaiois av9ts tK ravrrji Siojyfiov iirapTrjeiji'ai r^s ahias.
H. E. iii. 17. b. noWTjv ye /^V
(Is TToWoiis emSfi^aixtyos 6 Aofxertavos
uijior-qTa ovK oXi'yov re rwv im 'Fwp.r]S
(vnarpiSwu re Kal i-niaripoiv dvSpwv
irXriOos ov fier' tvKoyov Kpitrecus KTtivas
/xvpiovs Tt dWovs f-rrKpavus dvSpas rais
i/irep Tr)V kvopiav ^-qpnujaas <pvyais Kal
rais ruiv ovcriwv diro^oXais dvaiTtajs,
rtXivTwv TTJs Hepajvos OeotxOpias rt Kal
9eoiMix'iai BidSoxov eavrov KanaT-qaaro.
Sevrepoi SfJTa tov Ka6' rijxwv dviKivti
Siajy/MV, KaiTtip tov irarpos avTcp Ove-
anaaiavov pirjSiv KaO' fjfiwv cLtoitov
enivoriaavTOi.
Cramer and de Boor, w. s. b. Ao-
ueTiavds vlos Oveairaatavov noWa «a«a
e(s Toiis kv Ti\ei 'Pajp-aiovs evSei^dfifvoi
TTjv Ne/xucos yiKTjcas ujfioTrjTa dfvTipos
Kard HpiOTiavuv diaiyixov kiroirjatv.
104 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
H. E. lii. 19. c. ToC S avrov Ao/xtriavov tov$ dwu fivov% AatriS avaipfiaOat
irpoara^avTos, [iraAaios /carexei A<57os] kt\.
n. E. iii. 18. d. ^ 'Ev rovrw [itaTf-
Xd Xoyos^ Tov a-noaroXov d/jia Koi
fvayfe\icrTTjv 'laiavvrjv en rw Piw ifSia-
rpi^ovTa, rrjs (Is rbv Qflov \6yov
'ivfutv fxapTvpias Tlarpiov oIkhv Kara-
liKaaOfivai rfjv prjffov.
Cramer and de Boor, u. s. d. KaO'
tv Kat Tov anoaTokov kol fvayy(\iaTi)v
'lajdvvrjv (V ndT/j.a> nepiuiptcrfv.
H. E. iii. 20. e. ^ Tore {sc. Nfpoua r^f dpx'fji' StaSe^a^iivov) S^ ovy leal tov
dndaroXov 'lojdvvr)v dtro T^y Kara rriv vrjaov (pvyrjs r^v ivl T^y 'E(p(aov SiaTpi^fjv
diT(i\r](pfvai [o rwv nap' ■qp^v dpxaiwv napaSiSoucn Koyoil.
Koyos^.
H. E. iii. 19. f. [riaXaioy Kartxtt
X070S] (^TwvalpeTiKuiv rtvasy KaTTjyoprj ■
ffai Twv diroyovojv 'lovda (jovtov 5' elvai
dSe\(p6v Kard adpica tov aooTTjpos) ws
dnb yivovs TvyxavovToiv AavlS Kal cur
avTov avyyivuav tov Xpicrrov <pip6v-
rctjy. [ravra Si SrjKoT Kara \(^iv u5(
■jTois Kiywv 6 H-yTjcriTTTToy.]
g. O jxkv CKaXflTO TjOiKYIp, 6 8(
Cramer and de Boor, u. $. h. ffvv-
rvxojf St AofifTiavos rots vlois 'lovSa
rov d5f\<pov rov Kvpiov,
H.E. iii. 20. f. ^"Ert 8c
TTcpLrja-av ol (xtto yevovs tov Kvpiov
viwvot lov^a TOV Kara crdpKa Ac-
yojxevov avTov d8eX(f)ov' o^s (twv
aipe(recoj/ rtves) * iSyjXaTopcvcrav
d)S £K yevovi ovras AavtS.
Cramer and de Boor, u, s.
IaKa)/?05.
H. E. iii. 20. h. * tovtov; 6
TjovoKaTO^ rjyaye Trpos Ao/xeTcavov
K-aicrapa. tcjioliiiTO yap t7)v
rrapovaiav tov XptcrTou ws *cat
iip(uOrj<;. kol iTrrjpoiTrjaev av-
Tovs €1 CK Aavi8 elo-LV, koI wyu,oAo-
yrjcrav. tot€ TjpwTrjcrfv avTov<;
TTOcras KTr]o-€LS €)^ovaLv r] ttoo-mv
•XprrjpiaTixiv KvptcvovcTLV. ol Se etTrai/
dp.(j)6T€poi'5 ivvaKLcrxiXia 8rjvdpLa
vTrap^eiv avTo2<i fxova, eKacrrco av-
TUiV dvT^KOVTOS TOV T^/AtCTCOS, KOX
TavTa ovK iv dpyvpiOLS c^acr/cov
£;(eiv, dXA iv hiaTLfx-qcni y^s ttAc-
Bpoiv TpiaKovTa iwea [j.6v<dv, i^
wv Kai Tovs (fiopov^ d.va(f>€p€iv kol
avTovs avTOvpyovvTa<i 8taT/)e</>e-
o-Oai.
1. ^ EiVa 8^ Kal rds x^tpos Tas tav-
TMV fTTlSdKVVVaL, flapTVptOV TTJS avTOvp-
yias rfjv tov awparos aKKijpiau koi
Tovs and r^s avvex"^^ epyaaias evano-
TviraiBivras tni ruv ISiwv x^^P^" rvKovs
napiaravras. * ipcarrjOivrai 6J ntpi
TOV Xptarov Kal rrjs ISaaiKeias aiirov,
* That some such words as these are to be supplied is suggested by the
paraphrase in H. E. iii. 19. For the form see above, III e, § 8.
Kal yvoiis (^rfjv dper^v^ ruiv dudpwv
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 105
iiroia Tis e'-q koI ttoi kcu nore (pavrjcro-
fitvT], \6yov Sovvai ws ov Koa/jLiKTj ^iv
oii5' (iriyfios, inovpavios 5i Kal a.yy(\iKTj
Tvyxayoi, km ovvrtKeia Tovalaivo; ytvrj-
aofifuTj, oTTrjv'iKa k\dwv iv 5u(ti Kpivti
{iui'Tas Kal vfKpovi kcu dnoSwaei (Kaaro)
Kara to. (iriTrjSdJfxaTa aiiTov' ^ f<p'
ois fJLrjhiv avTuiv KarfyvasKuTa rbv Ao-
neriavov, dWa Kal ws (vreKaiv Kara-
tppovrjaavTa, f\ev9epvvs fiif avrovs
dvfivai, KaraTTavaat 5t 5id irpoardyiiaTos
Tov Kara rfj's tKKKrjaias dicoy/xov.
H.E. in. 32. k. ^"Epxov
Tai ovv Kol TTporj-yovvTUL Tracrr/s
iKK\r](ria? ws fxaprvpe? koI oltto
yivovi Tov KvpCov, kol yevopiivq'i
elpT]V7]<; /SaOeLa'i ivTrda-rj eK/cAT^crta,
fjiivovcrt fte'xP' TpatavoG KatVapos,
1. fJi€)(pL'S ov 6 €K Of.LOV TOV KVpLOV,
6 Trpoetprjfjievo^ 'Xip.oiv vlos KAwttS,
(rvKO<:f)avTrjU€i^ vtto twv atpeVcwv,
wcraf TOJS KaTTjyopijdr] koi auros €7rt
Tw avT<3 Aoyo) ctti 'Attikou tov
viraTLKOv. KoX cTTi iroAXats i7/i.c-
/sats alKi^6fjL€vo<; ifiapTvprjo-ev, (Ls
Travras VTrepOav^d^(.LV kol tov
VTraTiKov TTOJS eKUTOv eLKoa-i rvy^^d-
vojv eTwv VTre/xeLvev, Kal iKtXevaOr]
CTTavpijiOrjvai.
TOV KaO' ■^fxCjv (wavaaTO Siwyf^ov.
H.E. iii. 20. k. « Toi/s Se diro-
KvOivras ijyriaaaOai TUiV (KKKrjffiuiv, ws
dv 5?) fidpTvpas ofiov Kal aTto 7e>'ot;y
ovras TOV Kvpiov, ytvofxivris t€ (iprjvrjs
fJ.ixp'- 'Ipaiavov napafitivai avToxis tw
Piw. ' [TaCra fxiv 6 'i{yr]anntos.'\
H.E. iii. 32. 1. ^'Em irXe'KJTais
alKiaOels -quipais avruv t< tov hiKaoTTjv
Kal Tovs djxcp' avTov els rd p.iyiaTa
KUTanXTj^as, tw toC Kvpiov ndOfi irapa-
■nk-qaiov TtKos dwTjVfyKaTO.
H, E. iii. 32. m. '' [^■qaiv S« 6 avrus ws apa] leal tovs KaTtjyopovs avToS,
(rjTovfievwv TOTi Tcuf (XTTo TTjs ^aaiXiKTjs 'lovSaiwv (pvXrjs, ws av i^ avTwv ovTas
d\wvat avvi0r].
V
H. E. iii. 16. a. "Oti yt Kara tov Sr]KovfJ.(vov (sc. Aofj.fTiav6v) ra ttjs Kopiv-
6iwv KenivTjTo OTaafus, [a^ioxpeoos ftdprvs 6 'Hyrjcninros'\.
Epiph. Haer. 27. 6 (p. 107 B). b.
Aiyti yap (v fiia twv iinaToXwv avTov,
(^Ava^^wpS), a.ir€ijxi, ei'CTTaOiiTU)
6 Aaos TOV O€ov,y
Ttffl TovTO avpt^ovktvwv [rivpofiiV ydp
(V Tiaiv vTrofivT]fxaTi.afiois tovto kyK(i-
(levov^.
H. E. iv. 22. C. ^ Kat lirip-evtv rj iKKXrjcTLa rj Kopiv^iW ev tw
6pB<^ Aoycu fie'xP' ITpt^aov tTrtaKOTrevovTos cv KoptV^o).
H. E. iv. 22. b. ^ ['A^ovffat yk toi
itdpiOTiv neTd'\ Tiva Trtpl Tijs KKrifievTos
rrpos KopivOiovs tmaToXfjs [avTw flprj-
jXiva (iriKfyovTos tuvto^.
106 THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS
H. E. iv. 22. d. . .
H.E. iv. 22. d. i ['O /i^i/ o5i'
'H7i7(Tt7r7ros «»' TreVre Tofs els 'JA'as «^-
Oovaiv viro/xvrjfj.aatv t^j /Sias yvwixrjs
irKrjptarar-qv fjLvrjfirjv KaTaXiXomeV iv
ois ST^Auf ws] irXeiaToi'i iTTiaiconois av/x-
p-'i^eiiv dTToSrj^iav aT(i\djXivos H^'XP^
H. E. iv. 22. e. ^ Kal crvvSieVpn/'a Tois KopLvOiOLS r}fjiepa<; iKam?,
iv ais avvaveTrdrj/xev tw opOQ Aoyw.
if, ^. iv. 22. f. Tevd/acvos
§€ cv 'Pwfjirj, 8LaBo)(r]v iiroLrjcrdixrjv
fXeXpi-'i 'AvtKT^TOf' 01) SlttKOVOS ^v
'EAetj^cpo?, Kttt Trapa Avlkt^tov
8ta8e;^€Tai ^wTi/p, /A€^' ov 'EAcu-
depos.
Epiph. J/oer. 27. 6
(p. 107 A), g. 'Er 'Pw/xT)
yap yeyovaai TrpwToi Tlt-
Tpo9 Kot IlavXos dnocTToXoi
Kal kwiaKoiroi, ilra Aivos,
(Ira K\TJTOS,
H.E. iv. 11. f. '' KaO' hv {sc.
'Ai'iicrjTov) ['H777(n7riros laToptT] eavTov
(mSrjfiTJaai tj/ 'Pa'A'J? napafj-etval re
avToSt fxexP' "^V^ emCKonfji 'E\iv6(pov.
etra K\rjfir]S, avyxP^^^'^
wv Tlerpov Kal TIav\ov, ov
eirifxvr]ixovfv(i TlavKoi iv
TTJ irpoi 'Fcufiaiovs iitiaro-
Xri. [Kaj fiTjSeh davp.a-
^iToi oTi wpb avTov dWoi
TTjV inicfKoiTfiv SifSf^avTo
(XTTO Twv dTToaroKcuv, ovros
TOVTOv avyxpovov TUfTpov
Kal IlayAou.] Kal ovtos
ydp avyxpovos yivtrai toiv
dnoaroXcov. etr' ovv en
nfpiovTWv avTWV inrd Vle-
rpov \afj.Pavei rfjv x*'"
poOiGiav TTjs iniffKOTrrjs
\_KalTrapaiTTjaaiXivos «tA.].
Epipli. Haer. 27. 6
(p. 107 C). g. Merd ri)
TfTeKtuTT/icfvai ATvov Kal
KXrJTOv (iTtiaKoittvaavras
rtpos h(Kabvo err] tKaarov^
ixerd TTjv Tov dyiov Tlirpov
ical Tlavkov Te\evTT]v^ tt)v
inl ra> daiSeKaToi trei Ne-
puvos yf.vofJLf.vr}v kt\.
Epiph. Haer. 27. 5, 6
(p. 106 D). h. XippayT-
Sa Si iv Kaxnripi, rj St' ini-
TT)S(v(T(a}S ^vpiov, fj patpiSos
iniTiGiaffiv ovtoi oi diro
KapnoKpd irrl tov St^iov
\0^6v TOV WTOS TOlS Vlt'
avTWV diraTajfiivois.
* So the Latin, 'signant cauteriantes '. The Greek has simply KavTrjpid^ovffi
Epiph. Haer. 27. 6
(p. 107 D). g."0/iia)s j) Twv
iv 'PwfiT) iirtCTKoncuv SiaSo-
X^l TuvTTjv ex*' '''^^ d«o-
KovOiav TlfTposKalVlav-
\of, Afvos Kal K\j]TOi,
KKrjfiijs,
(EiidpecTTOs, 'AKf^avSpo<;,
BvffTos, T(Kea<p6pos, "tyi-
VOS, 11(05, 'AvtKTjTOS.y
Iren. Adv. Haer. i. 25.
h. ' lovToiv [sc. rwv dno
KapnoKpaTov) Tivis Kal
acppayi^ovat KavTrjpid^ov-
Tes* Toi)ji5iot)j fxaOijTasiv
Tofy bmaco fiipeai tov \o-
^ov TOV Sf^iov u>t6s.
THE HYPOMNEMATA OF HEGESIPPUS 107
HX^ev Sects rjfJia^ r)8r]
TTcos MapKeAAiVa rts
VTT avTwv OLTraTrjdeLcra,
7} TToWovs iXvfirjvaTO
iv )(povoiS AviKrjTOV
liruTKOirov Pa>|U,r/s,
Epiph. Eaer. 27. 6
(p. 107 D). h. "Ev xpo-
voii Totvvv, [cly e((>T]fjifv,'\
'AvtK-fjTov [^ Trpo5(5rj\Qj-
luevTj^MapKeWiva euTdiyri
KapTTOKpa 5i5aaKa\ias f^e-
fxiaaaa noWoiis rwv iKilae
kyfirfvafievr] rftpafifff.
Unde et Marcellina,
quae Romam sub Ani-
ceto venit, cum esset
huius docti'inae, multos
exterminavit.
i. Tov pLerd. ttjv StaSoxrj^ Tliov Kal rwv
avojTfpai.
Epiph. i7«er. 27. 6(p. JOS A), j. Ka?
tvOiv jiyovfv dpx'? yvwariKuiv rwv Ka-
\ovp.ivuv. 'i\ovc!i Se i'lKuvas ev^cvypa-
ipovs Sid ■)(pajjxaTwv, aWd Kal ol fxlv tK
Xpvffov Kal dp-yvpov Kal Xoitttjs v\r]?,dTiva
(KTVTTwfjiaTd (paaiv dvai tou 'Irjaov, Kal
ravra i/tto Hovtiov TliXdrov yfyeviiaOai,
TOVTiOTlV rd fKTVTTWfJUlTa TOV avTov
'h]aov, ore (fe5rjfj.(i Tip twv dv6pwTro:v
ytvei. Kpv^S-qv 5( rdsToiavTas e;i(0V(Tii'
(iKovas, dWd Kal (piXoaoipojf rtvaiv,
TlvOayopov Kal nKaToivos Kal 'XpicrroTi-
Kovs Kal Koiiruiv, jxid' wv <f>i\oa6<p(Xiv
fTfpa iKTVTiujp.aTa tov 'irjaov TiOiaaiv,
IhpvaavTts re npoaKvvovai Kal Ta twv
fOvwv emTfXovai pvar-qpia. aT-qaavTes
yap ravTas rds eiKouas rd to/v i9vwv
€07) KoiTTuv iroLOvai. [r'lva 5e ioTiv
iOvaiv fdr] dW' t] 0vaiai Kal rd dWa ;]
^vx^s Si eiVai fiuvrji awTqpiav (paal Kal
ovxl aoJfidTuy.
H. E. iv. 22. k. ' 'Ev Uacnri
8e hiaZo)(ri Kal iv iKdarr) TroAet ov-
Tws €X^t- ws o vd/Aos Kr]pv(r<r€L kox
01 7rpo(f>rJTaL kol 6 Kvpio^,
i. Epiph. Haer. 27. 6 (p. 107 D).
6 avw ev Tw KaraAdyw TrpoSeST/Xoi-
yu,€vos.
Iren. Adv. Haer. i.25. j. ^Oiiosticos
se autem vocant : etiam imagines *
quasdam quidem depictas quasdam
autem et de reliqua materia fabri-
catas habent, dicentes formam
Christi factam a Pilato illo in tem-
pore ''quo fuit lesus cum hominibus.
Et has eoronant, et proponunt eas
cum imaginibus mundi pliiloso-
phorum, videlicet cum imagine
Pythagorae, et Platonis et Aristo-
telis, et reliquorum ;
et reliquam observationem circa eas
similiter ut sentes faciunt.
H. E. iv. 22. k. * Vial [tos oti] ttju
avTy)v Ttapd -ndvTuv nap(i\rj<pfv 5i5a-
aKa\iav.
VI
Stephanus Gobarus ap. Photium Bill. 232 (ed. Bekker, p. 288). "Oti rd
f]TOip.aapiiva tois SiKaiois dyaOd ovre d(p6a\nds uSfv, oxm ouj fiKovatf, ovTe inl
Kaphiav dv9pwirov dvf^Tj. ["Hyrjcninros fxiv toi, dpxatus rt dvfjp Kal dnoaToXtKus,
(V Tw TrfixTTTCp TWV virop.vr]fidTaiv, ovk old' oti Kal iTa6ajv,'\ fiUTTjv jxkv uprjaOai TavTa
[Ae^tj,] Kal KaTaipevS(a6aiTovsTavTa(pap(vovsTWV Ti Otiwv ypacpwv Kal tov Kvptov
\eyovTOi, MaKaptoi ol oipOaXpiol vp-wv ol 0K(novT€s, Kal Ta twra vfiwv Td aKovovTa,
* Greek, Kal (Mvas 5e.
^ Greek, KaraaKtva^ovm tov XpiiTTOv, Kiyovres vrro TIiKotov tw KaipSi iKsivqi
yeveaOai.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
It may be well at the outset to make clear the purpose
with which this Essay has been written. For some time
the suspicion has forced itself upon me that a good deal
that has been published on the subject of Montanism has
been based on investigations which proceeded on a faulty
method. I propose to set forth the reasons which have
led me to entertain this suspicion. My hope is that, if
my argument is not accepted, it may elicit criticism
which shall suggest a truer interpretation of the evidence
which is here presented.
The most illustrious adherent of the Montanist move-
ment was undoubtedly Tertullian of Carthage. And for
the purpose of the inquirer into the inner meaning of
Montanism Tertullian has the advantage of being a volu-
minous writer, of whose treatises moreover many have
survived. The later writings of Tertullian are in fact —
if we except a few oracles of the Phrygian prophets not
quoted by him — the only source from which we can
acquire a first-hand knowledge of Montanist principles
and practice. Historians can scarcely be blamed if they
have given them a very high place among the materials
now available for ascertaining the character of the Phry-
gian heresy. And the procedure usually adopted by in-
vestigators has, if I am not mistaken, been suggested by
an unquestioning assumption of their primary authority
for the purpose in hand. It has been assumed that what
Tertullian reckons as Montanist doctrine and custom is
really such. The evidence supplied by him has been
accepted as indisputably reliable : the statements of
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 109
Catholic writers which appear to conflict with it have
either been tortured into agreement with his dicta, or have
been rejected as calumnies. It has thus come to pass that
what passes current as Montanism is in the main identical
with the later theology of Tertullian. We seek a descrip-
tion of a system which penetrated from its first home in
Phrygia into many regions ; and we have been content
to accept instead an account which we have no assurance
for believing to be more than the picture of a local
development of the movement, or even of its embodiment
in a single individual.
The hypothesis which is the ground of this method is
the homogeneity of Montanism. Phrygian Montanism
and African Montanism are assumed to be, in great
measure, the same thing. But is this assumption justified ?
Was Montanism really homogeneous ?
It seems to me that a priori we should scarcely expect
this to be the case.
The movement began, as we learn from early documents
preserved by Eusebius and Epiphanius, at an obscure
village called Ardabau in Mysia, not far from the border
of Phrygia. There, probably in the fifties of the second
century, Montanus, a new convert to Christianity, who had
been a priest of Cybele, began to prophesy. And his
prophesyings were accompanied by strange phenomena
closely resembling those associated with demoniacal
possession. He spoke in an ecstasy, as his followers
would have expressed it.
Montanus was soon joined by two women, Maximilla
and Priscilla or Prisca, who also claimed to possess the
prophetic charisma, and whose utterances were similar
in matter and in manner to those of their leader. Before
long the movement acquired a local centre at Pepuza and
Tymion, villages of Phrygia, to which the name of Jeru-
no THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
salem was given by Montanus himself. Its adherents
were by and by excommunicated by many synods, and
Montanism became a sect with a definite organization.
The prophecies of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were
committed to writing,^ were widely circulated, and were
regarded by friends and foes as authoritative statements
of all that distinguished the Montanistic teaching from
current Christianity. By the Montanists themselves the
prophetic oracles were placed at least on a level with
the Gospels and the Apostolic Scriptures.
Now it is evident that the moment the oracles of the
original exponents of the New Prophecy were written
down, and read without the explanations of the prophets,
they became, as truly as the Scriptures which they in part
superseded, 'a nose of wax.' All depended on their
interpretation. And as Montanism spread into different
countries, and was accepted by men of different environ-
ment and mental training, the interpretations put upon
them were certain to be diverse. From this we have
ample warrant for the expectation that Montanism would,
in some degree, display a divergent t3rpe in each country
to which it gained admission.
It may, perhaps, make the meaning of what I have said
clearer, and at the same time justify the conclusion which
I have reached on a priori grounds, if I proceed to give
what may be termed an example of the forces of disinte-
gration at work.
Didymus of Alexandria,^ or rather the early and valuable
document ^ on which he bases his account of the sect
^ This has been denied. See De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive
Church, p. 31. But the argument is unaffected if it be admitted that
the ipsissima verba of the prophecies, or what were believed to be such,
were preserved by oral tradition. ^ De Trin. iii. 41.
^ But see G. Ficker, in Zeitsch. f. Kirchengesch. xxvi. 447 ff. ; G. Bardy,
Didyme VAveugle, Paris, 1910, p. 237 f.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 11 1
charges the Montanists with three errors. The first of
them is, that on the pleaof apropheticrevelation, supported
by certain passages from the latter chapters of the fourth
Gospel, they affirmed (dTrofiavr^vouraL) that there is one
Trpocrwirov of the three divine viroa-ToiaeLS. That is to say,
they taught what later came to be known as Sabellianism.
The oracle on which they relied for this teaching, accord-
ing to Didymus, was a saying of Montanus, ' I am the
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' This certainly
sounds like Monarchian heresy. So also does a saying
of Maximilla recorded by Asterius Urbanus,^ ' I am Word
and Spirit and Power ' — for the words pfj/ia, irvevfia, and
Svpa/119 must be taken as equivalent to Montanus's Son,
Spirit^ and Father. And in support of the inference
drawn from these, appeal might have been also made to
some other oracles among the few that remain.^ If we
had only the statement of Didymus and the oracles to
which I have referred we might have confidently classed
the Montanists with the Sabellians. But we turn to Tertul-
lian. There is no need to say that he, whether as Catholic
or as Montanist, did not deviate from orthodoxy. He was
an ardent opponent of the Monarchian Praxeas. And he
declares that it was exactly hisMontanism which specially
fitted him to be the champion of the true faith. ^ For the
Paraclete had made use of expressions which, without
any such ambiguity as was found in the phrases of
Scripture, denounced the teaching of Praxeas as false. It
is true that the only oracle which he quotes in this
connexion rather tells against his contention ; * but he
1 Ap. Ens. H. E. v. 16. 17.
^ e. g. the oracle quoted in Epipb. Haer. 48. 11.
' Adv. Prax. 2, 13, De Cam. Res. 63.
* Adv. Prax. 8. ' Protulit enini Deus sermonem, queuiadmodum
etiam Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium sol
radium.'
112 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
refers to another, whicli, if his paraphrase of it is reliable,
must have been emphatically orthodox.^ Moreover, he
vouches for the orthodoxy of the entire body of the
Montanists. No one, he assures us, had ever accused them
of heresy.^ Their rules of discipline — such is his argument
— cannot be corrupt, for error in doctrine always precedes
error in discipline.^
The fact is that, in spite of the vehemence of Tertullian,
the Montanists were as much divided as their opponents
on the question of the Divine Monarchy. Besides the
orthodox party among them, to which Tertullian himself
belonged, known as the Cataproclans, there was a hetero-
dox party, which he was ignorant of, or, more probably,
chose to ignore — the Cataeschinites. This we may gather
from the Philosophume7ia of Hippolytus, and from the
treatise Against Heresies of Pseudo-Tertullian, who, no
doubt, here as elsewhere, derives his information from
Hippolytus"s Syntagma^ It is unnecessary to cite other
authorities in confirmation of the statements of Hippolytus.
The remarkable fact is that both the orthodox and the
heterodox parties among the Montanists sheltered them-
selves behind the oracles of the prophets.
But it was not only the difficulty of interpreting the
oracles, and applying them to controversies which did
not belong to the place and period of the original prophets,
which tended to divide the Montanists. There were at
least three other influences, all closely related to each
other, which might well lead to this result.
The first of these was the oracles of later prophets.
For the charismata were by no means confined to the first
three. Theodotus, 'the first steward of the New Prophecy,'
was a fellow worker of Montanus, and he was almost
1 Adv. Prax. 30. ^ De leiun. 1. * De Monog. 2.
* Hippol. Philos. viii. 19, Ps.-Tert. Haer. 7.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 113
certainly a prophet.^ Apollonius, about the year 200,
mentions both a prophet and a prophetess ; ^ and, not-
withstanding the opinion of so eminent a historian as
Harnack,^ one can hardly suppose that they are to be
identified with Montanus and Maximilla or Priscilla.
In any case Apollonius implies that Maximilla and
Priscilla had successors by his remark that they were
the first prophetesses to abandon their husbands/ Fir-
milian, in his letter to Cyprian, speaks of a prophetess
(probably a Montanist) who appeared in Cappadocia
-about 236 a. d.^ And finally Epiphanius tells of a
prophetess named Quintilla.*^ Whether she was one of
those already mentioned we cannot determine.'' She was
certainly not a member of the original group. There is
no evidence that the inspired utterances of these later
prophets were circulated in writing. Certainly none ot
them is quoted in writings now extant. They probably
had no more than a local celebrity. The same remark
may be made about Themiso, whose Catholic epistle,
written ' in imitation of the apostle',^ claimed, we cannot
doubt, to have been inspired. But that they furthered the
development of Montanism in the districts where they
were known it is impossible not to believe. And the
narrower the sphere of their influence so much the more
' Anon. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 14.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. V. 18. 4, 6, 7, 10. => Chronologie, i. 370.
Eus. H. E. V. 18. 3 bi'iKvvfxev ovv nvTas Trpcoraj ras 7j-po(f)r]Tidas ravras
, . . Tovs (ivbpas Kar akin 01J eras.
"• Cyp. Ep. 75. 10 (Hartel, p. 817). For the date see De Soyres,
op. cit., p. 54 ; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, p. 464.
« Haer. 49.
'' Bonwetsch {Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881,
p. 171) suggests that she may have been the prophetess mentioned by
Firmilian ; Salmon {Diet, of Christ. Biog. iii. 939), that she was the
prophetess referred to by Apollonius.
* Apollonius ap. Eus. H. E. v. 18. 5.
114 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
tkeir sayings tended to generate purely local forms of the
system.
In the West, so far as I know, there is no mention of
later prophets. But TertuUian several times refers to the
visions of sisters,^ and he appeals on one occasion to the
vision of Saturus, which we can still read in the Acts of
Perpetua.^ In each case the vision is used as giving
authority to a disciplinary custom or a doctrine advocated
by the writer. Thus in the "West, as in the East, the
means were at hand of explaining or adding to the original
deposit of the New Prophecy by an authority which was
held to be divine.
A second agent of development which must be taken
into account is the weight of influence exerted by promi-
nent members of the sect, who were not themselves
prophets, or possessed of charismata which involved
the capacity for receiving revelations by visions or
otherwise.
Tertullian, in his own person, notably illustrates the
power of this influence. He nowhere claims to have had
revelations. He was simply, in his own view, an adherent
of the Paraclete. Yet his influence in determining the
form of Montanism in Africa must have been immense.
Dr. Rendel Harris and Professor Griflford, in the introduction
to their edition of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua
and Felicifas,^ direct attention to 'the difficulty with
which any of his writings, except a very few tracts, can
satisfactorily be labelled non-Montanist '. They have
themselves transferred that which previous writers had
regarded as ' probably TertuUian's earliest existing
writing ' ^ to the Montanistic period of his life. The fact
1 e. g. De. An, 9, De Virg. Vel. 17.
2 De An. 55. See also De Sped. 26, De Idol. 15.
3 Cambridge, 1890, pp. 28 fF. « Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 822.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 115
is that the unquestionably Montanistic treatises are re-
cognized merely by more or less explicit allusions to the
revelations of the Paraclete. The doctrines and practices
advocated in his latest works are, for the most part, essen-
tially the same as those upheld in the earliest now extant.^
If there is any difference between them it is amply
accounted for by the development of opinion which would
inevitably take place in a man of Tertullian's character.
They are presented from new points of view and under
new sanctions, but in their main substance they are un-
changed. Of this fact it is superfluous to give proof, and
the inference from it is irresistible. Tertullian brought
far more to Montanism than he found in it. It is an in-
ference which might have been drawn if we knew nothing
more of the man than what his writings reveal of his
masterful personality. But if African Montanism was
largely made by Tertullian, it must have differed widely
from the Montanism which in his day, or at any other
time, existed in Phrygia.^
We have from Tertullian himself a story which well
illustrates how the influence of later revelations and the
influence of personality helped each other in producing
the local development of Montanism. In his treatise
De Anima 9 he speaks of a certain sister, who had the
charisma of revelations. The material for visions was
often supplied by the lessons, psalms, discourses, &c., of the
^ Compare Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 238 : ' He was a
Montauist at heart long before he accepted the oracles of the New
Prophecy.'
2 Mr. De Soyres, speaking of the teaching set forth in Tertullian's
treatises Be Virginibus Velandis, De Spectaculis, and De Corona Militis,
remarks (p. 96), ' It is significant that not even an Epiphanius found
any capital in this department.' This fact Mr. De Soyres explains in
his own way. But the true explanation may very well be that the
opinions of Tertullian expressed in those tracts had no counterpart
in Eastern Montanism, with which alone Epiphanius was concerned.
i2
116 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
churcli service. During service, on one occasion, when
Tertullian was discoursing on the soul, the sister fell into
an ecstasy and saw a vision. Subsequently, when service
was over, and the congregation dismissed, she was invited
to describe her vision. Among other things she declared
that she had seen a soul which displayed all the signs of
a corporeal nature. Thus was established a favourite
doctrine of the preacher, on which he had no doubt been
insisting in his sermon. I shall have occasion to refer to
this story again. For the present it is sufficient to
observe that the preacher obviously, though he was un-
conscious that he had done so, produced the vision,
while the vision in its turn was adduced to impart divine
sanction to the preacher's doctrine. A new tenet was
thus added to the official teaching of African Montanism,
nominally by a revelation, really by the personality of
Tertullian.
The third power which co-operated with revelations and
personal force in the moulding of Montanism need only
be mentioned — the power of local environment. This
always exercises its subtle influence on a transplanted
faith. It has in no small degree affected Christianity
itself. And wherever its influence is effective it produces
a change of form.
The conclusion to which these considerations compel us
is, I believe, that any large measure of homogeneity in
Montanism is a thing which could not be looked for
beforehand. Any method of investigation which assumes
it must therefore be radically wrong. The only way to
arrive at a true conception of Montanism is to begin by
examining Phrygian Montanism and African Montanism
apart. It may be urged that the only Montanism of
which we can learn anything is a developed or a decadent
Montanism. That may be in part true. But we can
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 117
reach a knowledge of its inner principle in no other way
than by a preliminary study of the later forms, each by
itself, and by tracing them back to their common root.
By merely combining them we can attain no sure result.
And for this purpose an inquiry into Phrygian Monta-
nism — the heresy of the Phrygians in its original home,
shaped only by its original environment — scanty and
unsatisfying as the materials for such an inquiry are, is
immeasurably more important than an inquiry into the
exotic Montanism of Tertullian.
It remains to point out one or two very striking
instances of dissimilarity between Phrygian Montanism
and the current conception of Montanism, mainly drawn
from Tertullian, which such a study seems to me to reveal.
Let us note, in the first place, what we may learn from
the earliest documents as to the conception which was
held in Phrygia of the nature of the New Prophecy. It
is well known that Montanus and his companions pro-
phesied in ecstasy, and that their utterances were accom-
panied by strange ravings.^ The Catholics laid hold of
this fact as demonstrating that they were inspired by an
evil spirit ; and the defenders of Montanism replied that
being in a state of ecstasy was a condition of the exercise
of the prophetic gift. But all this seems to me to have
been an afterthought. The Catholics made much of the
frenzy of the prophets merely as a way of evading an
argument of the Montanists which, without bringing in
this other issue, was not easily disposed of. This earlier
argument is revealed by the anonymous writer quoted
by Eusebius.^ The Montanists, he says, evidently quoting
1 Eus. /f. ^. V. 16. 7, 9.
^ Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 482 f.) and Harnack (Chronologie, i. 364 f.)
agree in dating the anonymous treatise A. T>. 192-193. It was under-
taken at the request of Avircius Marcellus of Hieropolis in the
118 THE HEEESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
from one of their books, boasted of Agabus, Judas, Silas,
the daughters of Philip, Ammia of Philadelphia, and
Quadratus ; and from the last two they claimed to have
received the prophetic gift hy way of succession (SLeSe^avTo).'^
That is to say, they received their charismata as successors
in the line of New Testament prophets, which all believed
would remain until the end, just as the bishops had
received their office from a line of predecessors which
went back to apostolic days. They were the last prophets,
no doubt ; they had the gifts in a pre-eminent degree ;
in them was fulfilled the promise of the Paraclete. All
Montanist writers maintained that position. But still,
they were the last and the greatest in a line of succession.
It is hazardous to assert a negative. But I cannot
recall any trace of this notion of a prophetic succession in
the "West. Tertullian seems consistently to ignore all
prophecy between the Baptist, or at any rate the apostles,
and Montanus.2
And I may here observe that the impression left by
a perusal of the extant passages of Tertullian ^ in which
he refers to ecstasy as a condition of prophecy is that
the ecstasy which he contemplated was something very
different from the violent and uncontrolled ravings of
Phrygian Pentapolis (Eus. v. 16. 3), and the writer speaks of Avircius
and Zoticus of Otrous, a neighbouring town, as his fellow presbyters
(§ 5 Tov (TvixTT-pea^vTfpov Tijicov ZcoTLKov). It is probable therefore that
all three were bishops of the Pentapolis, and that Miltiades, against
whose followers the treatise was directed, was a Montanist leader of
the same district.
1 Eus. H. E. V. 17. 3, 4.
^ De An. 9 ; cp. De Virg. Vel. 1, De Monog. 3, De leiun. 12.
' See especially De Anima 45, where he makes use of the favourite
Montanist text, Gen. ii. 21. The whole chapter should be compared
with Epiph. Haer. 48. 8, 4. In several respects Tertullian appears to
be more in harmony with the Catholic writer used by Epiphaniusthan
with the Montanist opinions which that writer combats. See also
De Anima 11, 21, De leiun. 8.
THE HEEESY OF THE PHEYGIANS 119
the Phrygian prophets as reported (possibly not without
exaggeration) by the Anonymous.^ Epiphanius says
truly that the word eKaraais has different meanings,^
and I am inclined to think that western Montanists used
it in one sense, and their Phrygian brethren in another.
The account of the sister whose ecstasy was kept so well
in hand that she could wait patiently till service was
over before relating her vision stands in curious contrast
to the narrative of the proceedings at Ardabau.
A comparison of these two stories recalls also another
marked difference between the Montanism of Phrygia
and that of Africa. In Phrygia women were given a high
position in the native cults. And among the Montanists
they retained it. Montanus evidently prophesied in the
midst of a congregation. There were large numbers
present (o'xAoi), some of whom would have silenced him,
while others opposed their efforts. And it seems to be
suggested that Maximilla and Priscilla likewise addressed
a Christian assembly.^ But however that may be
Firmilian, as we have seen, makes mention of a third-
century prophetess, probably a Montanist, of whom he
states that she baptized and celebrated the Eucharist.*
Epiphanius describes a curious service of the Quintillians
(who were obviously the Montanists under another name)
at Pepuza, in which the officiants were seven virgins, who
^ Ap. Eus. if. ^. V. 16. 7, 8 ; 17. 2. It will be observed that the
Anonymous substitutes for e/ccrrao-ij the stronger word napiKo-Taais.
"- Haer. 48. 4.
^ They spoke in the same way as Montanus {H. E. v. 16. 9j. And it is
added, by way of explanation, that they did so imppovas Ka\ aKaipas *cai
aWorpioTpoTTO)^. There is nothing corresponding to the second adverb
in the description of Montanus's utterances. It may perhaps indicate
that they spoke during a church service ; which would be an improper
occasion for speech for women, though not for a man.
' Cyprian, Ep. 75. 10 (Hartel, p. 818).
120 THE HEEESY OF THE PHEYGIANS
prophesied to the people ; and he declares that they had
female bishops and priests.^ We are not surprised to find
Catholics indignantly quoting St. Paul's injunction about
women keeping silence in the Church.
This peculiarity of Montanism certainly never found its
way into the "West. It is not a Catholic, but TertuUian,
in one of his most distinctly Montanist writings, who
says, ' It is not permitted to a woman to speak in Church,
nor yet to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to assume
any office which belongs to a man, least of all the priest-
hood.' 2
Another feature of the Phrygian heresy deserves
attention at this point. I have already mentioned the
importance of Pepuza as the local centre of the sect in
its earliest days. To this ' Jerusalem ' Montanus would
have gathered men from all quarters,^ doubtless that they
might await the Parousia of the Lord which it was
believed would take place there.^ Pepuza was in fact
the Holy City of the Phrygian Montanists. And so it
came to pass that by some they were called Pepuzians.
But there is not a trace of any acknowledgement on the
part of Tertullian of the sanctity of Pepuza. One must
not, indeed, lay too much stress upon the fact that he
never mentions it in his extant writings. But there is
one piece of evidence of a more positive kind which is not
to be overlooked. In a well-known passage of his Mon-
tanist treatise against Marcion ^ he avows his belief that
a kingdom would be established on earth after the resurrec-
tion, 'in Jerusalem, the city prepared by God, let down from
heaven.' And he speaks of an oracle of the New Prophecy
» Haer. 49. 2, 3. ^ jj^ j7,.^_ y^^ 9
3 H. E. V. 18. 2. Maximilla prophesied there. lb. § 13. And so did
at least one other early prophetess. Epiph. Haer. 49. 1.
* Epiph. 48. 4 ; 49. 1. s jii, 24.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 121
which announced that an image of this city would be seen
before its actual establishment on earth. The prediction,
he declares, had been fulfilled not long before he wrote
by a vision, which heathen as well as Christian witnesses
beheld in Judaea, in the morning of forty successive
days, of a city suspended from heaven. This passage is
an unmistakable indication that Tertullian did not look
for the reign of the saints at Pepuza or anywhere else in
Phrygia ; but that he clung to the belief held by Justin
Martyr and other Christians of the second century that
after the resurrection the faithful would be gathered
together for a thousand years in Jerusalem, ' builded and
adorned and enlarged,' ^ But if so, he was ignorant of,
or repudiated, a belief which was of the essence of
Phrygian Montanism. He was a Millenarian, but not a
Millenarian of the Montanist type.
It is worth while to inquire how so startling a departure
from Phrygian teaching can be accounted for. It is
obvious, indeed, that belief in the sanctity of Pepuza
would tend to become less vivid the further Montanism
spread beyond the region of its birth. It would be
difiScult to persuade an Italian or an African that a little
village in Asia, the very name of which he had never
before heard, was the most sacred spot in the world,
chosen by Christ as the scene of His second Advent.
Montanist missionaries in Europe would perhaps not
insist upon the doctrine too strongly ; and so in time it
would disappear from the minds of their converts. But
how about Tertullian ? He was familiar with the oracles
of the prophets, and he would certainly not refuse to
accept a doctrine which he found in them. Was there
then no reference in the oracles to Pepuza or the Parou-
sia to be expected there ? This is scarcely conceivable.
^ Justin, Dial. 80.
1.22 THE HERESY OF THE PHEYGIANS
I may venture to make two suggestions, either of whicli,
if well founded, will suffice to remove the difficulty. It
may have been that wherever Pepuza was referred to in the
oracles it was spoken of, not by its proper name, but by
the new name of Jerusalem which Montanus had given
it. In that case Tertullian may have misunderstood the
meaning of the statements about the Parousia, taking
' Jerusalem ' in its literal sense. Or, again, it may have
been that his collection of the oracles was incomplete, and
that in those to which he had access Pepuza was not
referred to as a place of special sanctity.' If the latter
supposition is correct it is easy to understand that
Tertullian may have but imperfectly understood the
character of the earlier Montanistic teaching, not only in
this matter but in much else.
Not much is known of the penitential discipline of the
eastern Montanists. But there is ground for believing
that in this matter also they differed from the Africans.
ApoUonius ^ discusses the case of one Alexander, whom
^ Thei-e is of course no difficulty in supposing that several collec-
tions of the sayings of the prophets were in circulation, the contents
of which varied considerably. If it be true that they were not com-
mitted to writing, but transmitted orally, the oracles known to one
Montanist congregation might differ widely from those known to
another ; and this would be specially likely in the case of communities
outside Phrygia. It seems to me almost certain that Tertullian was
ignorant of the oracle reported in Epiph. Haer. 49. 1. But possibly
it is not genuine. Speaking generally, it is remarkable how little
there is in common between the oracles quoted by Tertullian and
those quoted by Greek writers.
^ Apollonius says that he wrote forty years after the beginning of
Montanism (Eus. H. E. v. 18. 12). Hence Harnack (Chronologie, i.
370-375) dates his treatise a.d. 196-197. But, though it is probable
that Montanus prophesied for the first time in 156, we cannot be sure
that Apollonius was accurately informed on that point, neither are
we certain that he did not use round numbers when he spoke of the
forty years that had elapsed since the New Prophecy began. The
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 123
the sectaries regarded as a martyr, but whom he affirmed
to have been tried not for the Name but for robber3^^
After his release he spent some years with a prophet.
Apollonius sneers after his accustomed fashion : ' Which
of them forgives the sins of the other ? Does the prophet
forgive the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the
extortions of the prophet ? ' This implies that prophets
were supposed by the Montanists^to have the power of
absolution. And in this insinuation Apollonius is con-
firmed, not only by Tertullian, but also (which is more
to the purpose) by an oracle which Tertullian quotes.^
"We have therefore no reason to doubt the further insinua-
tion that martyrs were regarded as possessed of the same
power.^ But the African Montanists allowed no such
prerogative to the martyrs. In Carthage it was only the
Catholics who admitted the validity of their absolutions,
and Tertullian heaps much scorn upon them for so doing.'*
But we must now proceed to discuss two questions
which will be recognized as of fundamental importance.
Did Montanism inculcate asceticism ? No one can doubt
that, as expounded by Tertullian, it did. But we are
concerned with Phrygian Montanism. What evidence
have we as to asceticism among the adherents of the New
Prophecy in Phrygia ?
The writer who gives us most help in answering this
question is Apollonius. In the passages quoted from him
recrudescence of prophecy to wliicli he bears witness seems to indicate
a longer period than four years between the Anonymous and him.
Possibly therefore he wrote as late as a.d. 200. He was certainly an
Asian, and possibly, as Praedestinatus says, bishop of Ephesus.
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. V. 18. 6-9.
2 De Pud. 21. Tertullian himself held that certain sins were un-
pardonable (§ 19), an opinion which he has some difficulty in re-
conciling with the oracle.
3 Cp. Bonwetsch, p. 112. ' De Pad. 22.
124 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
by Eusebius he insists tLat the lives of the Montanist
mai-tyrs and prophets do not conform to the requirements
of the Gospel. He roundly charges them with covetous-
ness, Montanus himself, he tells us, appointed npaKTrjpas
XpTj/jLUTcoi/, agents for the collection of money,^ and out of
the fund raised by them he actually paid salaries to the
teachers who propagated his doctrine. Moreover, he
devised a system of receiving gifts under the name of
' offerings '. Accordingly the prophets took gifts,^ and
both prophets and martyrs made gain not only from the
rich, but from the poor and orphans and widows. Prophets
and prophetesses and martyrs, unmindful of the saying of
our Lord, ' Ye shall not take gold or silver or two coats,'
accepted offerings not only of gold and silver, but also
of costly garments.'^ Themiso, a leader of the sect, who
claimed to be a ' martyr ', or as we should say, a 'confessor',
was rich enough to purchase his liberation from prison
with a large sum of money (TrXrjdei y^prjfidroiv). Themiso
was, in fact, clothed with covetousness as with a garment,^
Another, who was counted as a prophet, was a money-
lender. And, finally, Apollonius asks the scornful ques-
tions, ' Does a prophet dye his hair ? Does a prophet
paint himself? Does a prophet delight in self-adornment ?
Does a prophet play with tables and dice ? Does a prophet
lend money at interest?'; and he offers to prove that
all these things were done by the Montanist prophets.^
In some of these statements and insinuations — those,
namely, which relate to the financial organization of the
sect — Apollonius is confirmed by the Anonymous. For
when he calls Theodotus the ' first steward ' of the new
prophecy [top irpcoTov rf}^ . . . 7rpo(f)rjTeia^ olov kiriTpoTrov
TLva ^) I do not see why we may not take his words in
' Eus. H. E. V. 18. 2. 2 ib^ § 11 3 §§ 4, 7. " § 5.
5 § 11. « Ap. Eus. //. E. V. 16. 14.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 125
their literal sense. And indeed the very innocency of
some of the things laid to the charge of Montaniis is a
strong guarantee that the accusations are true. For who
nowadays would find fault with a man who provided
preachers with salaries, or who organized the collection
of money for the purpose ? And we shall not greatly
blame prophets and confessors for taking the gifts which
were offered to them, nor be greatly surprised if the more
eminent and popular leaders became rich. There is really
no need for Bonwetsch's suggestion that what Montanus
aimed at was the establishment of a community of
goods.^ The statements about salaries and the wealth
of certain individuals are quite inconsistent with such a
supposition.
What scandalized Apollonius was perhaps the fact that
Montanus was making the clerical and even the prophetic
office into a profession.^ His preachers no longer worked
at secular trades, as, in all probability, most bishops and
priests at that period did : they derived their income
solely from the payment made to them for the exercise
of spiritual functions. One who is not a member of an
established Church may perhaps be allowed to express
sympathy with him if he also felt that absorption in
financial organization is not conducive to the highest
spiritual interests of Church or sect.
"We may take it, at any rate, that Montanus desired that
1 p. 165.
^ We are reminded of the indignation of a western writer con-
temporary with Apollonius— the author of the Little Labynnth — called
forth by the conduct of one Natalius, who, at the instance of
Asclepiodotus and a banker named Theodotus, permitted himself * to
be called bishop of this heresy [sc. the Theodotians] at a salary, so
that he received 150 denarii a month '. He remarks, quite after the
manner of Apollonius, that Natalius was ensnared by the desire of
filthy lucre {alaxpoKephia). H. E. v. 28. 8 ff.
126 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
tlie officials of his sect should live, not indeed in luxury,
but in ordinary comfort.
The remainder of Apollonius's charges Bonwetsch ^ asks
us to disbelieve, on the ground that Socrates (iv. 28) bears
testimony to lack of zeal among the Paphlagonians and
Phrygians of his day for the hippodrome and the theatre.
The argument is scarcely convincing. He further reminds
us, indeed, of Jerome's statement that in the lost work
De Ecstasi Tertullian exposed the falsity of all Apollonius's
assertions." But even if we are bound to interpret rigor-
ously the words of Jerome, we must still remark that an
Asian writer is more likely to have known the facts than
one who lived in Africa, and that if the probable prejudice
of Apollonius is to be taken into account, the prejudice
of Tertullian must not be left out of consideration. The
explanation devised by Bonwetsch, for the benefit of those
who are not disposed utterly to reject the witness of
Apollonius — that the Montanists, in order to express their
spiritual joy as Christians, indulged in an ' apparent
worldliness ' which as the symbol of mere earthly merri-
ment would not have been permitted ; and that the gay
clothing of the prophetess served only to enhance her
dignity, and to enforce the festive character of her utter-
ances — need not detain us.
I am willing to grant that the statements of Apollonius
are exaggerated. But is it possible that such charges
could have been publicly made in Asia, and have been
accompanied by an express challenge to the Montanists to
disprove them, if they had not considerable foundation in
fact ? Could they have been made at all by him against
the leaders of a numerous Asian community, of which
1 p. 100.
* De Vir. III. 40 * septimum [volumen] proprie adversum ApoUonium
elaboravit in quo omnia quae ille arguit conatur defendere.'
THE HERESY OF THE PHEYGIANS 127
asceticism was one of the most prominent characteristics ?
And would Tertullian have answered them if they were so
contrary to the truth that no one could have believed
them?
But Apollonius makes two statements about Montanus
which may seem to imply that he inculcated an asceticism
which exceeded that of the Catholic Church. ' This,' he
says, ' is he who taught dissolutions of marriages, and
made laws of fasting' (6 SiSd^as Xvaet? ydfiooi/, 6 vrja-reia^
yo/xoOeTTJa-a^).^ It is scarcely probable, indeed, considering
the context in which this sentence occurs, that it was in-
tended to convey the idea of special austerity on the part
of Montanus. For it is immediately followed by accusa-
tions of extortion and gluttony. But let us examine the
statements in their order.
1. Montanus taught ' dissolutions of marriages'. It is
quite certain that in the East as in the West, Montanism
was so far ascetic as absolutely to reject second marriages
(Epiph. Haer. 48. 8, 9 ; ^ Tert. De Monog. 3, &c.). But
this can hardly be referred to here. The words Auo-ei?
yd[xoov have sometimes been rendered ' dissolution of
marriage ', a phrase which suggests that Montanus was so
1 Eus. H. E. V. 18. 2.
^ Epiphanius evidently bases this part of his account of Montanism
on a very early document. Bonwetsch (p. 36) argues, not altogether
convincingly, that it was a treatise of Hippolytus. Its date seems to
be earlier than the work of Apollonius, for the writer still asserts (§ 2)
that there have been no prophets since the death of Maximilla, a state-
ment which in the time of Apollonius would have been untrue. To
connect it with Phrygia we have the statement (§ 11) : ' Immediately
after Montanus had said this ' — viz. an oracle which he had quoted
— ['God] gave us a suggestion to remember the words of the Lord',
&C. {pre yap evdvs tovto etVe Movrai'OS vwovoiav ijfJuv 8e8u)Kfv avafxvrfa-Orjvai,
ktK.). This seems to imply that the writer had actually heard
Montanus. Moreover, several of his arguments resemble those of the
Anonymous.
128 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
strenuous an advocate of virginity as to lay it down that
married couples on their acceptance of the new prophecy
were bound to separate for the purpose of living in strict
continence. And it is true that there is an oracle of
Priscilla, which Tertullian quotes and understands as a
commendation of chastity.^ We only know it in Tertul-
lian's Latin rendering, which is not free from ambiguity.
But it certainly does not enjoin the annulling of marriages
already contracted. And if ApoUonius had wished to in-
dicate the sanction by Montanus of such an annulling in
all cases, would he not have used the singular, Xvcriv ? At
any rate his language is easily explained as a rhetorical
allusion to the fact, for which a somewhat later passage in
his treatise^ is our sole authority, that Maximilla and
Priscilla (and probably other women also) deserted their
husbands when they became prophetesses. Montanus
must of course have sanctioned their conduct : he could
not well have done otherwise, if it was his wish that
prophetesses as well as preachers should give undivided
attention to their spiritual work. But abandonment of
married life under such circumstances does not necessarily
imply an ascetic view of the relation between the sexes.
It is true that it seems to be implied by ApoUonius that
the Montanists recognized an order of virgins. For after
asserting that the prophetesses had left their husbands to
join Montanus, he adds, ' How then did they speak false-
hood, calling Priscilla a virgin ? ' But the existence of
such an order did not strike the anti-Montanist writer as
unfitting : what he counted outrageous was not the ascetic
tendency of his opponents, but their laxity in giving one
the rank of a virgin who had been married. So far as
these indications go it would seem that the Montanists were
^ De Exhort. Cast. 10. ^ Eus. H. E. v. 18. 3.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 129
less ascetic in their opinions about marriage than the
Catholics.
2. But then Montanus ' made laws for fasting '. Does
not this imply an unusually rigorous asceticism ? Tertul-
lian in his De leiuniis contrasts the Montanist fasts with
those of the Catholics, and actually accuses the latter of
gluttony because their fasts were less frequent and less
severe. But how much meaning there is likely to be in
such rhetoric may be judged when we find Apollonius
making the same accusation against the Montanists
because they had salaried preachers. The truth is that
when we fix our thoughts on the facts which Tertullian
mentions and not on the rhetoric beneath which they are
buried, we perceive that the difference between him and
the Catholics concerned far less the frequency and dura-
tion of fasts ^ than the principle on which they rested.
The Catholics held that, with certain exceptions, they were
' ex arbitrio ' ; Tertullian held that they were ' ex imperio
novae disciplinae '.^ And similarly in Epiph. Haer. 48. 8,
where apparently Montanists and Gnostics are classed
together, there is no allusion to difference in the
amount of fasting, but only to difference in the principle
which lies behind it.^ And nothing more is implied in
the words d vrjarda^ vofioOeTrjcras. In Phrygia as in Africa
^ Bonwetsch (p. 96) scarcely succeeds in proving that in these
respects the Montanists (in Africa) diiFerecl to any considerable extent
from the Catholics. He shows (p. 95) that Jerome exaggerated the
number of fasts peculiar to the Montanists.
2 De leiun. 2, 13. Cp. Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 81.
^ IlaOXoy . . . Trpo(f)r]Teiioov eXeye . , . on dnocTTrjaovTai rives tijs vyiai-
vov<Trii8i8a(rKaXias,7rpoa€xovTesTr\dvois Ka\ 8i8a(rKa\iais SaifMoicov, KwXvovTOiv
yafielv, anexfordai ^pco/xaTO)!/* . . . a>s cra(poi)S f^' vfuu Kal tois ojioiois vijiiv
TrejrA ijpwTat e^ avraiv tcov nponeiiievcav. a'l yap nXfiovs raiv aipecrfuiv rovroiP to
yapeiv Ka>\vov(TLV, d7rex«cr^at ^pco/xarcor 7rapa'y'ye'XAoi;a-ii', olx (veKev TroXirei'as
TTpoTpenojxevoi., ovx evfKev dperris p-fi^ovos kol ^pa^iiav km (TTfcfxivoov, aWa
jSSeXuKTa ravra vno Xpiarov yeyevrjpeva rjyovpevoi.
135S K
130 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
fasting was reduced to rule, no doubt by command of the
Paraclete. But we have no proof that the rules enforced
in the two regions were identical. And even if they were
it does not follow that in either the fasts were increased
in number or in severity. That would depend on the
frequency and rigour of fasting in the already existing
usage of Catholic Christians. The Montanist rule in
Phrygia may even, in this matter, have fallen below the
standard of Phrygian Catholic custom. It is at least
remarkable that when Sozomen enumerates the local
differences as to the duration of Lent, the shortest Lent
which he mentions is that of those who ' minded the things
of Montanus ', and who kept but two weeks.^
The remark about marriage and fasting therefore leaves
unimpaired the impression produced by the charges of
greed and worldliness brought by Apollonius against the
Montanists. We cannot regard those whom he had in
view as an ascetic community.
Not unconnected, in the mind of Tertullian, with the
question of asceticism, was the eagerness for martyrdom
to which as a Montanist he urged his readers. It is
necessary therefore to inquire what we can learn as to the
attitude towards martyrdom of the Phrygian Montanists.
Tertullian quotes oracles of the prophets in favour of
his view that Christians should seek rather than evade
martyrdom ; ^ but they are not appreciably stronger than
words spoken by our Lord, upon which at least one of
them is plainly founded. Both alike are patient of
different interpretations by different men. What then was
the actual practice of the Montanists of Phrygia ? Did
they court martyrdom or did they avoid it ? The answer
must be, I think, if we are to be guided by the available
1 SOZ.H.E. vii. 19.
2 De Fuga, 9 : cp. c. 11 ; De Cor. 1 ; De An. 55
THE HEEESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 131
evidence, that they behaved much in the same way as
Catholic Christians did under similar circumstances.
A passage of the Anonymous has been interpreted to
mean that the Montanists had no martyrs. ' Is there any,'
he asks,i ' of those who began to speak, from Montanus and
the women on, who was persecuted by Jews or slain by
lawless men ? ' And he answers, ' Not one.' It is instruc-
tive to observe the use which has been made of these words,
and some others like them which follow. Mr. M*"Giffert,
in the notes to his English translation of Eusebius,- affirms
that ' there is a flat contradiction ' between them and a
subsequent passage of the same writer, in which he admits
that the Montanists had many martyrs ; and he infers that
the Anonymous had ' no regard whatever for the truth '.
He adds that ' we know that the Montanists had many
martyrs, and that their principles were such as to lead
them to martyrdom even when the Catholics avoided it ',
referring to Tertullian's De Fuga. In the latter remark
he assumes that African and Phrygian Montanism were
identical in principle. And all that precedes it is based
on a misinterpretation of the Anonymous.
For that writer is answering the argument — based on
Matt, xxiii. 34, ' I send unto you prophets and wise men
and scribes ; some of them ye shall kill and crucify ' — that
because the Catholics had not received Montanus and his
companions they were slayers of the prophets. Any one
who reads the whole passage with attention will perceive
that his answer amounts to this : The text must be taken
literally ; and in its literal sense it has not been fulfilled
in the Montanist prophets. None of them has been put
to death by any one, still less by the Jews, to whom
Christ was speaking. Montanus and Maximilla and
Theodotus were all dead, but not one of them had died as a
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. V. 16. 12. 2 p. 232 f.
k2
132 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
martyr. The Anonymous makes no reference to the
general body of Montanists. He neither denies nor
affirms that they had martyrs. Hence his words cannot
contradict the later passage in which he allows that the
sect had numerous martyrs.
But it is not without significance that, if we may believe
him — and I see no reason why we should not — none of
the early Phrygian prophets had suffered for the faith.
Is it likely, if they preached, with the vigour of a Ter-
tullian, that the glory of martyrdom should be eagerly
sought, that all of them should have passed through the
persecution of Marcus Aurelius unscathed ?
But let us proceed to consider the second passage of
the Anonymous to which Mr. M^Giflfert refers. In it he
tells us that when all other argument failed them the
Montanists fell back on their martyrs. And he admits
the truth of their contention that their martyrs were
many in number.^
What was the argument based on this fact? The
Anonymous only says that they regarded it as ' a proof
of the power of the prophetic Spirit that was among
them'. We may perhaps guess that what they meant
was something of this kind. The Anonymous plainly
refers to the persecution of Marcus Aurelius ; for after it,
according to him, the Church had enjoyed continuous
peace up to the time when he wrote.^ Now the martyrs
of Lyons had during that persecution testified by their
letters in favour of the Catholic party in Phrygia.^
Their judgement would have had great weight with all
Christendom. Just in the same way we cannot doubt
that the arguments of Praxeas against the Montanists
were the more readily listened to by the bishop of Eome
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. V. 16. 20 f. ^ lb. § 19.
" Eus. H. E. V. 3. 4.
THE HEEESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 133
because of his ' martyrdom ' of which he made such proud
boasting, and the reality of which Tertullian so eagerly
disputed.^ By way of reply the Montanists may have
appealed to their own martyrs : ' We too had then many
martyrs who testified on our behalf.'
But, however that may be, the Anonymous gives us no
reason to suppose that there was any balancing of one
set of martyrs against another in regard either to their
number or their eagerness and steadfastness. As yet we
have nothing to guide us to a sure judgement about the
attitude of the Phrygian Montanists towards martyrdom.
"We turn to the treatise of Apollonius. Here at length
we find a hint. Apollonius tells us that Themiso pur-
chased his liberation from bonds with a large sum of
money, and thereafter boasted as a martyr.^ This state-
ment may of course be false ; but it is not proved to be
false because Tertullian in his De Fuga denounced the
practice of purchasing release.^ And it is worthy of re-
mark that in this case it is not a Montanist but a Catholic
who says that Themiso's act of cowardice ought to have
humbled him. Moreover, the statement (whether true or
false) would hardly have been made if it had admitted of
an easy retort. So far as it goes it indicates that in
Phrygia the Montanists were more inclined to avoid
martyrdom than the Catholics.
This is confirmed by a document of later date. Under
Decius one Achatius, apparently a bishop, whose see,
however, is unknown,'* was examined by a governor
named Martianus. The record of the examination was
printed by E-uinart,^ and has many marks of genuine-
' Adv. Prax. 1. ^ Ap Eus. H. E. v. 18. 5.
^ Bonwetsch, p. 163.
* See B. Aube, Les Chretiens dans VEmpire Romain, iv. 181 f.
^ Acta sincera, ed. Amsterdam, 1713, p. 152. See also Gebliardt,
Acta Martyr um Selecta, 1902, p. 115.
134 THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS
iiess. In it the governor is represented as urging Achatius
to sacrifice by an appeal to the example of the Cataphry-
gians, ' homines religionis antiquae,' who had in a body
abandoned Christianity and made their offerings to the
gods. This address cannot have been put into the mouth
of Martianus by an orthodox writer. For such a one
would not have made him speak of the Montanists as
men of an ancient religion ; and still less would he have
made him immediately afterwards contrast their faith
with the ' nouum genus religionis ' of their Catholic
rivals. The governor is struck by the difference between
the faint-heartedness of the Montanists and the courage
of the Catholics.
Another indication of the position taken by the eastern
Montanists in the matter of martyrdom remains to be
noticed. The sect which was commonly known as 'the
heresy of the Phrygians ' must have included among its
members a large number — perhaps the majority — of the
Christians of Phrygia. And we have direct testimony
that this was so even as late as the fifth century.^ But
Sir William Ramsay^ points out that in Phrygia as a
whole martyrdoms in the latter part of the second century,
and throughout the third, were rare. From a study of the
inscriptions he is able to suggest a reason for this fact.
The Christians lived on good terms with their heathen
fellow-countrymen, and did not obtrude their Chris-
tianity unnecessarily ; and, speaking generally, a spirit of
compromise and accommodation in matters religious pre-
vailed. If this description is at all near the truth the
attitude of the Phrygian Christians towards paganism
and towards persecution must have been as different as
^ Soz. H. E. ii. 32.
^ Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii (1897), chaps, xii, xvii, esp.
p. 501.
THE HERESY OF THE PHRYGIANS 135
possible from that which, is enforced in Tertullian's Mon-
tanist treatises, and, for that matter, in many other
writings which have never been suspected of Montanist
leanings. So far from courting persecution the Phrygian
Christians sought to avoid it, and succeeded. If the
Montanists had not been in this point in agreement with
the Catholics such a result would have been impossible.
But this paper must be brought to a close. Professor
Harnack, following many other writers, has said that
' what is called Montanism was a reaction against secu-
larism in the Church '.^ The considerations which I have
now adduced seem to me to prove that, if this be true,
Montanism, in the place of its birth, must have departed
from its original standpoint far more rapidly than the
Montanism which, in the last years of the second century,
established itself at Carthage, and is represented, for us,
by Tertullian.
' Encycl. Brit.^ xvi. 777. The statement has been modified in the
eleventh edition, 1911, xviii. 759,
ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS OF
VOLUMES OF TRACTS
An important section of Eusebius's ^ccZesms^icaZ History
is based upon documents whicli he bad bimself gathered —
the letters of Origen, of which he possessed over a
hundred. These, he tells us, he procured from various
quarters and bound in volumes.^ The volumes of Origen's
letters in Eusebius's library remind us of the countless
volumes of pamphlets, so interesting to the historian,
which find a home in our great modern collections. It
may very well be that they were but specimens of many
similar volumes of the minor writings of early authors,
stored in the two libraries which supplied him with
materials for his work, those of Pamphilus at Caesarea,-
and of Alexander at Jerusalem.^ It may not be without
instruction to search through his History for evidence
of the use of such volumes of tracts.
1. H. E. iv. 15. "We may begin with an instance which
will scarcely be disputed. It was a volume of Acts of
Martyrs, and contained the following : (1) The Epistle of
the Smyrnaeans on the Martyrdom of Polycarp ; (2) The
Acts of Metrodorus and Pionius ; (3) The Acts of Carpus,
Papylus, and Agathonice. That these were all bound in
a single volume {ypa(})rj), and that Eusebius refers to them
in the order in which they occurred in it, is evident from
^ H. E, vi. 36. 3 hv OTToaas (fKOjiabrjv irapa fiia0opots (Tcodfiaas crvvaya-
yfiv ^eSvvTjfieda, iv IBiais TOficov 7repiypa(pals, cos av fxrjKiri hmppinTOi-vTO,
KareXf^nfifv, tov (Karov apiOpov vTrtp^aivovaas.
2 H. E. vi. 32. 3. ^ H. E. vi. 20. 1.
ON THE USE OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 137
his own words. After paraplirasing the first seven chapters
of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans and quoting nearly the
whole of the remainder, he proceeds : ^ 'In the same
volume about him other martyrdoms also were attached . . .
with whom also Metrodorus . . . was delivered up to death
by fire. Among those who lived at that time a famous
martyr, one Pionius, flourished, whose . . . confessions . . .
.the writing about him contains in very full detail . . . And
after [this] there are extant also memoirs of others . . .
who were martyred, Carpus and Papylus and the woman
Agathonice.' Here then we recognize one volume which
lay before the historian as he wrote ; and it is important
to observe his method of dealing with it. In the course of
his narrative he has touched upon most of the prominent
ecclesiastics who flourished under Antoninus Pius. Before
passing on to the times of Marcus Aurelius he extracts
a passage from Irenaeus giving an account of Polycarp.^
Then, having recorded the accession of Aurelius,^ he goes
on to describe Polycarp's martyrdom, which, according to
his chronology, took place in this reign. For an account
of this event he has recourse to the volume which we are
now considering. Its first treatise suffices for his imme-
diate purpose ; but having opened the book he does not
again close it till he has given a list of the remaining
tracts included in it. The Acts of Pionius had for him
a special interest,^ and he is therefore not content with
merely mentioning it, but adds a summary of its contents.
^ §§ 46-48 'Ev rfj avTjj be irtpi avrov ypa<pfj koI aXXa ^xaprvpia <tvv-
^TTTO . . . fxiO^ (01/ Koi MrjTpodiopos , . . irvpl jrapabode'is avtiprjrai. rcov ye
firjv Tore TTtpi^OTjTOs fiaprvs etf tis eyvapi^ero Iliovios . . . e^ijs 8e koX cIXXcoj/
. . . vnopLvriixara pefjLaprvprjKoTau cpeperai., KdpTTOV Kal UanvXov, Koi
yvvaiKos ^AyaOoviKrjs.
2 H. E. iv. 14.
3 lb. § 10.
* He included them in his Book of Martyrdoms, H. E. iv. 15. 47.
138 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
This order of proceeding is similar, as we shall see, to that
which he adopts in other cases.
The other volumes of tracts, as we suspect them to be,
used by Eusebius, may be noticed in the order in which
they are alluded to in the History.
2-6. H.E. ii. 18. Writings of Philo. In this chapter
Eusebius gives a list, which is probably complete, of the
works of Philo Judaeus which were known to him. He
first mentions ^ his two great treatises on the Pentateuch,
the Legum Allegoriae and the Qitaestiones et Solutiones,
or, to speak more accurately, of those parts of them which
still bore these titles and related to the books of Genesis
and Exodus. With the volumes which contained the
greater part of these we have no concern. We have to
consider the catalogue of shorter tracts which follows.
It begins ^ with the remark, ' There are besides these
separate dissertations by him on certain questions,' after
which thirteen treatises are named, and this section of
the catalogue closes with the words, ' These are such of
his works on Genesis as have come down to us.' ^ Now
of the thirteen treatises, if we may accept the conclusions
of modem scholars,^ no less than eleven really belonged
to the Legum Allegoriae from which Eusebius dis-
tinguishes them. Their connexion with that work had
already been forgotten. That in giving their titles
Eusebius is in fact merely transcribing them in the order
in which they occurred in a volume or volumes into
which they had been brought together is made tolerably
* § 1. In this discussion I have made much use of Schiirer, A His-
tory of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Div. ii, vol. iii, § 34. 1,
E. T. 1894, pp. 321-361.
'^ § 2 fan 8' aiiTG) napa. ravra npojiXrjfiaTOiu Tivoiiu I8ia>s TreTrovrjfieva
aTrovbdarpnTa.
* § 4 Koi Taiira pev to. (Is fjpas eXdovra rav (is ttjv y(ve(riv.
* Schurer, pp. 331, 334.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 139
plain when we consider the following facts. Their true
order, as parts of the Allegoriae, would have been that of
the sections of the Book of Genesis with which they
severally deal. But that is not at all the order in which
Eusebius names them. The first four, indeed, De agricid-
tura, De ehrietate, De sobrietate, and De confusione
linguarum,^ treat in succession of Gen. ix. 20, 21, 24, xi.
1 ff. ; but then come seven in an order entirely arbitrary,
De profugis ^ on Gen. xvi. 6 ff., De congressu quaerendae
eruditionis causa ^ on Gen. xvi. 1 ff., Quis rerum divinarum
haeres sit* on Gen. xv. Iff., De mutatione nominum^ on
Gen. xvii. 1 ff.,De migratione Ahrahami^ onGen. xii. 1 ff.,
De gigantibus "^ on Gen. vi. 1 ff., and De somniis ^ on Gen.
(xx. 3), xxviii. 12 ff., xxxi. 11 ff., xxxvii, xl. 41, &c. Again,
among these are inserted two tracts from an entirely
different group of Philo's writings,^ De fortitudine, &c.,^°
and De Abrahnmo}^ The former of these has indeed no
claim to be included in this list. It is not a dissertation
on the Book of Genesis, and it is part of an appendix to
the work De specialibus legibus^^ mentioned lower down in
the chapter.^^ It is not the only tract whose right to stand
here may be called in question. For though the two ex-
tant books (apparently the second and third) ^* of the De
somniis discuss dreams recorded in Genesis, the fourth
and fifth, which were in Eusebius's copy, must have
travelled beyond its limits. And finally, though Eusebius
gives us to understand that this list includes all the works
of Philo on Genesis that he knew, he subsequently
1 Mangey, i. 300-435. ^ j^ 546-577.
" lb. 519-545. •» lb. 473-518. « n,. 578-619.
« lb. 436-472. '' lb. 262-299. » lb. 620-699.
9 Schiirer, pp. 338 ff. i" Mangey, ii. 375-407. " lb. 1-40.
12 lb. 210 358. See Schurer, pp. 343 ff. " § 5,
" Schurer, p. 337.
140 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
mentions another whicli is based on passages of that book,
his De losepho}
It is obvious to suggest, as an explanation of all
this confusion, that the list which we have been consider-
ing is merely an enumeration of the tracts contained in
one or more volumes which bore some such title as
'Treatises of Philo on Genesis', while the tracts mentioned
later on were preserved in volumes whose titles did not
indicate that they treated of that book. Now it is mani-
festly improbable that so many tracts should have been
included in a single manuscript volume. If printed, those
which have been mentioned would fill about 650 pages
of Mangey's edition. "We are led, therefore, to inquire
whether there is any evidence for their division among
several volumes. And a scrutiny of the text of our list
proves that such evidence is at hand. Eusebius divides
the tracts into groups : ' Apart from these belong to him
separate dissertations on certain questions, such as the
two books De agt'icultura . . . and yet again the tract
Concerning the three virtues which, with others, Moses
described. In addition to these the De mutatione nomi-
num . . . and yet again De gigantihus^ &c.^ Does each of
the four groups marked out by these phrases ' apart from
these ', ' and yet again ', 'in addition to these ', ' and yet
again ', correspond to a distinct volume ? This is not
likely, for in that case the volumes would have been of
very unequal size. Indeed, the second of them would
have had only one tract of somewhat less than the average
length, that on The three virtues. But let us suppose
that the words ' and yet again ' do not imply a passing
from one volume to another. The list is then broken up
into two groups, and it turns out that they would
1 § 6. See Schiirer, p. 342.
^ §§ 2-4 eoTt 8' aiircp napa ravra . . . koi ert . . . nposrovTOis . . . Koi eri.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 141
represent volumes of very nearly the same bulk. The
first eight treatises occupy 274 pages of Mangey's edition,
to which we must add about 35 pages for the first book
of the De ehrietate, now lost.^ The next five, introduced
by the words ' in addition to these ', take up 237 pages of
Mangey, to which 105 pages are to be added for the three
missing books of the De somniis. Thus our total is in
one case 310, in the other 340, pages of Mangey —volumes,
it is true, of large, but not of impossible size.
"We pass to the next section,^ which gives a list of the
writings on Exodus. This includes five books of the
Quaestiones et SoluUones, and some other tracts which
seem to be identical with part of the Vita Mosis,^ the De
specialibus legibus '^ and the De praemiis et poenis.^
There is considerable difficulty in determining the size of
the treatises which compose this group because only two
of the five books of the Quaestiones et Solutiones are now
extant,*^ because we cannot be sure how much of the Vita
Mosis is included, because Eusebius reckons as a distinct
treatise in this group the De victimis,'' which in extant
manuscripts is reckoned as part of the De specialibus
legibus, and because the latter work as we have it is
imperfect.^ However, the group seems to have contained
about as much as 300 or 400 of Mangey's pages. Thus it
would have filled a volume of about the same size as one of
those which contained the works on Genesis.
After enumerating the treatises on Exodus Eusebius
» Schiirer, p. 335. 2 § 5.
^ Mangey, ii. 80-179. Eusebius calls it Trtpl tj)? a-Kr]vr\s : see Schiirer,
p. 348.
♦ Mangey, ii. 210-358. See Schurer, pp. 343 fF.
^ Mangey, ii. 408-437.
« Schurer, p. 328.
' Mangey, ii. 237-250. See Schurer, p. 344, n. 46.
8 Schurer, p. 343.
142 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
proceeds to describe another group. ^ ' In addition to all
these,' lie says, ' there are also extant works of his, each
containing but one book ' ; and he names four, De provi-
dentia, De ludaeis^^ De losepho,^ and De Alexandra.^
The opening words 'in addition to all these' seem as
before to indicate a fresh volume. And indeed it is
difficult to understand whj'' Eusebius treated these tracts
as a separate group unless it was because they were bound
together. Their subjects are various, and one of them, as
we have seen, might have been included in the Genesis
list. Their only bond of union is their size ; and in that
they are not exceptional, for in this chapter many other
treatises are included which consisted of a single book.
We are next introduced to a group, consisting of what
Eusebius reckons as four tracts, of which three seem
beyond doubt to have stood together in a volume.'^
' Besides these the tract On every evil man being
in bondage, following which is the Quod omnis probus
liber. ^ And after these have been set {or composed) by
him the De Vita contemplativa or Concerning Suppliants^
. . . and the Tntei'pretations of the Hebrew names in the
Laid and the Prophets are said to be his work.'
The words 'following which' (c5 e^^r) of themselves
suggest that the second of these tracts succeeded the first
in a volume ; and that this was the case is made certain
when we add that they are known to have been actually
^ § 6 Trpos TOvTois anaai Koi /xoi'o/3t/3Xa avToii (pfpfTai.
2 Schiirer, pp. 354, 356.
^ Mangey, ii. 41-79. * Schiirer, p. 355.
§ 6 enl TovTOLS 6 Trept tov 8ov\ov eiVat navra (j)av}<.op, (S i^rji eariv 6
irepi Toil navra (T7rov8aiov eXevdepov eivai' 7. fied^ ots (rvvTeraKTai avra 6
Trep\ ^Lov 6fcopr]TiKov t] iKtrav, i^ oii ra rrepl tov ^iov tS>v aTroaToXiKatv
nvdpwv 8ie\T)Kv6afiev , koi rav iv vofxa Be Kai iTpo(f)TiTais 'E^pdiKciv ovofiarav
al fpprjveiai. tov avroii cmovdr] elvai Xty^VTai.
« Mangey, ii. 445-470. "^ Mangey, ii. 471-486.
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 143
the first and second parts of a single work.^ The statement
about the De vita comtemplativa might have been taken
to mean that it was written by Philo after the others,
were it possible to conceive that Eusebius had any
evidence of such a fact. There is certainly none in the
second and third tracts themselves if in their present form
they are complete. ^ If the words are understood as con-
veying the information that the third followed the second
according to their author's arrangement, they give us
good reason for thinking that they were so placed in
Eusebius's manuscript. But it may appear later on that
Eusebius would have had little hesitation in concluding
that one treatise was later than another from the mere fact
that it came after it in a volume which included both.
There is no direct intimation in the text that the treatise
which is next referred to, the Interpretatio Hebraicorum
nominum, was found by Eusebius in the same volume as
the other three. But the assumption is very natural.
By themselves the three would have made a very small
volume ; and the Interpretatio is mentioned in close
connexion with them. Moreover, we seem to have no
choice between supposing that it was bound with them
and holding that it was in a volume by itself For the
only work mentioned after it, that which Eusebius here
calls nepl dp^rodv, occupies in its present form over eighty
pages of Mangey's edition,^ and originally it must have
been more than twice as long.^ So large a work would
scarcely have been bound with another which had no
relation to it. Moreover, the hypothesis that the Ono-
masticon was contained in a volume with one or more
^ Schiirer, p, 349. It should be added, however, that the word e^^?
does not necessarily indicate immediate sequence. See H. E. i. 2. 25 ;
3. 6 ; ii. 7. 6 ; 17. 9 ; 21. 1 ; iii. 36. 14 ; v. 1. 4, 62, &c.
2 The first is lost. => ii. 517-600. * Schurer, pp. 350 ff.
144 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
works of Philo serves to explain certain facts which are
somewhat difficult to understand otherwise. In Eusebius's
copy the work was plainly anonymous. Jerome had seen
several copies of it, and apparently none of them gave the
name of the author. Origen also seems to refer to it as
anonymous.^ Yet both Eusebius and Jerome ascribe it
to Philo, and the latter does so on the authority of
Origen. How is this to be accounted for ? If the treatise
was bound up with other works which bore the name of
Philo in the manuscript which Eusebius used, the inference
would have been natural enough that it came from Philo's
pen. And Eusebius may have been guided to it by a
marginal note in the manuscript.^ Now it is quite
probable that the copies of Philo known to Eusebius were
in Origen's library at Caesarea. If Jerome had seen the
volume he might have drawn from it the same inference
as Eusebius, and, with less caution, he might have supposed
that it had the sanction of the famous scholar who had
made the collection.
I conclude then that the Hebrew Onomasticon was the
last tract in a volume. But did the three which precede
it in Eusebius's list constitute with it a separate volume ?
If they did, it would seem to have been much smaller
than some of the others which are referred to in this
chapter. And the same remark applies to the group of
four short treatises previously discussed. For this reason
I am inclined to suppose that the two sets of tracts were
bound together. The words ' besides these ' {inl tovtols) ^
which introduce the description of the group favour the
^ The passages of Origen and Jerome are quoted by Schiirer,
p. 360 f.
^ Compare for a somewhat similar case, Photius, Bibl. 48, discussed
by Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 378 ff.
^ Not TTpoj TovTois, a ishrase which elsewhere in the chapter indi-
cates the beginning of a volume. Cp. above, p. 26.
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 145
hypothesis. But the evidence is far from being decisive ;
and I therefore count the two groups as corresponding to
two volumes.
If the obscure hints of Eusebius have been rightly
interpreted we find, then, that for his knowledge of the
minor writings of Philo he depended on these five volumes,
probably preserved in Origen's library :
(1) A volume of eight tracts described as being on the
Book of Genesis.
(2) A volume of five tracts with a similar title.
(3) A volume containing five books of the Quaestiones et
Solutiones, together with four tracts on Exodus.
(4) A small volume containing four short tracts.
(5) A small volume containing the two parts of a
treatise by Philo, with separate titles, and two others of
which the second was anonymous.
7. H. E. iv. 11-13 ; 16-18. Worhs of Justin Martyr.
This volume contained the following : (1) The treatise
(or treatises) Adv. Graecos ; (2) Apol. i ; (3) The Epistle of
Marcus Aurelius addressed to the Commune Asiae ; (4)
Apol. ii. Let it first be remarked that if we are right in
supposing that these tracts were collected in one volume
the procedure of Eusebius with regard to Justin is similar
to that which he followed in the case of Polycarp. He
mentions two prominent writers of the time of Pope
Anicetus, Hegesippus and Justin, and cites a passage from
each which fixes his date.^ For the latter writer the
passage is taken from the first Apology. The volume
containing it is open, and therefore, having made his
extract, Eusebius proceeds to give an account of its
contents. He names (1) and (2), from the latter of which
he makes a further extract ; he transcribes (3), which he
ascribes to Antoninus Pius. Having got so far, his
» H.E. iv. 11. 7-9.
1353 L
146 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
description is interrupted, for (4) does not (as he supposes)
belong to the reign of Pius, of which he is at the moment
treating, but to that of his successor. Hence the account
of Polycarp is inserted, as it were parenthetically. This
finished, he returns to Justin in ch. 16, mentioning (4),
and making from it a lengthy quotation. The parallelism
of all this to his treatment of Polycarp and the others
mentioned along with him lends a certain probability to
our hypothesis. But it is supported by other considera-
tions. In the first place, why is Justin's work against
the Greeks mentioned in iv. 11? It has no obvious
relevance to the context ; it is not a book which had any
special attraction for Eusebius, since he makes no extract
from it, and gives no account of its argument ; and it is
named again in its proper place in ch. 18, where a formal
list is given of the writings of its author. Our answer is
simple. It stood first in the volume which Eusebius was
using at the time, and therefore, according to his habit, he
named it in connexion with the other more important
treatises with which it was bound. Again, if Eusebius
found (2), (3), (4) succeeding one another in this order,
his manuscript of these writings resembled the only
known extant manuscripts which contain them. The two
complete copies of the Apologies of Justin insert after the
first the letter of Marcus Aurelius (followed by another
spurious imperial epistle).^ And lastly, our hypothesis
partially removes a difficulty which has perplexed critics.
Eusebius is so apparently contradictory in his references
to Justin's Apologies that some writers have contended
that what he names the Second Apology is a lost work, and
^ Otto, Corpus Apologetarnm, vol. i, pp. xxiff. The MSS. referred
to are not independent of one another. The order in them is (4),
(2), (3) ; and there is evidence that in other manuscripts the two
Apologies were transposed. lb., p. xxviii f.
OF VOLUMES OF TEAGTS 147
that our first and second Apologies were by him regarded
as a single treatise and called the First Apology. This
indeed appears, on any showing, very unlikely, since in
H.E. iv. 16 he quotes from our Second Apology, and
expressly tells us that his extract is from ' the second book
on behalf of our doctrines '.^ But what are the arguments
on the other side ? They are two in number. In iv. 8. 5,
after quoting from the First Apology, he introduces an
extract from the second with the words kv tuvtco . . . ravTot,
ypdcpei, which have been rendered, ' In the same work,' &c.
But there seems to be no need to translate the phrase in
this way. May we not understand some such word as
^i/SXio) 2 after ravrS)^ and translate, ' In the same volume ' ?
There remains only iv. 17. 1, where kv rfj n pore pa diroXoyia
is certainly intended to refer to (our) Second Apology.
We cannot safely build a theory on such a slender founda-
tion. We may suppose that wporepa is a slip either of
Eusebius or of a scribe, or that it is to be taken in an
unusual sense as equivalent to SeSTjXcofieprj.
8. H. E. iv. 23. The Epistles of Dionysius of Corinth.
Seven ' Catholic ' Epistles are mentioned, and a letter
addressed to a lady named Chrysophora. It has been
remarked ^ that, in a note appended (as it seems) to the
letter to the Romans, Dionysius complains that his
epistles had been tampered with by heretics ; and that
two of them are addressed to churches in Crete, and that
these are not named consecutively ; from which facts the
inference is drawn, 'that the letters had already been
collected into a volume, and that they are enumerated by
Eusebius in the order in which he found them there.' I
^ This is explained away, not very satisfactorily, by making the
words iv Ti] 8f8T]\a>fji€VT] airoXoyia in § 2 refer, not to the work mentioned
in § 1, but to the First Apology, quoted in ch. 13.
2 Cp. H. E. V. 20. 2, and below, p. 177, note \
» Diet. Christ. Biog. i. 849.
l2
148 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
confess that, while admiring the acuteness of the argument,
I was not at first convinced by it. But the scale is turned
when we find it confirmed by the words of Eusebius
himself. After describing five of the letters he introduces
the sixth with the words ravrais dWrj eyKareiXeKTai . . .
ema-ToXij.^ The verb seems naturally to imply a volume.
Indeed a cognate word is used by Eusebius of the volumes
in which he had arranged the letters of Origen.^ And it is
applied elsewhere to a treatise which Eusebius included in
his lost book of Acts of Martyrdom.^ If the Epistles of
Dionysius were already gathered into a volume in the
lifetime of their writer, it would appear that additions
had been made to the collection before it fell into the
hands of Eusebius. In the volume which he used the sixth
Catholic Epistle seems to have been followed by the reply
to it, addressed to Dionysius by Pinytus, bishop of the
Cnossians, a paraphrased extract from which is given by
Eusebius,^ and at the end, after the note of Dionysius
already referred to, came the letter to Chrysophora.
9-12. H. E. iv. .26. Worlcs of Melito of Sardis. Of the
works of Melito which were known to him Eusebius gives
a long list. As in the case of the writings of Philo, dis-
cussed above, he seems to divide them into groups, which
may very possibly represent separate volumes. The
several groups are indicated, as before, by the connecting
particles. 'Of these writers [Melito and Apollinarius]
there have come to our knowledge those that are set out
below. Of Melito : (1) The two books On the Pascha,a,nd
that On the [Christiaji] mode of life and the prophets^ and
[the treatise] On the Church and that On the Lord's Day ;
• § 7. 2 See above, p. 136.
' H. E. V. 4. 3 o [sc. (Tvyypanfia) Koi avro rrj rSav finpTvpuiv crvvaycoyii rrpos
fjficou, i)s yovv e^r]v, KareiXeKTai. Compare iii. 24. 2 ; 88. 1.
*§8.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 149
and yet again (2) tliat On the faith of man, and that 0)1
Creation, and that On ohedience of the senses to faith ; and
in addition to these (3) that On soul and body or mind, and
that On the Laver, and On Truth, and Oji faith and the
generation of Christ ; and (4) his discourse On prophecy
and On soul and body, and that On hospitality and The
Key, and the [books] On the Devil and the Apocalypse of
John, and that On the Incarnate God. After all [these] also
the booklet addressed to Antoninus.' ^ The first and third
groups apparently contain four treatises each, the second
group three, and the last six.- After giving this list as a
complete enumeration, Eusebius proceeds to quote from
the first and last of the series, and then makes an extract
from Melito's Selections,^ a tcorl' not included in his list.
The explanation which may be suggested of this discre-
pancy is of this kind. By the writings of Melito which
had come to his knowledge, Eusebius meant those which
lay in one of the libraries to which he had constant access.
The extract from the Selections may have been made from
a copy borrowed from a friend, or may have been taken
at second hand from an earlier writer.
13. H. E. iv. 27. Works of Apollinarius. This chapter
is a continuation of the preceding, in which Eusebius
undertook to give a catalogue of some of the works of
^ § 2. Tovrav (Is r]fjieT€pav yva>aiv dfJHKTai ra VTroTerayfAtva' MeXiVwi'oy,
TO. Trepl Tov Trdcrxa Sto kqI to nep\ no^LTeias Koi Trpo(f>T]Ta)p kol 6 nepl
fKKXrjcrias Ka\ 6 nfpl KvpiaKrjs Xoyos, en di 6 nepl nicjTeoiS ai/dpunrov icai 6
nepl n\d(Ttuis, Kai 6 nepl v7raKor]s niaTfO)! aladrjrrjpiav Koi irpos tovtoiv 6
TTfpl ylrvxfjs Kai crapaTOS rj poos Koi 6 jrfpl Xovrpov Kat ntpl dXrjdeias koi TTcpi
ni<TTfa)S Koi yepeaeas Xpiarov Knl Xoyos avTOv [Trepi] 7rpo(})T]Teias <ai irepX
■>^vxT]s Ka\ crapajos Koi 6 irepl (piXo^evias Ka\ fj kX^Is koi to. nepl tov StajSoXou
Koi TTjs dnOKaXv'^eas 'icodpvov Kal 6 nep\ fpaapoTov dtov, eV* Trdcri, Kai to
TTpOS ' ApT(iiv'lVOV /3l/3Xl6tOI/.
^ But Schwartz regards n-ept XovTpnv and tlie four following titles as
mere chapter headings of a single work.
^ fKXoyai,
150 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
Melito and Apollinarius, but actually spoke only of those
of the former. It might be expected, then, that if the list
of Melito's works, with the exception of the Selections, was
simply a transcript of the titles of tracts bound in volumes
which lay under his hand, the catalogue of the writings of
Apollinarius would be compiled by the same easy method.
And it will be observed that Eusebius is conscious that
his enumeration is far from complete. Out of many books
he names only a few which he himself had seen. He
writes :
' Many books by Apollinarius are preserved in the pos-
session of many persons, but those which have come into
our hands are these : The discourse to the before-men-
tioned Emperor [Antoninus], and To the Greeks ^yq books,
and On Truth a first and second, and To the Jeics a first
and second, and those things which he wrote after these
against the heresy of the Phrygians, which had recently
come into existence, since it was then beginning as it
were to shoot forth and Montanus with his false prophet-
esses was still in the act of introducing his error.' ^
There is no indication here, such as we found elsewhere,
that Eusebius, as he wrote down the titles of the books,
was passing from one volume to another. But that the
polemical work was in the same volume with those pre-
viously named, and followed them in it, is very probable.
Eusebius says that Apollinarius wrote it ' after them'. How
did he know this ? He may have had evidence in the book
itself sufficient to enable him to form an opinion as to its
date. Indeed he implies as much. But it is hardly likely
that the other treatises gave similar indications such as
' Tov Se ATToXivapiov noWatv Trapa itoWois (ra^oixevav to. els rjfias
fXdovra ifTTiv rdhe' \6yos 6 npos tov Kpo(ipr]p.ivov ^aaiXea Koi Trpos
EXXrjvas avyypap.fj.aTa irevre koi nepl aXrjdfias a' /3' Kal Trpos lov8aiovs a' j3
Kn\ a piTa TavTa avveypayj/e kuto t^s tu)v ^pvywv uipecreus, /xer* ov ttoXvp
KaivoTopr]diiarjs xpovov.ToTe ye pfjv axmep eK(f)veiv dpxopei/rjs, en Toii MovTavoii
(iua Ta7s avToi) \//ev8o7rpo0ijTt(Tii' apxds T^y TrapeKTponrjs iroiovpevov.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 151
would warrant the assertion that they were all of earlier
date. But let us suppose that they were included in a
single volume in the order in which he mentions them.
It is at least possible that he believed them to have been
arranged chronologically^ and therefore concluded that
the last in place was also the latest in time. That Euse-
bius had at any rate no better ground for his assertion
than this becomes probable when we observe that his
inference is almost certainly incorrect. For he tells us
that ApoUinarius related the story of the Legio Fulminata.^
It cannot be doubted that he found it in one of the
treatises mentioned in this chapter, and most likely in
the Apology, But the book in which the story was told
must have been published after the year 174. And a
work the appearance of which coincided with the begin-
ning of the Montanist movement cannot have been written
so late. For we know that by 177 Montanism had spread
to Rome.^ Eusebius himself dates its rise in 172,^ and it
probably originated much earlier. Hence it is scarcely
possible that the statement that the treatise against the
Phrygians was written after the rest of Apollinarius's works
is true, or that Eusebius made it as the result of a critical
investigation.
14. H. E. vi. 22. Worhs of Hippolyfus. Of the writings
of this famous person, Eusebius confesses that he had but
little knowledge. He enumerates seven as having come
into his hands, but adds that a very large number of others
were preserved by various owners. The seven which he
mentions are these : (1) On the Hexaemeron, (2) On the
things folloicing the Hexaemeron, (3) Against Marcion,
(4) On the Song of Solomon, (5) Ow parts of EzeTciel,
(6) Concerning the Pascha, (7) Against all Heresies. All
these are lost or imperfectly known, but the last was a
1 H. E. V. 5. 4. ' H. E. V. 3. 4. ^ chron., Schoene, ii. 173.
152 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
short work,^ and there seems no reason why all should
not have been included in one volume. Before giving
the list Eusebius mentions the Paschal Cycle of Hippolytus,
professing to derive his information about it from the book
Concerning the Pascha. It was, in fact, the circumstance
that this work could be assigned to the reign of Alexander
Severus that led Eusebius to mention it in this place.
Having named it, he proceeds, more suo, to give the con-
tents of the volume in which he found it. It is not with-
out significance that he introduces his list with the words,
' But of his other treatises those which have come into our
hands are the following,' ^ and then, among the rest,
mentions the treatise Concerning the Pascha again.
15. H. E. vi. 43. Letters on the Schism of Novatian.
These seem to have been four in number — (1) A letter^
from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch, telling of
the proceedings at a Roman synod, and throughout Italy
and Africa, against Novatian ; (2) A letter '^ from Cyprian,
in the Latin language, urging mild treatment of the lapsed
and the excommunication of Novatian ; (3) A letter ^ from
Cornelius, giving the acts of the synod ; (4) A letter ^ from
the same to Fabius, recounting the doings of Novatian and
others, from which copious extracts are given. But were
these contained in a single volume ? This seems to be
clearly implied by the words used with reference to the
third and fourth epistles : Tavrais dXXr) rt? €7n<TToXrj
aui/TJTTTo . . . Kat TTccXiv iripa. We have already noticed the
similar use of a-vprjnTo in a like connexion.'' And other
indications point to the same conclusion. Only the first
^ ^i/3XtSapior, Photius, Bibl 121.
* tS)v d( XoiTTwr avTov crvyypafifjidTcov to. fls rjixas (\66vTa icrTiv rabf.
^ § 3 fTTKTToXai, which may mean one letter. See Lightfoot, Ignat.,
vol. ii, pp. 911, 932. Apparently Jerome so understood it, De Vir.
HI- 66. * oWai. ^ aXKr] Tis (TTKTToXt],
" ertpa. ^ Above, p. 137. See also H. E. i. 13. 11.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 153
and fourth epistles are directly stated to have been
addressed to Fabius, and he can hardly have been the
recipient of the third, which must have covered much
the same ground as the first. Eusebius, if he had been
arranging the letters for himself, would naturally have
brought the first and fourth together. No less natural
would it have been to name together the three written
by Cornelius, but, in fact, between two of them intervenes
the letter of Cyprian. We infer, as we did in a former
case,i that the historian follows the order of the volume
which lay before him.
It is not easy to reconcile this passage of Eusebius with
the list of the letters of Cornelius given by Jerome,^ with
which, nevertheless, it has an obvious connexion. Jerome
states that Cornelius wrote four letters :
(1) To Fabius : De synodo Romana et Italica et Africana.
(2) De Novatiano et de his qui lapsi sunt.
(3) De gestis synodi.
(4) A very prolix letter to Fabius ' et Novatianae haere-
seos causas et anathema continentem '.
The third and fourth of these are plainly our third and
fourth ; and it might appear equally plain that the first
is our first. But Benson takes a different view.^ He
contends that the k-ma-roXaL about the Roman Synod and
the decisions of the Italians and Africans are not a single
letter, but two or more ; * and he concludes that they
correspond to Jerome's first and second. But if so, Jerome
manifestly could not have learned the subject of the
second epistle from the text of Eusebius. He must have
had independent knowledge of the letters of Cornelius.
And yet he names them in Eusebius's order. This is a
' Above, p. 147. ^ ^^ 77,. ^ gg.
^ Cyprian, his life, his times, his work, 1897, p. 168.
* An unnecessary assumiDtion. See above, p. 152, note^.
154 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
coincidence which can scarcely be explained otherwise
than by supposing that both writers found them collected
together in a volume. Thus from Jerome, on Benson's
hypothesis, we gain additional reason for believing that
Eusebius had access to a volume of letters on the schism.
But I confess that I find it easier to think that Jerome
was entirely dependent on Eusebius for his knowledge of
Cornelius's writings. His description of the contents of
his second letter applies to the letter which stands second
in Eusebius. We need only suppose that he carelessly
overlooked the statement that it was written by Cyprian.
It would be strange, if he had first-hand knowledge of the
correspondence of Cornelius, that he should follow Eusebius
so closely as he actually does. With the exception of this
supposed addition to the list of the letters he tells abso-
lutely nothing which is not in Eusebius's text. Like
Eusebius he allows us to doubt whether the third letter
was addressed to Fabius or another. He leaves us in
similar ignorance, it will be observed, as to the destina-
tion of his second letter, though on Benson's theory the
History actually states that it was addressed to Fabius.
This omission confirms our conjecture, for Eusebius does
not give the name of the person to whom Cyprian wrote
on the same subject. In short, I have little doubt that
Jerome's paragraph on Pope Cornelius is nothing more
than a careless and meagre epitome of H. E. vi. 43.
16. H. E. vi. 44-46. Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria
on the same subject. In chapter 44 a letter from Dionysius
to Fabius is mentioned and quoted, from which extracts
had already been made in chapters 41, 42. Then follows,
in chapter 45, a short letter to Novatian, seemingly given
in full. Immediately connected with this is chapter 46,
beginning ' And he writes also to the Egyptians ^ a letter
^ By a similar formula the letter to Novatus is connected with that
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 155
concerning Repentance ', which letter to the Egyptians is
the first of a list of thirteen or fourteen epistles occupying
the entire chapter.^ The list professes to be a complete
one, for the heading of the chapter is ' Concerning the
other letters of Dionysius ', It is therefore with no little
surprise that we read the words with which the chapter
closes : ' And in the communication which he held in
writing with many others he has bequeathed manifold
profit to those who still at this present time diligently
study his compositions.' And it is with equal surprise that
to Fabius in cap. 45: 'Let us see how he also wrote to Novatus';
' these things also to {or against) Novatus.'
^ xliv. Tw 8* auTco TOLTO) ^a^L(o, vnoKaTaKXivofievco iras t(o
(TxicriiaTi, Kol Aiovvcrios 6 k(it' 'AXe^avSpeiav einaTeiXas noWa re Kai
(iWa Trept fierapoias iv Tois npos avTov ypdfifMacri dieXOav tcov re kcit
'AXe^aj'Spetai' epay)(os tots fiapTvprjcrdvTav tovs dyS)vas Suav, p-era ti]s
aWrfs ia-ropias npaypd n /xecrrov davpMTOS birfye'nai, o kcu avrb avayKaiov
rfjbe napaSovvai rfj ypatpfj, ovrais ^xov . . . xlv. Idapev d' 6 avTos oTtoia
Kai TM Noovaro) bu^dpa^tv, TapdrrovTi rrjviKdSe rrjv Papaiav d8iX<f>0Ti]Ta . . .
xlvi. Tavra Kai npbs tuv Soovdrov' Fpa^ei Se /cqj toIs Kar AiyxmTov
(TTicrToXf)!/ TTfpl ptravoias, eV j; to. do^avra avT(f nepl rav VTvoiHTTTODKoTii^v
jraparedeiTai, rd^fis TrapaTTToopdrav diaypdyl^as, 2. Koi npos K6\o>va (rij?
'EppoviroKiTCiv 8e irapoiKias fTricTKonos ^v oiiros) I8ia Tis nepl p.(Tavoias uvtov
cfyeperat ypa(f)r] kul uWtj (TTicrTpfnTiKrj npos to kot 'AXe^dvdpeiav avrov
no'ipviov. iv TovTois icrriv Kn\ tj rrfpi papruplov npos tov ^Qpiyevrjv ypacpe'icra'
Ka\ Tols Kara AaoSi/cetaj' d8f\(f)ois, wv npotcxTaro Qr)\vpi8pr]s inivKonos, Kai
Tols Kara 'Apptviav aaavruis nep\ pfravoias enicrrfWfi, u>v enecrKonevev
Mepov^dvrjs. 3. npos ana(n tovtois koi KopvrjXico T(a Kara Pw/xrjv ypd(f)ei,
8e^dp,evos aiirov rfjv Kara tov tioovaTov fnKTToXrjv, a Ka\ (rrjpaivfi SrjXaiv
eavTov napaKeKXrjadai ... a>s av in\ ttjv avvoSov dnavT-qaoi Trjv KaTa Avrio-
;^€iai', evda tov NoovdTov KpaTvveiv Tives (uex.eipovv to (rxj-opa. 4. npos
TOVTOIS inicTTiXXei prji/vdrivai avTW $d/3toy pev KfKoipr^crdai. . . . ypd<j)ei 8i
Ka\ nep\ tov iv 'lepocroXvpois avTo'is prjpaacv (f)daKa>v ... 5. e^rjs tqvtt] koI
fTepa Tis inicrToXr] to'ls iv 'Pa>pjl tov Aiovvalov (pepfTai Siokovikt] 8ia Inno-
XvTov' Tols avTols 8f aXXrjv nepl elprjvrjs 8iaTvnovTai, Kai axravTcos nepl
p.eTavoias, Kai av ndXiv aXXrjv rots iKeiae opoXoyrjTais, ert ttj tov Nooudrou
a'vp(f)epopevots yvuipj]' tois 8e avTo2s tovtois tTepas 8vo, peradepevois inl
Trjv iKKXrjaiav, iniOTeXXei. Kai aXXois 8e nXeiocriv opoias 8id ypappaTcov
opiXr'icras noiKiXas toIs 'in vi'v (Tnov8i]v nepl tovs Xoyovs avTOv noiovpivois
KaTaXeXomev uXpeXeias.
156 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
we find numerous allusions, in the next book of the History ^
to letters of Dionysius not mentioned here, and even from
time to time formal lists of them. How is the inconsis-
tency to be explained ? Easily enough. The list in H. E.
vi. 46 is a complete enumeration of the letters in a single
volume. Those alluded to at the end of the chapter, and
catalogued elsewhere, belonged to other volumes. With
this conclusion agree the words used of the sixth and
seventh letters, ' Among these there is also the letter on
Martyrdom written to Origen, and [a letter] to the
brethren in Laodicea.' ^ The phrase ' among these ' implies
a definite collection of documents, which would probably
be bound in a volume. And our hypothesis receives
further support from the words with which the mention
of the tenth letter is prefaced, ' After this there is also
another letter.' What else can this statement mean than
that the tenth letter followed the ninth in a book which
Eusebius was looking through as he wrote ?
Of the letters which we may suppose to have been
brought together in this volume the following is a list :
(1) To Fabius, bishop of Antioch, when he leaned
towards the schism. Contained many things concerning
Repentance, an account of the sufferings of the Christians
of Alexandria in the persecution, and arguments against
harsh treatment of the lapsed founded thereon.
(2) To Novatus (i. e. Novatian). Quoted, apparently in
full.
(3) To the Egyptians concerning Repentance, in which
he sets forth his views in regard to the treatment of the
lapsed.
(4) To Colon,^ bishop of Hermopolis, on Repentance. An
' §2.
'^ So Schwartz reads the name. Earlier editors (with Jerome, De
Yh: III. 69) have ' Conon '.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 157
«xtant fragment ^ shows that it dealt with various classes
of persons who should receive absolution on repentance,
especially those who are apparently in articulo mortis.
It has some remarkable points of contact with no. 3.
(5) Admonitory letter to the Alexandrians.
(6) To Origen on Martyrdom.
(7) To the Laodiceans.
(8) To the Armenians concerning Eepentance.^
(9) To Cornelius, bishop of Eome, when he had received
his letter against Novatus. Gives information about the
Synod at Antioch convened when an attempt was being
made to establish the schism there.^
(10) To the Romans by Hippolytus : a ' diaconic' letter.
(11) To the same on Peace.
(12) To the same on Repentance.^
(13) To the Confessors at Rome while they still adhered
to the opinions of Novatus.
(14) To the same when they had come over to the Church.
(15) To the same.
Now of the contents of four of these letters (1, 2, 3, 9)
we have sufficient knowledge to affirm with complete
certainty that they dealt directly with the Novatianist
schism ; and the same may be said with almost as much
confidence of three others (13—15). Of these seven two
(1, 3) treat also of the cognate topic of repentance. "We
may concluda that the remaining letters ' concerning
^ C. L. Feltoe, Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, 1904, p. 60.
- Jerome {De Vir. III. 69 ) adds ' et de ordine delictorum '. But if he
depended on Eusebius he may have attached to this epistle the
description of no. 3, which he apparently does not mention — ypdcfiei
8e Koi TOis aar' AiyvnTov fTTi(TTo\jiv nepi fifravoias, ev tj to bo^avra avr<o
TTfpt rav viroTTfTTTcoKOTcov TraparedfiTai, TaS«ts TrapairTcop.aTojv Siaypcii^as.
' Possibly Eusebius refers here to more than one letter.
■• It is not clear that 11 and 12 are distinct letters. Eusebius may
mean that both subjects were dealt with in a single epistle.
158 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
Repentance ' (4, 8, 12) regarded the subject from the same
point of view. In other words, they discussed the question
whether, and under what conditions, those who had fallen
away in persecution could be received back into com-
munion with the Church. If so, they also were letters on
the schism of Novatian. "We need not doubt that the
discussion on Peace, whether or no it filled an entire
letter (11), was a protest against the schism. The short
letter to Novatian (2) itself might fitly have been entitled
' Concerning Peace ', ending as it does with the prayer
that he might ' fare well clinging to peace '. There is no
difficulty in believing that a letter on Martyrdom (6)
written, let us say, about the year 251, if it was not
wholly taken up with the great controversy of the day,
at least touched upon it in many passages.^ There
remain three letters (5, 7, 10), about the subject of which
Eusebius gives us no hint.^ But the assumption is not
rash that they as well as the others had some connexion
with the Novatianist movement. Thus it is easy to guess
the reason which may have led to the binding of this
^ This indeed is not true of the fragments printed by Feltoe (p. 231),
some parts of which have been regarded by eminent scholars as
belonging to this letter. But in them martyrdom is only twice
referred to (p. 243), and never in the i)ortions which have been accepted
as coming from the letter to Origen. And, as Dr. Feltoe says (p. 230),
'The Dionysian authorship of any of these extracts must be considered
very doubtful.'
2 Dom Morin, indeed {Rev. Bened. 1900, pp. 241 ff.), thinks that the
word 8iaKopiKr] implies that the tenth letter was a tract on ministerial
functions, and identifies it with the Canons of Hippolytus. But the
Canons are not cast in epistolary form, and the mention of them
would be as much out of place among the other letters enumerated
by Eusebius as would their association with them in the same volume.
On the meaning of biaKoviKX] cp. Benson, Cyprian, -p. 171 f. If we
may believe Jerome {De Vir. III. 69) the letter to the Laodiceans (7)
was ' de paenitentia'.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 159
collection of letters in one volume. They were all con-
cerned, in the main, with a single topic.
17. H. E. vii. 2-9. Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria
on Baptism. Five of the seven letters mentioned in these
chapters are numbered :
' To him (i. e. Pope Stephen) Dionysius composes the
first of the letters about Baptism .... [Extracf]} And
when Stephen had fulfilled his ministry for two years
Xystus succeeds him. In writing to the latter a second
letter about Baptism Dionysius declares both the opinion
and the judgement of Stephen and the other bishops,speak-
ing thus about Stephen : [^Extracts]. And also in the third
of the [letters] about Baptism, which the same Dionysius
writes to Philemon, the presbyter at Eome, he sets out
these facts : [Extracts], The fourth of his letters about
Baptism was written to Dionysius of Rome, who then held
office as a presbyter, but not long afterwards obtained the
bishopric of the people of that place. . . . And in his
letter to him after other things he mentions the followers
of Novatus in these words : [Extract]. And the fifth also
was written by him to Xystus, bishop of the Romans, in
which ... he relates a certain event of his time, saying :
[Extract]. In addition to those already mentioned there
is extant also another letter of his about Baptism, from
him and the community over which he ruled to Xystus
and the Church at Rome. . . . And there is also extant
another after these to Dionysius of Rome, the letter about
Lucian.' ^
^ Eusebius {H. E. vii. 4) expressly states that his quotation is from
the end of the letter. Fragments from the earlier part of it are
printed in a Syriac version by Feltoe, pp. 45 ff.
^ ii. TouTO) Tr]v TTpoiTTjv 6 Aiovvaios Ta>v Trepl ^aTTTia-fxaros €ni(TTo\u>p
SiaTVTTOvTai ... V, 3. '2Te(pnvou 8' eVi 8v(t\v aTronXricravTa rijv Xfirovpyiav
fzecri SvcTTOs 8taSe;(eTat. tovtco dfvrepav 6 Aiovvcrws rrepl ^afrricrfjiaTos
Xapa^as fTTiaroK-qv, opov rfjv 2rf0dj/ou Koi rwv \onra>v im-aKoirav
yvaprjv re kqI Kpiaiv 8r]\oi, nepl tov 'Srecpdvov Xeytov ravra . . . vii. Kal
iv rfj rpirrj Se twj» 7T€pt ^aTrria-paTOS, fjv ^iKrjpovi ra Kara 'Pmprjv
Trpea-^vTfptf 6 alros ypa(f)ei Aiovvcrios, ravra irapariderai ... 6. fj
reraprr} avroii rav nepl 0aTrriaparos (Tiicrrokoiv vrpos rov Kara 'Puiprju
fypa(f)T] Atovvcriov, rore piv rrpea^eiov rj^icopevov, ovk els paKpov de Ka\ rrjv
fTTKrKoirfjv rS)v e>ceicrf 7rapfi\r]<f)6ra' e^ rjs yvavai irdpecmv otto)? (cal airos ovros
160 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
No explanation of these numbers is so plausible as that
which regards them as indicating the order of succession
of the letters in a volume. It might have been thought,
indeed, that a chronological arrangement was intended.
But this appears to be negatived by the fact that the
third and fourth letters of the series are alluded to in the
second.^ It may also be remarked that Eusebius seems
to abandon his rule of the chronological treatment of
history, in order to bring these letters together. For he
places the whole series under Gallus. In his reign
Stephen succeeded to the episcopate, and according to
Eusebius survived his appointment only two years.^
Thus the first letter might be dated before the death of
Gallus. But the fifth and sixth belong to the episcopate
of Xystus and therefore to the reign of Valerian, whose
accession is not recorded till chapter 10.
18. H. E. vii. 20-23. Festal Epistles of Dionysius of
Alexandria. Under this head a catalogue of letters is
given, but Eusebius intimates that his list is not complete.
It will conduce to clearness if it is reproduced with some
omissions.
Xo'-yidr re /cat daviiaaios npos tov kgt ' A\f^dv8p€iav Aiovvcriov pefiapTvpr]Tai.
ypd(f)ei Se aiira puB' erepa rav Kara Noovutov p.vr]p.oviV(iiV e'v tovtois.
. , . ix. Kat 7] nefiKTr] 8e avT(o npos top 'Poifjiamv eTTiCTKOTTOV Svarof
yeyparTTO' iv 17 iroWa Kara tS>v alperiKau dncDi', toiovtov ti yeyovos Kar
avTOV fKTiderai ^^tycov ... 6, e'ni raiy Tvpoeiprjp.ivais (f)fpfraL Tis /cat aXKr]
TOV avTOv irep\ j3aTTTi(TpaTos eni<TTo\T], e^ avTov Kai ^y rjyeiTO irapoiKias
Sv<7T(0 Koi TTJ Kara 'Paprjv f/cxXj/o-ia Trpo(Tn-e(f)o)vr]p.evr], iv -q bia fiaKpds
aTToBei^ecos tov irfp\ tov vnoKeifxevov ^rjTrjfiaTOS napaTeivfi Xoyov. koL aWi]
be Tis avTov ptTci Tavras (j}€p6Tai npos tov kutci 'Pw/jltjv Aiovvcriov, rj nepi
AovKiavov.
^ H. E. vii. 5. 6 /cat roh ayaTrrjTo'is 8e T]p.o)v xai (Tvp.np€aj3vTepois Aiovv(Tia>
Kai fPiXrjpovi, (TVfMyl^i](f)ois irpoTepov'^Tffpdvci) yivopievois Ka\ nepi tcov avTOiV fxoi
ypd<l>ovcTti>, Trporepov pev oXiyn, Koi vvv be bia TrXeidvcav inicTTeiKa. At least
two of the four letters here mentioned seem to have been written
during the pontificate of Stephen.
2 Chronica, A. Abr. 2270 (Schoene, ii. 182 f.) ; H. E. vii. 2 ; .5. 3.
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 161
' Dionysius, in addition to the letters of his which were
mentioned, composed at that time also the festal epistles
which are still extant. ... Of these he addresses one to
Flavins, and another to Domitius and Didymus (in which
he sets out a canon based on a cycle of eight years . . .).
In addition to these he pens another letter to his fellow
presbyters at Alexandria, and to others likewise in differ-
ent places. And these [he writes] while the persecution
is still proceeding. But peace is no sooner come than he
returns to Alexandria. Again, however, sedition and
war broke out there, so that it was not possible for him to
exercise oversight over all the brethren throughout the
city, since they were divided into various parts by the
sedition, and once more at the Paschal festival, as though
he were some exile, from Alexandria itself he held com-
munication with them by letter. And also after these
things, in the course of another festal epistle to Hierax,
a bishop of the people in Egypt, he mentions the sedition
of the Alexandrians, which took place under him, in these
words : [Extract]. After these things, when a pestilential
sickness had succeeded the war, and the feast was draw-
ing near, once more he holds communication with the
brethren in writing, describing the sufferings due to this
misfortune in these words : [Extracts]. And after this
epistle also, when the dwellers in the city had attained
peace, he once more sends a festal letter to the brethren
in Egypt, and besides this again he writes others. And
there is a certain letter of his extant about the sabbath
and another about discipline. And again when com-
municating with Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt
by letter, and after passing in review many things about
the evil deeds of Decius and his successors, he mentions
the peace under Gallienus.' ^
' XX. "O yf jirjv Aiovvaios npos rait drfKuidfldais (maroXa'is avToii en Ka\
Tas (fiepo^ivas iopraOTiKas to TrjviKavTa (rvvTaTrei . . . tovtosv rrjp fxev $\avia)
7rpo(T(f)(i}ve^, Tfjv Se Aofxtrifo koi Aidvfjico (iv rj Koi Kavova eKriOfTai oKrafTrjpidoi,
. . .). irpos ravTais Kai aXXrjv Tois Kar ' AKe^dvdpeiav (rvpTrpec^uTepois eVi-
<ttoXt]v dia^apaTTfi, irepois re Ofxov 8ia(f)6p(t)s, koi ravras en tov diaypov
(Tvvf(TTU)Tos. XXI. ETTtXa/Sovcrj;? fie oaov oimco Trjs etprjvrjs, iuavfitri jxkv fit
rrjv 'AXe^av8peiav, ndXiv 8' ivravda (Tracrecos nai noXffj.ov avaTavTos, u)s oi)^
oi6» re Tjv avra tovs Kara rrjv ttoXiv anavTai ddiXfpovs, (Is eKarepov Trjs
(TTacrecos pepos Btjjprjpivovs, eniffKOTre'iv, avdis iv tij tov TTd(j)(a fopri], waTrep
Tis VTvtpopios, (^ a\jTT]s TTis 'A-Xf^avSpflas 8ia ypapixdrcov airols ufiiXei. 2. Ka
1353 JI
162 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
From this long passage we learn that the following
ten festal letters of Dionysius were known to Eusebius :
(1) The letter to Flavins.
(2) The letter to Domitius and Didymus.
(3) A letter to his fellow presbyters at Alexandria and
others.^
(4) A letter to the brethren in Alexandria.
(5) A letter to Hierax.
(6) A second letter to the brethren.^
(7) A letter to the brethren in Egypt.
(8) A letter on the Sabbath.
(9) A letter on ' Discipline '.
(10) A letter to Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt.
'lepaKi 8e fxera ravra tS)v nar AiyvnTov inirrKonco ertpav eopTaaTiKrjv
€iTi(TTo\r]V ypa^div, rrjs Kar avrov ran/ 'AXf^audpeoJV (Trdtrecof pvrjpovevfi 8ia
TovTcop . . . xxii. Mera ravra \oLpiKrjs rov noKepov 8ia\a^ovai]s vocrov rrjs
re eopTTJs TrXrjaia^ova-rjs, av6is 8ia ypa<f)qs rols dSfXtpols opiKei, ra t^s
avp(f)opas enicrrjpaii'opfi'os nddr] 8ia rovrav ... 11. pera Se Kal ravrrju rrjv
fTTicTToXrjv, flprjvevadvTav rtov Kara rfjv rroXiv, rois Kar' Aiyvnrov d8(\(f)ois
fopTaariKrjv avdis cVicrreAXft ypa(f)T]p, Ka\ enl ravrt] ndXiv aWas 8iarvTT0vrai'
<f)eperai 8f ris avrov Ka'i Tr€p\ cra/3/3arou km aXXiy nepi yvpvaaiov. 12.
'Eppdppoovi 8e irdXiv Kal rois Kar' Aiyvrrrov dSfXt^JOif St' eVto-ToX^f 6pi\a>v
TToXXd re aXXa nepl rrji Ae/ctou Ka\ rav per avrov 8if^e\6cop KaKOrponias, rrjs
Kara rov TaXXirjfop flpr]pr]i eTripinprjO-Kerai.
^ Compare letter 10, ' To Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt.'
In the present instance, however, Feltoe (pp. 65, 90) distinguishes the
letter 'to others ' from that to the presbyters, and he is possibly right.
But in that case we should have expected some such word as aXXrjv
before (repots.
^ Feltoe (p. 79 note) regards no. 4 and no. 6 as identical. But this
is scarcely possible. Eusebius says that no. 5 was written after no. 4,
and no. 6 after no. 5. He tells us also that no. 4 was written at Easter,
and no. 6 when Easter was approaching. And in describing no. 6
he says that Dionysius 'once more' {avdis) wrote to the brethren,
apparently implying that he had mentioned another letter to the
same persons. Moreover, as Feltoe himself points out, the account
given of the circumstances under which no. 4 was written, gathered
no doubt from the letter itself, is not confirmed by the extract given
by Eusebius from no. 6.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 163
The last of these epistles is not expressly stated by
Eusebius to have been festal in character. But the
closing words of his second extract from it put the matter
almost beyond question: 'in which (viz. the ninth year
of Gallienus) let us keep festival ' (ioprdaconei')}
Very noteworthy is the phrase in the opening sentence
of this list : ' in addition to the letters which were men-
tioned.' It might be supposed that the inference was to
the numerous letters alluded to in earlier chapters, and
especially in those more immediately preceding. Such,
for example, are the letters to Hermammon, and to Do-
mitius and Didymus, quoted in vii. 1, 10, 11, and that
headed npo? T^pfxavov, from which extracts are given in vii.
11. But this is unlikely.- For two of these are actually
named in the list itself, and we shall presently give
reason for supposing the third to be also included. The
' fore-mentioned epistles ' therefore are probably those
formally enumerated in the lists already considered.
This appears to be indicated further by the tense,
8rj\(odeL(raL9 for the more usual SeSrjXoofxeyais. We have
in this phrase, therefore, a confirmation of the conclusion
already reached, that those lists are exhaustive enumera-
tions of definite collections of letters, and an encourage-
ment to think that the list now before us may be another
of the same kind.
Another indication which points in the same direction
is found in two fragments of letters of Dionysius printed
by Dr. Feltoe.^ The first of these is headed, ' From the
second Epistle,' and deals with the state of mind which
befits those who keep festival. The second is headed, ' From
the fourth Festal Epistle.' Thus both are extracts from
festal letters of Dionysius, and the title in each case
^ H. E. vii. 23. 4. So Dittrich, Dionysius d. Grosse, 1897, p. 119.
^ Not, however, impossible. See above, p. 152. * p. 90.
M 2
164 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
implies a recognized order of the letters which would
naturally have its origin in some early collection of them
in a single volume. It cannot be proved that they came
from the same collection, or that either of them is from
a letter included in Eusebius's list. But the assumption
is not improbable in itself, and there is no evidence on
the other side. It is true that the first has no point of
contact with the quotations which Eusebius makes from
his second letter— that which was addressed to Domitius
and Didymus.^ But neither has the Paschal Canon
which it certainly included.^ As to the second, there is
nothing to hinder us from believing that it is part of the
epistle which stands fourth in Eusebius's catalogue. For
though his extract from the letter to Hierax ^ is wholly
taken up with a description of the horrors that followed
in the wake of bloodshed and pestilence, the letter may
also have contained some reference to the loving deeds of
the Christians which such times of calamity always called
forth,-^ in the context of which this little piece on the
devices by which love wins its way in seeking to help
others might well find place.
It has been hinted that the epistle Trpoy Fepixavov is
probably one of those indicated in our list. The title is
ambiguous, but the tenor of one of the extracts from it,^
in which Germanus is spoken of contemptuously in the
third person, makes it difiicult to believe that the epistle
was addressed to him. We may therefore render its
heading ' Against Germanus '. To whom then was it sent ?
The concluding clause of the same passage seems to give
a hint as to the answer to this question. After alluding to
his sufferings under Valerian, Dionysius adds, ' I forbear
1 H. E. vii. 11. 20-25. ' H. E. vii. 20. => H. E. vii. 21. 2-10.
* See the letters to Domitius and Didymus {H. E. vii. 11. 24) and
the brethren in Alexandria (ib. 22. 7 ff.).
* H.E. vii. 11. 18 f.; cp. § 2.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 165
to give to the brethren who know them a detailed narra-
tive of the things that happened.' ^ The letter would
appear to have been written to certain brethren who had
knowledge, or easy means of gaining knowledge, of what
he had endured in the recent troubles. They must have
been Egyptians. They probably lived in Alexandria, or
its neighbourhood. The letter may therefore be identical
with (3), (4), or (7) in the list.
If this guess be correct — and only less so if it be not —
and if the Festal Epistles formed a separate volume, it
clearly appears that Eusebius deals with this volume just
as he dealt with that containing the Martyrdom of
Polycarp. In recording the incidents of the persecution
of Valerian he has occasion to use three of these letters.
Extracts from them are accordingly given in chaps. 10, 11.
Then, after some further remarks of a desultory kind, he
proceeds to give a list of the contents of the volume,
making extracts from, or remarks upon, several of the
letters which it contains as he goes along. But perhaps
the most convincing indication that we have here a volume
of letters is the fact that, in dealing with these epistles,
Eusebius makes mistakes which we might expect him to
make if they were bound together, but which are almost
inexplicable otherwise. Of these mistakes some account
will be rendered below.
19. H. E. vii. 26. Epistles of Dionysius of Alexandria on
the Sahellian Heresy. The twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth
chapters of the seventh book of the History are devoted to a
consideration of the controversy between Dionysius and the
Egyptian bishop Nepos on the subject of Chiliasm. The
outcome of the discussion was a treatise in two books, en-
^ Or perhaps ' I leave to the brethren who know them the task of
giving a detailed narrative'. Tr]v Ka6^ eKaarov rav yevofifvav biriyrifriv
Trapir]fu Tols (l86<Tiv dSeX^oiy X«yf tj'.
166 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
titled Concerning Promises, from the pen of Dionysius,
several fragments of which have been preserved by Euse-
bius. It appears to have been a long and elaborate work,
and may well have been bound in a volume apart. But in
the twenty-sixth chapter we come upon another group
of minor writings. About these Eusebius is reticent ;
perhaps because they were connected with a passage in
Dionysius's life upon which he did not wish to dwell.
The group consists of four letters on Sabellianism to
different persons (probably all Egyptian bishops), and four
letters to Dionysius of Rome on the same topic. These
eight may have made a volume. With the mention of
them and three other works which he knew, and a general
reference to many other epistles, the catalogue of the
works of Dionysius ends.
We have now found traces of some nineteen volumes
of tracts of which Eusebius appears to have made use.
The existence of some of them, no doubt, may be disputed ;
but it must be remembered that our argument has been
in some sense cumulative. If the a priori likelihood that
such volumes were in his hands is admitted, evidence of
their use in particular cases is worth considering which
might otherwise have been ruled out, and the better
attested instances increase the probability of our conclu-
sion where positive evidence is scanty.
But it is now time to show in what way these volumes
influenced the chronology of our historian. The principle
on which the documents were grouped, in the cases which
we have examined, seems to be mainly an arrangement
according to subjects, no attention having been paid to
chronology. But certainly in one instance, probably in
others, if not in all, Eusebius assumed that the principle
was the exact contrary, and hence he was led into error
as regards dates.
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 167
This is manifest upon a consideration of his use of the
volume containing the Martyrdom of Polycarp.^ He quite
unmistakably makes Pionius and Metrodorus contempo-
raries of Polycarp. But the Acts of their martyrdoms are
in our hands,^ and wo learn from them that they suffered
a century after Polycarp, under Decius. The conclusion
is forced upon us that Eusebius regarded the martyrdoms
as synchronous merely because the records of them were
bound together. Lightfoot, indeed, suggests that the
Acts themselves may have been partly responsible for his
error. He uses the phrase vwb rr]v avrrjv irepLoSov rod
Xpovov, which he may have taken from them. Capable
as it is of two meanings, either ' at the same time ', or ' at
the same season of the year ', Eusebius may have taken it
in the former sense, while the martyrologist used it in
the latter. He may also have been misled by the opening
statement, that Pionius was celebrating the birthday of
Polycarp. This explanation might serve if we had only
Pionius and Metrodorus to deal with. But what shall we
say about Carpus and the rest ? Here, again, we can
consult the genuine Acts. From a careful examination of
the slight indications of date which they supply, Light-
foot gathers that Carpus and Papylus probably suffered
either under Marcus Aurelius, or under Septimius Severus.
So that in this case Eusebius's date may be correct. But
the chronological data of the Acts are very meagre. If
Eusebius had noticed them at all, which does not seem
likely, he could scarcely have made use of them. They
would reveal nothing to one who was not pretty familiar
with the history of the Antonine Emperors. His mistakes
in regard to them are portentous, as we shall just now see
in one striking instance. Here at least, then, it seems
1 See Lightfoot, Ign. i. 624 flf., 696 flP., and Valois, ad loc.
"■ Gebhardt, Acta Mart. Set., p. 96. For the Acts of Carpus, S;c., see
p. 13.
168 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
impossible to suppose that his chronology had any better
foundation than the whim of the librarian who arranged
his volume of tracts.
Let us turn now to another case, in which Eusebius
has admittedly gone astray in a date. He places the
Second Apology of Justin Martyr, and consequently his
martyrdom^ which he believed to have occurred shortly
after it was written, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
But internal evidence marks the Second Apology as very
little later in date than the first, and as presented to the
same Emperors,^ while the Acta lusfini, even if they be
not admitted to be genuine, give us good reason for
believing that he suffered after the end of the reign of
Antoninus Pius.^ How, then, did the error of the his-
torian arise ? It can be explained without difficulty if we
suppose that Eusebius used the volume which we have
marked 7 above, and assumed that the documents which it
contains were arranged in chronological order. He had
before him the First Apology, which he put under
Antoninus Pius. It was followed by the spurious letter
to the Commune Asiae. To whom was it to be referred ?
To be sure it had the name of Marcus Aurelius in its
first line. But this had evidently no weight with Euse-
bius, and naturally so, for readers of the History are well
aware that he did not know the imperial name of this
Emperor. He had to decide the matter on other grounds.
Suppose then he gave it to Marcus Aurelius, he is at once
in difficulties. Marcus Aurelius was a persecutor. He
could not have penned such a letter. But if he did, how-
could the Second Apology have followed it, with its tale
J Did. of Christ. Biog. iii. 563 flF.
^ lb. pp. 562, 564. It is hardly possible to suppose that the name
of the prefect Rusticus is an invention, and if it be true that Justin
suffered under him, the date of the maityrdom is brought down to
A.D. 163 at the earliest.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 169
of the sufferings of the Christians quoted in H.E. iv. 17?
And how could Justin himself have been shortly after-
wards put to death ? So the epistle to the Commune must
be assigned to the reign of Pius. It is there in its right
place, for Pius did not persecute.^ And for the same reason
the subsequent Apology and martyrdom must be thrown
forward into the following reign. If Eusebius reasoned
in this way as to the dates of the letter to the Commune
Asiae and the Second Apology, the further step was easy
of connecting the First Apology with the letter in the
way of cause and effect. And this step he seems to have
taken ; for, after quoting the first sentence of the Apology,
ending with the words Trjv Trpoa(f>aivrjcnv kol Ivtiu^w irciroirifjiai,
he proceeds, e>'Tcox0eis 8\ Kal v(f irepcoy 6 avrbs ^aaiXeii^ knl
rfjs 'Aatas dSeXcpwu . . . roiavrrjs rj^icoae to kolvov rfj^ 'Aatas
SiaTa^ems.^ That there had been several hrev^^Ls besides
that of Justin he may have gathered from the letter itself :
Kal efiol Se nepl tS)v tolovtcov noWol karjuavav.^
It is well known that Eusebius is guilty of an extra-
ordinary blunder with reference to the persecution of
Valerian. He quotes, as giving a narrative of the suf-
ferings of Dionysius during that persecution, two passages
from the letter to Domitius and Didymus.* We have
only to compare the passages quoted with others which
he extracts from the Epistle against Germanus ^ to be con-
vinced that Dionysius is speaking, not of what happened to
him under Valerian's persecution, but of the events of the
earlier persecution of Decius.^ Possibly a consideration of
' The only martyrdom under Pius recorded by Eusebius is that of
Pope Telesphorus, which he assigns to the first year of his reign (//. E.
iv. 10). This martyrdom is not mentioned in the Chronica.
2 H.E.w. 12. ^ H.EAv. 13.6.
^ H. E. vii. 11. 20fiF. ' H. E. vi. 40.
^ It was written apparently at a late period of the persecution.
Only two of his five original companions now remained with him.
170 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
the volume of Festal Epistles marked 18 above may help
us to understand how so gross an error was perpetrated.
It will be seen that Eusebius dates some of the epistles in
that volume with very considerable (if misleading) preci-
sion. The first three— to Flavins, to Domitius and Didy-
mus, and to the Alexandrian presbyters — were written
while the persecution was proceeding, i. e. between
A. D. 258 and 260. The next was written at Easter,^ after
Dionysius's return to Alexandria, when the persecution
was scarcely over, i.e. Easter 261. The letter to Hierax
was written ' after these things ' {^era ravra), and as it
was a Festal Epistle we cannot put it earlier than the
period preceding Easter in the following year, a. d. 262.
The sixth letter is again ' after these things ', which brings
us down to A.D. 263. It was written ' when the feast was
approaching '.^ With the phrase ' and after this epistle '
applied to the seventh letter, we advance to a. d. 264, the
year before the date given in the Chronica for the death
of Dionysius. After this the dates are prudently omitted,
except in the case of the tenth epistle, to Hermammon,
which is dated by Eusebius from internal evidence
apparently in 262.
One seems to have returned to Alexandria, and another had, perhaps,
died {H. E. vii. 11. 24). See also Feltoe, p. 66, notes on 11. 9, 10.
^ Not, as in the case of an ordinary Festal Epistle, before Easter.
^ It is of course possible that two letters (in addition to that to
Hermammon) were written in view of the Paschal festival of 262, the
fifth about the beginning of the year and the sixth a couple of months
' after these things ', when the festival had almost come. This is
Dr. Feltoe's view (p. 84). If it is correct the seventh letter must be
dated before Easter 263. I cannot think, however, that these are the
dates which Eusebius intended to indicate. If they were, it remains
to be asked, How did Eusebius know which of the two came first ?
It is hardly likely that the text of the letters supplied him with
information on this point. And if these letters truthfully describe the
state of aff"airs at Alexandria in the period preceding Easter 262, it is
not easy to find place in that period for the exultant words of the
letter to Hermammon in H. E. vii. 23.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 171
It is obvious to remark that, as our author is ten years
out in the date of the letter to Domitius and Didymus,
too much reliance need not be placed on his chronology
of the others. And indeed it might be plausibly argued
that the preposition ii^Toi was not intended by him to
indicate temporal sequence, but merely order in the
volume in which the letters were bound, were it not that
he definitely connects the letters with successive events.
The fourth was penned while sedition and fighting were
proceeding, as was the fifth likewise, the sixth during a
pestilence which followed the sedition, the seventh when
peace was restored. Let us now glance at the fourth and
fifth letters. In the former, according to Eusebius (and
he is doubtless paraphrasing correctly), the writer men-
tions that, on account of the sedition, he was obliged to
communicate with his flock, not in person, but by letter.
In the latter he ' mentions the sedition '. Here some critics
find fault with our historian. ' He introduces,' says
Dr. Bright,^ 'as referring to an Alexandrian sedition,
a letter of Dionysius which evidently refers to an Alex-
andrian pestilence.' But the letter does refer to the
sedition more than once. The harbours, he writes, are an
image of those through which the Israelites passed, ' for
oftentimes from the murders committed in them they are
as it were a Red Sea '. ' And always ', whether in flood
or nearly dry, the river which runs by the city ' flows de-
filed with blood and murders and drownings', even as it
did in the days of Pharaoh, ' when it changed into blood
and stank.' 2 This is not a reference to slaughter which
had ceased. For the dead bodies which lie unburied after
war is over, though they may pollute the rivers, do not
^ Eusebius' s Ecclesiastical History, p. 1. And similarly Feltoe, pp. 79,
85, 86.
2 H. E. vii. 21. 4, 6.
172 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
cause them to run with gore. And is not the following
unmistakable ? —
' Verily with my own loved ones {a-nXdyyva), brethren
who dwell in my own house, who are of one soul with me,
citizens of the same Church, I must needs communicate in
writing. And that I should dispatch the letters seems
impossible. For it is easier for a man to journey not
merely into a neighbouring province, but even from the
East into the West than from one part of Alexandria to
another.' ^
It was surely not pestilence but war that made the main
street of the city ' impassable ' for its devoted bishop. In
fact these words so exactly describe the position to which
Dionysius was reduced by the sedition when the fourth
letter was penned, that it seems impossible to believe that
the two epistles were separated by an interval of a year,
or indeed by many weeks. Nevertheless it remains that
the main concern of Dionysius is, in this letter, not the
sedition, but the pestilence. The pestilence, however,
Eusebius tells us, folloiced the sedition, and was the sub-
ject of the sixth letter, a.d. 263. The confusion of all
this is manifest. It is now time to make the attempt to
unravel it.
Here then is my suggestion. Eusebius took up the
volume of Festal Epistles. In one of them he found
a definite date. The epistle to Hermammon seems to
connect itself with Easter 262. On the assumption that
the arrangement is chronological this brings all the
epistles in the volume into the epoch the central event of
which was the edict of toleration of Gallienus. He turns
then to the second epistle, that addressed to Domitius
and Didymus. This was evidently written before the
persecution to which it refers had concluded. ' And now ',
says its writer, ' I and Gains and Peter are shut up in a
1 H. E. vii. 21. 3.
OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS 173
desert and parched place in Libya.' ^ Eusebius accord-
ingly dates it before the end of the persecution of
Valerian. But the letters ex hypothesi succeeded one
another in the order in which they appeared in the
volume. Hence the fourth, written as it was from Alex-
andria, is put at the earliest possible moment after
Dionysius's return from banishment. The fifth and sixth
follow in successive years, and are attached, as well as
might be, to the historical events by which Eusebius
supposed that the persecution was followed.
But what were those events ? They were easily dis-
covered from the sixth letter. It was evidently written,
as Eusebius states, during a pestilence,'^ and it refers to
past sufferings. First there was a persecution (assumed
of course to have been that which happened under
Valerian). This was followed by war and famine. Then
came a brief period of rest,^ and finally the pestilence
which was still raging.* Between the persecution and
the pestilence the fourth and fifth letters must be placed.
They are both therefore connected with the only outstand-
ing events which Eusebius supposed to have marked the
interval, the war and the famine which accompanied it.
If this suggestion be correct, it will follow that the
dates given by Eusebius for the Festal Epistles have no
independent value. And even if it be not well founded,
it is difficult to see how, in view of the mistakes which he
has certainly made, they can be relied upon, unless they
are supported by the internal evidence of the fragments
of these letters which still remain.^
1 H. E. vii. 11. 23. 2 h voaos avTT], H. E. vii. 22. 6.
' ^paxiTarrjs avmrvoris. * H. E. vii. 22. 4-6.
* Apart from the portions preserved by Eusebius we have only the
short extracts mentioned above, p. 163, and a sentence from the letter
TTfpl yvfivaa-lov (Feltoe, p. 256). None of these supply any chrono-
logical data.
174 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
Now of the ten Festal Letters no extracts are given by
Eusebius from the first, seventh, eighth, and ninth.
Their dates are therefore of no importance, and cannot be
fixed. The second, to Domitius and Didymus, was written
under Decius. Eusebius's date is therefore incorrect.
The third, if we may identify it with the Epistle against
Germanus, was written while the Valerian persecution
was proceeding, for in it Valerian and Gallienus are men-
tioned ^ as the reigning Emperors, and Dionysius speaks
of the sufferings which he still endures under Valerian's
prefect Aemilianus.^ Here, therefore, Eusebius is pro-
bably correct. We have already given reasons for
believing that the fourth and fifth, written as Eusebius
rightly says in time of war, were not separated by the
interval of a year by which he assumes that they were
parted. "Whether they are rightly connected with the
persecution of Valerian, or should not rather have been
placed under Decius or Gallus, must be left an open
question. As to the sixth, Eusebius is again right in
supposing it to have been penned while Alexandria was
suffering from pestilence. But it seems equally certain
that the pestilence is not that which is alluded to in the
previous epistles, for in them the pestilence and the war
are synchronous, while the sixth letter states that the war
was divided from the following pestilence by an interval
of rest. If, therefore, the fourth and fifth letters belonged
to the reign of Gallienus, the sixth must be put back to
the time of Gallus.^
We may now turn to the letters on the Novatianist
' H. ^. vii. 11.8. = lb. §18.
^ I observe that Professoi- Gwatkin regards this as its true date
(Early Church History, 1909, vol. ii, p. 263). The pestilence began
under Decius (in the autumn of 250 ?) and continued to rage under
Gallus. Since it came from Ethiopia Alexandria was probably the
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 175
schism (15). In connexion with this schism, two important
Synods are mentioned both by Eusebius and by Cyprian —
one in Rome, the other in Africa. Which came first?
Eusebius seems to imply that the Roman Synod preceded
the African when he speaks of ' a very great Synod having
been gathered at Rome . . . and the bishops of the remain-
ing provinces having considered independently in their
several districts what was to be done ' — the final phrase
being explained lower down by the words touching ' the
things that seemed good to those in Italy and Africa and
the districts there '.^ But, if so, he contradicts Cyprian,
who appears to date the African Synod immediately after
the close of the Decian persecution, a subsequent letter
to Cornelius being followed by the Roman Synod.^
Cyprian is, of course, the better authority, and accordingly
Benson puts the African Synod in April, the Roman in
June or July 25 1.^ Probably Eusebius was misled by
finding the letter of Cyprian and the African bishops after
that of Cornelius containing the proceedings of the Synod
held at Rome, in the volume which he used.
This suggestion leads to a further remark. If our
argument has any force it is always unsafe to rely on the
statements of Eusebius as to the relative dates of docu-
ments, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the documents
first city visited by it (Zonaras, xii. 21 ; Cedrenus, p. 257 f.). It reached
Carthage in 252 (Benson, Cijiman, p. 241).
> vi. 43. 2, 3.
^ Ep. 55. 6 (ed. Hartel, p. 627 f.) : 'Persecutione sopita.cum data esset
facultas in unum conueniendi, copiosus episcoporum numerus ... in
ununi conuenimus ... Ac si minus sufficiens episcoporum in Africa
numerus uidebatur, etiamRomam super hac re scripsimus adCornelium
collegam nostrum, qui et ipse cum plurimis coepiscopis habito con-
cilio in eandem nobiscum sententiam . . . consensit.'
' Cyprian, -p^. 127f., 156, 163 f. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 2. § 5
(E. T. vol. i, p. 94 f.), dates the African Synod in May and the Roman
in October.
176 ON THE USE BY EUSEBIUS
in question were bound together in a single volume. Let
us take some examples.
In H. E. vii. 9. 6 Eusebius seems to say that a letter
of Dionysius of Alexandria to his namesake of Rome
concerning one Lucian was subsequent to two written
to Pope Xystus. This is, of course, certainly correct if
Dionysius was bishop when he received the letter. But
our certainty is not increased by the testimony of Eusebius,
for two reasons : first, because the letter happens to have
followed those addressed to Xystus in our seventeenth
volume ; and, secondly, because we cannot be sure that in
such a case the words ' After these letters ' {jUTa ravTas)
have a temporal sense. They may simply indicate the fact
to which we have just now called attention, the position
of the letter about Lucian in the volume which Eusebius
was using at the moment.^
Again, stress has been laid on the words in H. E. iv. 26. 2,
knl irda-L kol to npos ' Avroivlvov ^ijSXiSiov, as indicating
that the Apology was Melito's last work.^ But here
again we seem to be dealing with a volume of tracts (12
above), and it is therefore possible that firl irda-L may
mean no more than last of all in the order of arrangement.
But if it has a chronological sense it may only express
Eusebius's inference from the phenomena of the volume
itself.
In conclusion one or two other cases may be mentioned
in which it may be well to bear in mind Eusebius's practice
of quoting from volumes in which were bound together
^ Is it possible that the Lucian about whom Dionysius wrote was the
person of the same name at whose request Cyprian wrote a letter to
Quintus on the baptism of heretics (Ep. 71, Hartel, p. 771) ? If so, it
is not difficult to understand why it was included in the volume of
Epistles about Baptism, and it may be dated c. 257, to which period
all the other letters in the volume are naturally referred.
2 Did. of Christ. Biog. iii. 894.
OF VOLUMES OF TEACTS 177
tracts which were possibly widely separated in date.
The statement is sometimes made that the heretic Blastus
was contemporary with Florinus, on the ground that
Eusebius names them together in H. E. v. 20. But it is
not improbable that the letter of Irenaeus to Blastus is
here mentioned immediately before the two to Florinus
merely because it stood first in the volume in which they
occupied the second and third places. In that case the
adjuration quoted by Eusebius may be regarded as a
scribe's note applying to the entire volume.^ It is some
confirmation of this hypothesis, that Eusebius, after
transcribing the note^ proceeds to quote, not from the
third, but from the second of the tracts referred to. It is
of course admitted that the evidence for the existence of
this volume is not strong, and for that reason it has not
been included in the list given above. All that is contended
is that the possibility of its existence diminishes the force
of the argument in favour of Blastus and Florinus having
taught at Rome at the same time.
An inference has been drawn as to the date of Quadratus,
bishop of Athens, from the fact that he was mentioned in
a letter of Dionysius of Corinth.^ Eusebius in his Chro-
nica gives A. D. 171 as the fioruit of Dionysius. But this
date appears to have been merely an inference from the
only one of the epistles in the same volume (8 above)
which furnished chronological data. It was certainly
written during the episcopate of Pope Soter (1 66-1 74). ^
But we have no right to conclude that the other letters
were penned about the same time, though Eusebius may
have done so. There is no reason why the letter to the
Athenians may not have been written twenty years before
the accession of Soter. And it is not certain that
Quadratus was alive when it was sent. On the contrary,
^ ^i^Xlov, a papyrus roll. ^ jf ^ iy_ 23. 3. " § 9.
1363 N
178 ON THE USE OF VOLUMES OF TRACTS
it seems to be implied that the Athenians had lapsed from
the vigour of faith to which his zeal had roused them
after the martyrdom of his predecessor Publius. But,
however that may be, there is no difficulty in supposing
that he was the Quadratus who presented an Apology to
the Emperor Hadrian.^
As I have mentioned the Apology of Quadratus, I am
tempted to make another suggestion. Dr. Eendel Harris ^
has drawn attention to the similarity between its title,
gathered from various references to it by Eusebius, and
that of the newly recovered Apology of Aristides. The
former he supposes, with Harnack, to have run somewhat
thus : Xoyoy airoXoyias V7r\p rfjs rcov XptcrTLavcou Oeoae^eiaS'
And the latter: aTroXoyia virlp r^? Oeoae^eias. How is
the resemblance to be explained? I venture to think
it possible that Eusebius had in his hands a volume
containing both with a general title, such as drroXoyiai
vnep T^9 Oeoa-e^eia?. "When they were copied separately
each would be superscribed with this title, the singular
being of course substituted for the plural.
^ For the same reason the argument of Dr. Rendel Harris {Texts
and Studies, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 11), that on the assumption that the
Apologist and the bishop were the same person the Apology must have
been presented to Antoninus Pius, seems to have little weight.
2 lb. p. 10.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE
The work of Eusebius of Caesarea which is known by
the title De Martyribus Palestinae has come down to us in
two forms. The better known of these is the Greek recen-
sion, which in most of the printed editions of the Eccle-
siastical History of the same writer follows the eighth
book. But it is now half a century since a Syriac ver-
sion of another recension was made generally accessible by
the labours of the late Dr. Cureton.^ It is contained in
the British Museum MS. Add. 12150, which bears the
date A.D. 411. It is obviously a translation from a Greek
original ; but the manifest corruptions of the text suggest
that it is considerably later than the Syriac exemplar
from which it is ultimately derived, and certain erroneous
readings of the underlying Greek which can still be
detected point to the conclusion that the manuscript from
which the rendering was made was in its turn separated
by some decades from the autograph. Thus there can be
little doubt that the original work was contemporary with
Eusebius (j 339).2 And there is not wanting evidence,
internal and external, that both it and the more familiar
Greek recension are products of his pen.^ Lightfoot's
theory of the relation between the two forms of the work
is probably correct. He held that the longer edition, now
^ History of the Martyrs in Palestine hy Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea,
discovered in a veiy antient Syriac manuscript : edited and translated
into English by William Cureton. London, Edinburgh, and Paris,
1861.
* Dictionary of Christian Biography, ii. 318 f. ^ lb. 320.
n2
180 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
represented by Cureton's Syriac, was the original form of
the book, and that it was written mainly for the instruc-
tion of the Christians of Caesarea ; while the shorter
edition, on the other hand, was abridged from it, and was
but a part of a larger work intended for a wider public.^
But it is not necessary in this paper to assume the truth
of Lightfoot's conclusion. We may rest content with the
assurance that the Syriac and the Greek recensions are
two editions of the same treatise, both of which received
their final form from Eusebius of Caesarea.
Now both of them present a very striking contrast to
the two books of the Ecclesiastical History which cover
the same period. The ninth book of the History is
absolutely devoid of explicit chronological data; the eighth
has only a few, and those for the most part vague and
difficult to interpret. The De Martyrihus, on the contrary,
bristles with dates. Of almost every event recorded in it
we are told the year, the month, the day of the month,
and even sometimes the day of the week. Quite apart,
therefore, from certain incidents of the persecution of
Diocletian, of which our knowledge is derived from it
alone, this work ought, in virtue of the number and
accuracy of its dates, to serve as a valuable supplement to
the History. But there is an initial difficulty to be over-
come. If we except one passage of the Greek recension,
which seems to have been copied from the History,^ and
has no parallel in the Syriac, the chronology of the
Martyrs is expressed, not in terms of the regnal years of
the Emperors, but in terms of the years of the persecution.
The customary formula in its most complete form is seen,
for example, at the beginning of chap. 6 : rerdpTcp ye fXTju tov
1 Dictionaty of Christian Biography, ii. 320 f. See also below,
pp. 279-283.
^ M. P. (Grk.) Pref. Cp. H. E. viii. 2. 4, 5.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 181
KaO' riixS)v 'iT€t Sicoy/xov, irpo ScoSeKa Ka\av85>v A^Ke^^ptcov,
^ yivoLT* ay firjpo? Aiov ecKciSi, Trpoaa^^aTov rifiipa, ktX. ;
for which we have in the Syriac/ ' It was in the fourth
year of the persecution in our days, and on Friday the
twentieth of the latter Teshri,' &c. "What did Eusebius
mean by a ' year of the persecution ' ? On what days of
the year, according to our reckoning, did such a year
begin and end ? This is a question to which we must
find an answer if we are to understand the chronology of
the persecution.
It will be admitted that the most obvious assumption is
that the first year covered a period of twelve months,
counted from the actual outbreak of the persecution, and
that each of the later years covered a like period, and
began in the same month of our reckoning. This assump-
tion, indeed, does not supply a full answer to our question,
for the outbreak of the persecution is variously dated.
According to Lactantius ^ the first edict of Diocletian
against the Christians was issued February 24, 303, the
persecution having actually begun on the previous day ;
Eusebius, in H. E. viii. 2, places the publication of the
edict in March,^ and in M. P. (Grk.) Pref., in April, of the
same year. These dates may perhaps be reconciled. But
a mere reconciliation of the dates cannot determine
whether Eusebius's persecution-years began in February,
in March, or in April. -^ But I hope to be able to show
that discussion of that problem is superfluous.
The possibility of finding an answer different from this,
and perhaps more satisfactory, was suggested to the present
^ Cureton, p. 19. "-De Morf. Pers., 12f.
' So also in the Chronica, ed. Schoene, ii. 189.
* Mr. MoGiffert holds that Eusebius dated the beginning of the
persecution-years sometimes before, sometimes after, April 2, though
always in April. But why not in March ? See his note on M. P. 7. 1,
in Nicene and Post-JS^icene Fathers, vol. i, p. 348.
182 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
writer by a short but illuminating discussion by Mr. C. H.
Turner of the meaning of regnal years in Eusebius, which
was printed in an early number of the Journal of Theolo-
gical Studies} The conclusion at which Mr. Turner
arrives is, that the beginning of a regnal year was inde-
pendent of the actual day of accession of the emperor,
and that it was in all cases regarded by Eusebius as
falling in the month of September. What if it should
prove that the starting-point of the persecution-years
was likewise independent of the actual date of the
outbreak of the persecution? Once this hypothesis is
admitted as possible, some of the arguments urged by
Mr, Turner in favour of his theory, that all regnal years
in Eusebius began in September, might be used to prove
that persecution-years began in the same month. It will
be found, however, if I am not mistaken, that the latter
conclusion is inconsistent with the facts.
The validity of both these suggestions must be tested by
an appeal to the text of the Martyrs. But a word may
first be said as to the method of indicating dates in the
two recensions. The G-reek has a double notation. First
the date is given in the ordinary Roman fashion, count-
ing backwards from Kalends, Nones, and Ides, the Roman
names of the months being used. Then it is given in the
style to which we are accustomed, counting forwards from
the first day of the month, the Roman names being
replaced by the names of the Macedonian months which
correspond to them. In the Syriac, only the second of
these methods is used ; and instead of the Macedonian
names we find what the translator regarded as their
Syriac equivalents. Thus the martyrdom of Procopius
(June 7) is dated in the Greek (1. 2) vii. id. Jun. = Daesius
1 Vol. i, pp. 188 ff.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 183
7j while in the parallel passage of Syriac it is dated
Khaziran 7.
Now the year which has the largest number of martyr-
doms is the seventh. The Greek does not mark the point
at which we pass from the sixth year to the seventh, though
it indicates that, so far as the proceedings at Caesarea are
concerned, the record of those two years extends from
chap. 8 to chap. 11.^ But in the Syriac two successive
passions are headed respectively, ' The confession of Ares,
and Primus, and Elias, in the sixth year of the persecution
in our days at Ashkelon,' and ' The confession of Peter,
who was surnamed Absalom, in the seventh year of the
persecution in our days in the city of Caesarea '.- These
two passions correspond to the two sections of the tenth
chapter of the Greek. It may be assumed, therefore, that
chapter 10, §2, and chapter 11 of the Greek text contain
the narrative of the seventh year at Caesarea. The
martyrdom of Peter, then, is the first recorded as belong-
ing to the seventh year. It is dated in the Greek
Audinaeus 11 = 3 id. Jan. (i.e. January 11), and in the
Syriac Conun 10 (i. e. January 10). The last martyrdom
of the year is that of Peleus ^ and his companions. The
Syriac dates it Elul 19 ; and as Elul included the greater
part of September with a portion of October, we may
interpret this to mean September 19. It is true that in the
Greek this martyrdom is without date ; but there is at
any rate nothing in the context at variance with the date
given in the Syriac* Thus we see that the seventh year
' See 8. 1 ; 13. 1. ^ Cureton,p. 34 f.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 1-3 ; Cureton, p. 46. This is the correct form of
the name. See Eus. H. E. viii. 13. 5. The Syriac calls him Paulus.
* It is necessary to emphasize this, because the oi^ening words of
the chapter have sometimes been mistranslated ' The seventh year
of our conflict was completed ', the martyrdom of Peleus being thus
184 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
of the persecution began before January 11, and ended
after September 19. This fact puts out of court the hypo-
thesis that the persecution-years began on or near the
anniversary of the promulgation of the first edict of
Diocletian. We cannot regard any date in February,
March, or April as the first day of such a year : it must
have begun between September 19 and January 11.
This, of course, still leaves open the possibility that it ran
from September to September. Let us see then whether
its beginning may be determined within narrower limits.
The first dated martyrdom in the sixth year — that of
Khatha and Valentina — took place on July 25, ac-
cording to both recensions ^ ; the last — that of Ares
and others — again according to both recensions, on
December 14.^ The beginning of the year cannot have
been in September. It must have commenced between
December 14 and January 11. If we conclude that the
normal persecution-year of Eusebius was simply the
ordinary Roman year, which began on January 1 and
ended on December 31, we cannot be astray by more than
a few days.
The conclusion being thus reached that the beginning
of the persecution-years, according to Eusebius, was on
or about January 1, and as a consequence that they
approximately coincided with years of our a.d. reckoning,
the solution of a further problem may be attempted :
With what year of our era did each several persecution-
year sjmchronize ? A consideration of the account given
apparently thrown into the eighth year. They should rather be ren-
dered 'was approaching completion' (^i/Jeto), which suits one of the
later months of the seventh year. It is not implied that the events
narrated in the immediate sequel belonged to the eighth year.
1 M. P. (Grk.) 8. 12 ; Cureton, p. 31.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 10. 1 ; Cureton, p. 34. The Greek does not give the
number of the year.
EUSEBIUS'S 31ARTYFS OF PALESTINE 185
of the passion of Apphianns, or, as the Syriac calls him,
Epiphanius,^ and of the context which leads up to it,-
supplies us with the answer to our question. After men-
tioning the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian,
Eusebius proceeds to describe the renewal of the persecu-
tion after the accession of Maximin, and the consterna-
tion which as a result fell upon the Christians of Palestine.
Apphianus appears to have been the first victim of his
fury at Caesarea. After proceedings which must have
occupied at least several days — more probably some weeks
— Apphianus was seized, imprisoned, tortured, brought
three times before the judge, and finally cast into the sea.
The date is given in both recensions as April 2, in the
third year of the persecution. Now we learn from
Lactantius ^ that the abdication of Diocletian took place
on May 1, 305. The earliest possible date for the martyr-
dom is therefore April 2, 306. It could not have been
April 2, 307, for on no possible hypothesis could the year
307 have been reckoned as the third of the persecution.
It follows therefore that a.d. 306 was the third persecu-
tion-year.
It may indeed be suggested that Eusebius was in error
as to the date of the abdication, and supposed that it
occurred before April 2, 305. It is in fact probable that
he did not know the day on which it happened. For he
dates it vaguely. ' At this time V he writes, ' a change of
^ Apphianus is correct, since another Syriac version of his passion
has Appianus. See S. E. Assemani, Acta SS. Martt. Orient, et Occident.,
Rome, 1748, vol. ii, p. 189. So also the Greek fragment of the longer
recension printed in Schwartz, ii. 912.
"- M.P. (Grk.) 3. 5-4. 15; Cureton,pp. 12 ff.
^ De Mort. Pers. 19. Lactantius in the context exhibits minute
knowledge of the movements of Diocletian at this period, and his
dates cannot reasonably be doubted. See chaps. 12-14, 17.
* iv roi/Vo,. See H. E. iii. 18. 1 ; 21 ; iv. 1 ; 15. 1 ; 30. 3 ; v. 13.
1 ; vi. 7 ; 8. 1, 7 ; 18. 1 ; 21. 2 ; 27 ; 31. 1 ; vii. 1 ; 14. 1 ; 27. 1 ; 28. 3
186 THE CHEONOLOGY OF
rulers took place.' This is the more remarkable inasmuch
as in the Marfyi's Eusebius seems to avoid indefinite notes
of time.^ Diocletian abdicated, and Maximin was in-
vested with the purple, at Nicomedia.^ Even if the latter
had ' armed himself for persecution ' the very next day,
some time would be required for the preparation of his
instructions to the provincial governors, and proceedings
could not have begun at Caesarea till at least a few days
after they were dispatched.^ To this period must be
added the interval between the appearance of Apphianus
before Urban and his execution on April 2. If Eusebius
took account of all this his error must have been very
considerable. He must have put the abdication and the
subsequent action of the governor at Caesarea six weeks
or two months too early. Is it likely that he was so much
astray about the date of an event which cannot but have
impressed itself vividly on his memory ? But that is not
all. For there can be no doubt that the martyrdom in
actual fact followed the accession of Maximin, and did
not precede it. That is not only stated by the historian ;
it is implied throughout the entire narrative. If, to relieve
ourselves of the necessity of placing the martyrdom of
Apphianus in the year 306, we assume that Eusebius ante-
dated the abdication, we must therefore also assume that
he antedated the martyrdom: a second improbability
which is not easy to be got over. Moreover, it is quite
certain that in whatever month he supposed the abdication
to have occurred he assigned it to the second year of the
31.1; viii. 6. 6, &c. In all these places the phrase may be rendered
' at this period '.
^ Those in Pref. ad Jin. and 1. 3 occur in quotations from H. E. viii.
Those in chap. 5 were apparently inevitable.
^ Lactantius, De Mo>i. Pers. 17 ; Eus., Chroii. ed. Schoene, ii. 189.
' The first edict of Diocletian against the Christians, of February 24,
303, did not reach Caesarea, as it seems, till Ajiril. M. P. (Grk.) Pref.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 187
persecution/ and the martyrdom of Appliianus to the third.
If therefore the former took phice in 305 (and Eusebius
cannot have put it in the wrong year) the latter must belong-
to 306. And finally there is some evidence that in the
early months of the reign of Maximin his dominions were
comparatively free from persecution. He himself tells us
that when he ' first came into the East ' he did not use
severity towards the Christians.^ And Lactantius uses
language which seems to imply that at this period he
forbade them to be put to death. For the peace which
the Church enjoyed from May to October 311 reminds
him of a similar period of rest earlier in Maximin's reign,
to which he does not elsewhere allude.^ All this harmo-
nizes well with the long interval by which Eusebius, as
we have interpreted him, separates his appointment as
' H. E. viii. 13. 10 ; App. 2 ; Chron. ed. Schoene, ii. 189.
^ H. E. ix. 9. 15-17. Commenting on this passage Dr. Mason says
{Persecution of Diocletian, 1876, p. 335) that 'no Turk ever lied more
shamelessly '. But even Sultans do not utter falsehoods when there is
no likelihood that their falsehoods will deceive any one. Maximin, no
doubt, lied ; but his lies must have had such a semblance of truth as
to encourage the hope that they would be believed by a good many
of the Christians of Asia Minor and Syria. That would have been
impossible if after his accession the fourth edict had not been
allowed to fall into abeyance in those regions for a season. Compare
below, pp. 232 ff.
^ De Mo)i. Pers. 36. 6, speaking of the period following the death
of Galerius (May 311), 'Facere autem parabat quae iamdudum in
Orientis partibus fecerat. Nam c^lnl clementiain sjjecie tenus pro-
fiteretur, occidi seruos Dei iietuit, debilitari iussit.' On the other hand
the Syriac recension of M. P. ignores the clemency, such as it was,
shown to the Christians at the beginning of Maximin's reign. He is
said to have gone forth, ' even from his very commencement, to fight,
as it were, against God ' (Cureton, p. 12). No facts, however, are
alleged in support of this statement. It will be observed that
Eusebius is quite explicit about the absolute immunity of the Chris-
tians from persecution for part of the year 311 {H.E. ix. 1. 7 ff, ; 2. 1),
while Lactantius will admit no more than that for a time Maximin
abstained from open infliction of the death penalty.
188 THE CHEONOLOGY OF
Caesar from the first martyrdom which took place under
his rule at Caesarea. We may conclude then that the
third year of the persecution coincided with a. d. 306.
There are similar indications that the second year co-
incided with A. D. 305. It is sufficient for our purpose to
repeat the remark already made, that Eusebius states in
unambiguous language that the abdication, the approxi-
mate date of which he must have known, occurred in the
second year of the persecution.
If we have argued correctly thus far, the third year of
the persecution must have ended about December 31, 306,
the second about December 31, 305, and the first about
December 31, 304. This is certainly an unexpected result.
For the actual beginning of the persecution at Nicomedia
is dated by Lactantius February 23, 303, and Eusebius
represents it to have commenced in other parts of the
Empire in March or April of the same year.^ The first
' year ' must therefore have been a period, not of twelve,
but of at least twenty months.-^ The tenth 'year', on
the same computation, began January 1, 313; and as it
1 Lact. De Mort. Pers. 12 ; Eus. H. E. viii. 2. 4 ; M. P. (Grk.) Pref.
^ In other words, a considerable part of 303 is reckoned by Eusebius
as belonging to 304. In like manner the period between the accession
of an Emperor and the following September was regarded by him as
belonging to the first regnal yeai-, which in strictness began in the
latter month. Dr. Carleton makes the interesting suggestion that
Eusebius, in thus making a persecution-year or a regnal year include
a period prior to its nominal beginning, may have been influenced by
a rule of the Metonic Cycle, in the adaptation of which to ecclesi-
astical pui-poses he took a leading part. In that cycle a lunation was
conceived as belonging to the year in which it ended. Thus the
twelfth lunation of the tenth year of the cycle ended December 3.
The following lunation, because it ended on January 2, was held to
belong to the eleventh year. So a Julian year, nominally beginning
on January 1, might include nearly a month prior to January 1. See
S. Butcher, The Ecclesiastical Calendar, its theory and construction,
Dublin, 1877, pp. 61 if.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 189
ended with the edict of Maximin, probably in September
or October,^ it included about ten months.
It may be -well, however, at this point, to anticipate a
possible objection. We have relied on the accuracy of the
texts, Greek and Syriac, in regard to chronological data.
But it may be urged that their dates are demonstrably
inaccurate in some places. I do not think that much stress
will be laid on a few passages in which the two recensions
are inconsistent with each other. Of this we have several
examples. Alphaeus and Zacchaeus were beheaded, and
Eomanus was burned at the stake, according to the Greek
on November 17, according to the Syriac on November 7 ; ^
Domninus was given to the flames according to the Greek
on November 5, according to the Syriac on November 1 ; ^
Peter, called Apselamus (Absalom), suffered according to
the Greek on January 11, according to the Syriac on
January 10.* But such slight discrepancies are not more
serious or more numerous than might be expected in two
independent texts, each of which has suffered to some
extent at the hands of transcribers. In all cases one of
the dates is almost certainly what Eusebius held to be
correct ; and whichever be accepted as his, our argument
is unaffected.
Another class of passages demands more consideration.
Four times in the Greek, and once in the Syriac, a date
is defined not only by the year, the month, and the day
of the month, but also by the day of the week. Let us
examine the passages.
1 Eus. H. E. ix. 10. For the date see below, p. 227.
"^ M. P. (Grk.) 1. 5 ; 2. 1 ; Cureton, p. 6. The Syriac version of
this passion edited by S. E. Assemani, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 177, has Novem-
ber 17. The Greek is therefore in this case almost certainly correct.
3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 3 f. ; Cureton, p. 24.
* M.P. (Grk.) 10. 2 ; Cureton, p. 35. With the latter agrees
Assemani's Syriac version, op. cit., ii. 208.
190 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
The Greek text, after stating that the martyr Apphianus
was drowned on April 2 of the third year of the persecution,
adds that the day was Friday.^ We have used this date to
prove that 306 was the third year of the persecution ; and
it is therefore important for our theory. Now April 2 is
Friday only in a year whose Sunday letter is C (or a leap
year whose Sunday letters are DC). But the Sunday
letter of 306 is F, and in it April 2 was Tuesday. Thus, if
the date is correct, our theory cannot be maintained. It is
true that the Syriac gives no support to the statement that
Apphianus suffered on Friday ; and so it may be that the
note in the Greek is due, not to Eusebius, but to a scribe
who desired to indicate a parallel between his passion and
that of Christ. But there is no need for such a suggestion.
The fact is, that the only years falling within the period of
the persecution which have the Sunday letter C are 303
and 308 ; and on no scheme of the chronology could
April 2 in either of those years be counted as belonging to
the third persecution-year. We must, therefore, make
our choice between rejecting the day of the week in the
Greek text, and rejecting the day of the month in both
Greek and Syriac. Here the Syriac comes to our aid.
In it we read, ' Such was the termination of the history of
Epiphanius, on the second of the month Nisan, and his
memory is observed on this day.'^ Thus contemporary
tradition confirms the date April 2. This is decisive in
^ Tjfifpa TrapaaKfvrjs. M. P. (Grk.) 4. 15.
2 Cureton, p. 17. So also Assemani's Syriac (op. cit., ii. 189). The
underlying Greek, as printed by Schwartz (ii. 918), which also omits
the words rj^ifpa napaa-Kfvrjs, iTins, toiovtov piv S17 t(Kovs to KaTO. rov
davpaaiov 'Air(piav6v ervxe 8papa' SavdiKov prjvos (Sfvre'pa) irpo 8 vavav
'XnpiWLcov fj Tov8f pvTjpr] re'XeiTm. It has been suggested by H. Browne
in his 0>-do Saeclorum, London, 1844, p. 535 f. (§ 479), that Eusebius
' has confounded the date of the martyr Apphianus's first hearing,
Tuesday, April 2, with the date of his martyrdom on the third day
following, i. e. Friday, April 5 '.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 191
favour of the supposition that the words ^fiipa Trapaa-K^vfjS
are an incorrect gloss, whether of Eusebius or another.
But again, the Greek and the Syriac agree in dating
the death of Agapius on November 20, the birthday of
the Emperor Maximin, in the fourth year (307, according
to the theory here advocated) ; and once more the Greek
adds that the day was Friday.^ This requires the Sunday
letter D (or ED), while the Sunday letter of 307 is E.
But the first year after 302 which has the Sunday letter D
is 313 ; 2 and by November 20, 313, the persecution was
over. Since there is no reasonable ground for doubting
that November 20 ' was observed as Maximin's birthday,
the phrase of the Greek, irpoa-a^^drov rj/xepa, must once
more be rejected as unhistoricaL*
The next date to be considered is that of the martyrdom
of Procopius, which both recensions assign to June 7 in
the first year, the Greek adding that it was on ' the fourth
^ M. P. (Grk.) 6. 1 ; Cureton, p. 19.
^ Not counting 308, which has D in Januaiy and February only.
^ We might have expected May 1, the day of Maximin's accession.
But by substituting May 1 for November 20 we do not get rid of our
difficulty, for the former falls on the same day of the week as the
latter. Dodwell (Disserfationes Cyprianicae, Oxford, 1684, p. 322)
plausibly suggests that Maximin observed Diocletian's day as his
own.
'' Browne {uli sup.) writes : ' I understand it thus : November 20
(Wednesday) the martyr was thrown to the wild beast. Dreadfully
mangled, he was taken back to his prison, and there lingered one
whole day. On the day after that he was cast into the sea (i. e.
Friday). Eusebius again throws together the month-date noted in the
Roman Acta, and the week-date of the Passion.' Thus he concludes
that Agapius was martyred in 306, in which November 22 was Friday.
But both Greek and Syriac imply that he was cast into the sea the
day following his contest in the arena, not two days after it. If
Browne's suggestion as to the source of Eusebius's error is correct, the
date of the martyrdom is November 21, which was Friday, not in 306.
but in 307, the year to which by independent reasoning we have
assigned it.
192 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
day of tlie week.' ^ On our theory this might mean either
June 7, 303, or June 7, 304. But it can be proved that
June 7, 303, is intended. For the martyrdoms of Alphaeus,
Zacchaeus, and Romanus are said to have taken place on
November 17 in the first year, and they are definitely
connected with the vicennalia of Diocletian, which imme-
diately followed them.2 But the vicennalia were cele-
brated November 20, 303.^ Now the martyrdom of
Procopius must have been earlier than those just men-
tioned, not merely because it precedes them in our texts,
but because Procopius is stated to have been the first of
the Palestinian martyrs.^ But in 303 the 7th June was
not Wednesday, but Monday. Clearly, either June 7 or
Wednesday is an error.^
1 M. P. (Grk.) 1.2; Cureton, p. 4.
* M. P. (Grk.) 1. 5; 2. 1, 4; Cureton, pp. 4ff.
^ Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 17. Mason, following Hunziker,
thinks that this date is due to a blunder of Lactantius or of a scribe,
and that the true date is not 12 Kal. Dec, but 12 Kal. Jan. = 21
December. (A. J. Mason, TJte Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge,
1876, p. 205.) But he relies mainly on two rescripts in the Codex of
Justinian (11. iii. 28 ; IV. xix. 21) which seem to have been incorrectly
dated. See Mommsen in the Abhandiungen der konigl. Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1860, pp. 357, 372, 437 f It is somewhat
to our purpose, however, to observe that in an argument based on
Eusebius's account of the sufferings of Roraanus he appears to have
misapprehended the facts. He says that Romanus had his tongue cut
out on November 17, and contends that ' the three days that would
elapse between Romanus's mutilation and the 20th of November could
hardly be called TrXeioro? xP"v°^' [see M. P. (Grk.) 2. 4]. This implies
that he died on the day of the vicennalia. But what Eusebius says
is that after his mutilation, for which no date is given, he suffered
a long imprisonment, and died November 17, t^s- apxi-Krjs ilKoa-aeTrfpibos
e7na-TdaT]s. This, SO far from furnishing an argument against the date
given by Lactantius, actually confirms it. For the phrase just quoted
is inconsistent with the supposition that five weeks intervened between
the martyrdom and the vicennalia.
* M. P. (Grk.) 1. 1 ; Cureton, p. 8.
^ The Latin version of the passion of Procopius, which, like the
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 193
Finally, both Greek and Syriac give April 2 in the fifth
year as the day of the martyrdom of Theodosia.^ The
Syriac declares that it was Sunday; and the Greek
addition may have the same meaning — eu avrfj KvpiaKrj
■qfxepa rrjs rov Scorfjpo9 rjixwv di/aarda-eoD^. But both recen-
sions are certainly incorrect. Twice during the persecu-
tion did April 2 fall on a Sunday — in 304 and 310. But
no part of either of these years can have coincided with
the fifth persecution-year. This example is interesting,
because the agreement of the Syriac and the Greek makes
it highly probable that the error originated with Eusebius
himself^
Thus every one of these four dates is incorrect. And
not only is each by itself proved to be erroneous, but they
are also inconsistent with one another. It is impossible
that a year in which April 2 fell on Friday could be
followed by a year in which November 20 fell on Friday,
or that it in turn should be followed by a year in which
April 2 fell on Sunday.
Syriac, does not mention the day of the week, gives the date as ' Desii
septima Julii mensis, quae nonas Julias dicitur apud Latinos '.
(Cureton, p. 50 ; Ruinart, Acta sine, Amsterdam, 1713, p. 353.) And it
so happens that July 7, 303, was Wednesday. But the text is evidently
corrapt, for ' Desii ' is transliterated from the Greek, and is the
Macedonian equivalent of June. Thus the Latin is a fresh witness for
the date June 7. On Browne's principle it might be conjectured that
the arraignment was on Monday, June 7, and the martyrdom on
Wednesday, June 9. But Greek, Syriac, and Latin all leave the im-
pression that Procopius was brought before Flavian immediately after
his arrival at Caesarea, and having declined to make a libation to the
Emperors was on the same day (avriKa) put to death.
1 M.P. (Grk.) 7. 1 ; Cureton, p. 22 f.
2 Browne {ubi siq).), in his attempt to account for the error in this
date, asserts that April 2 fell on Friday in 307, and places the martyr-
dom in that year. In fact, April 2 was Friday in 808, the year to
which we have assigned it. The Syriac seems to imply that the pro-
ceedings occupied more than one day ; and the suggestion that
Theodoric was arraigned on Friday, April 2, and executed on Sunday
is possibly right.
194 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
Are we to conclude then that the dates in the Martyrs
are too untrustworthy to be used for our purpose ? That
is not a necessary conclusion. For in two, if not three,
cases out of the four which have been examined we have
seen reason to believe that the month-day is correct and
only the week-day at fault. And it is on the month- days
alone that our argument rests. Now there are fourteen
dates reported in both recensions. In every instance the
Greek and the Syriac are in agreement as to the month ;
in only three cases they differ as to the day of the month,
and that but slightly. This is a sufficient guarantee that
the dates which Eusebius wrote have been preserved to us
in both recensions where they agree, in one or other of
them where they differ. And it must be remembered that
our argument is based only on the belief which Eusebius
held as to the dates of the several martyrdoms which he
records, not on the actual facts. Its validity is in no way
affected if some or all of Eusebius's dates should prove to
be historically inaccurate.
Nevertheless, recognizing the possibility of textual error
in some of the dates which we have used, we may notice
some further considerations which tend to confirm our
conclusion.
We take first two passages which have been used
already. The date of the martyrdom of Peter Apselamus
has been referred to as indicating that persecution -years
began before January 11 ; but for placing it in the
seventh year we were obliged to rely on the Syriac alone.
It is therefore worth observing that the next series of
events recorded is the trial and death of Pamphilus
and those who suffered with him.^ It cannot be doubted
that Eusebius assigned this group of martyrdoms to the
seventh year. Not only is this directly stated in the
^ M. P. (Grk.) 11 ; Cureton, pp. 36 ff.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 195
Syriac : both. Greek and Syriac add that the martyrs had
been imprisoned for ' two fall years ', or * about two years '
before their trial.^ The latter assertion must be discussed
later. For the present it may suffice to say that it is
inexplicable if Pamphilus was imprisoned in the fifth,^
and brought to trial in the sixth year of the persecution.
Moreover, after a parenthetic chapter which follows the
recital of the passion of Pamphilus, Eusebius makes the
remarkable statement that 'the seventh year was approach-
ing completion '.^ But the arraignment of Pamphilus is
dated in both recensions February 16. Hence that day
is the latest on which this narrative allows us to place the
beginning of a persecution-year.
Eusebius dates the martyrdom of Timolaus and others
March 24 in the second year,^ and, as we have seen,
places the abdication of Diocletian in the same year.
If he agreed with Lactantius that the date of the latter
incident was May 1, the supposition that a persecution-
year began between March 24 and May 1 is excluded.
Again, if we suppose the first persecution-year to have
begun earlier than March 25, 303, and each year to have
consisted of twelve months, it is impossible that the
martyrdom of Timolaus could have been in the second
year, unless we place it in 304, which can hardly be done,
due regard being had to the statements of Eusebius/
And one other remark must be made. It is implied
both in the Syriac and in the Greek that Timothy
1 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 5 ; Cureton, p. 40.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 6 ; Cureton, p. 25. ' j,^ p ((jj-j^ ) jg^ i_
* M. P. (Grk.) 3. 3f. ; Cureton, pp. 10 ff. (where Timolaus is called
Timothy).
^ The narrative of Timolaus is followed by the assertion that ' at this
time ' the Emperors abdicated. This does not permit us to separate the
martyrdom from the abdication by more than a year (March 24, 304-
May 1, 305j.
o2
196 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
suffered in the second year, but before Timolaus and at
Gaza.^ And since the Syriac makes it plain that
the praeses Urban was at Gaza when Timothy was
executed, and both recensions represent him to have been
at Caesarea during the festival at which Timolaus was
condemned, there must have been a considerable interval
between the two martyrdoms. The second year must
therefore have been some way advanced by March 24, 305.
In the fourth year we find but one martyrdom, that of
Agapius, put to death on November 20.^ If this event
belongs to the close rather than to the earlier months of
the year, it proves that the year ended after November 20.
The record of the fifth year supplies two dates, April 2
for the martyrdom of Theodosia, and November 5 (or 1)
for the exile of Silvanus.^ The former proves that the
year began before April 2. After the latter date are placed
many important events,^ all of which apparently belonged
to the same year.^ Urban, the governor, adopted a fresh
policy of greater cruelty towards the Christians, of which
several examples are given ; ^ after an interval "^ came the
imprisonment of Pamphilus, and finally, a little later,^
' M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1 ; Cureton, p. 8 f.
2 M.P. (Grk.) 6 ; Cureton, pp. 19 fF.
3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 1, 8 ; Cureton, pp. 22, 24.
* M. P. (Grk.) 7. 4-7 ; Cureton, p. 24 f.
5 See M. P. (Grk.) 7. 1 ; 8. 1 ; Cureton, pp. 24, 26. That the im-
prisonment of Pamphilus belonged to the fifth year is again implied
in M. P. (Grk.) 11. 5 ; Cureton, p. 40.
" The Greek prefixes to this statement the words /ne^' or ; but in
the Syriac the order of events is different, and it is said that all these
things and the banishment of Silvanus happened ' in the same day',
and indeed ' in one hour '.
' Syr., ' After all these things which I have described.' There is no
note of time in the Greek.
^ Grk. ev6xii Koi ovK tls (laKpov to'is Kara rov TlafxcjiiXov TeToX/jirjfMevois.
Syr., ' forthwith, and immediately, and without any long delay.' The
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 197
the deposition of Urban. It is not extravagant to demand
at least a month, for all this, and thus the end of the year
is pushed forward to December.
It may now be pointed out that our scheme of the
chronology throws light on some statements about the
course of the persecution inaugurated by the Emperor
Diocletian. We may turn first to a passage near the
close of the Greek recension of the Martyrs which has no
counterpart in the Syriac. In it we are told ^ that in Italy,
and the "West generally, the persecution lasted not two
complete years. The context informs us that peace in
the West was brought about by the division of the
Empire. What is meant is more clearly stated in a
somewhat similar passage, H. E. viii. 13. 10 £, where
the division is said to have followed immediately upon
the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian. But the
persecution began in February 303, and the abdication
did not take place till May 1, 305. How does this
period come to be described ' as not two complete years ' ?
Probably because Eusebius had in view his arbitrary
persecution-years," the first of which lasted, as we have
seen, twenty months. He simply means that peace was
established in the West before December 31, 305. And
so in the passage of his History referred to above, he puts
the matter differently : ovtt(o S' avToTs Trj^ToidaSe Kti^rjaecos
SevTepov iTO^ neTrXrjpooTO ktX.
In a somewhat similar way we may perhaps explain
Eusebius' s comment on the final edict of toleration issued
by Maximin,^ that it was put forth ' not a complete year
purpose of the writer is obviously to minimize the interval between
the tyranny and the degradation of Urban.
^ M. P. (Grk.) 13. 12 to. yap tol iiriKuva toov 8e8rj'\<ji>^evcoif, 'IraXt'a, kt\.,
old' oXois ereaiv 8val rois TrpcoToi? tov Siay^ov tov noXejxov vnofidvavia.
"^ This indeed is implied by the words rois Trpwrotr.
3 E. E. ix. 10. 12.
198 THE CHEONOLOGY OF
(ovS' 6\ov kvLavTov) after the ordinances against the
Christians set up by him on pillars '. This note seems to
be a bungling inference from the words of the edict, -which
obviously referred to something quite different — 'Last
year [too irapeXOovTi kviavTco) letters were sent to the
governors of each province.' ^ There is nothing in the
phrase to exclude the supposition that the letters referred
to were sent more than twelve months previously. But the
interval between them and the edict was ' not a complete
year ', because it was made up of parts of two successive
years, and did not include an unbroken calendar year.
In general the phrase ' so many complete years ' was
used by Eusebius to indicate a series of unbroken years,
together with parts of the years preceding and following
the series. Thus, having inferred from one statement of
Josephus 2 that Pilate was sent to Judaea in 12 Tiberius,
and from another^ that he was recalled immediately before
the Emperor's death, i.e. in 23 Tiberius, he states that he
was in Judaea ' ten complete years ',* viz. : 13-22 Tiberius,
and portions of 12 Tiberius and 23 Tiberius. In the same
way he states that Demetrius was bishop of Alexandria
forty-three full years, meaning that he was appointed in
10 Commodus, and died in 10 Severus,^ and therefore held
the bishopric for the 43 regnal years, 11 Commodus-9
Severus, and for a short time before and after. And
similarly when he says that he knew Meletius as a fugitive
in Palestine in the time of the persecution for seven com-
plete years (e0' oAoiy 'It^o-lv inTa)'^ he indicates that he
knew him during the whole course of the persecution
until he himself left Palestine for Egypt early in the
eighth year.'^
1 H. E. ix. 10. 8. 2 ^„^_ xviii. 2. 2. ^ lb. 4. 2.
* H. E. i. 9. 1 f. ^ H. E. V. 22 ; vi. 26. « H. E. vii. 32. 28.
^ See M. P. (Grk.) 13. 8.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 199
More difficult to explain is the remark that Pamphilus
and his companions were in prison for ' two complete years '
{kroav Sveltf oXoov \p6vov) before their final examination.^
For Pamphilus was arrested under the praeses Urban
not earlier than November 308 ; ^ and he was brought before
Firmilian February 16, 310. This period of fifteen
months included one unbroken persecution-year (309),
and parts of two others. It might therefore, according
to the usage of which examples have been given, be de-
scribed as ' one complete year', or ' not two complete years',
but not as ' two complete years '. The simplest hypothesis
seems to be that the word ' complete ' is a later insertion.
It is absent from the Syriac (' about two years '),^ and also
from an extant Greek fragment of the longer recension.*
One further remark remains to be made. When the
dates of the events recorded in the Martyrs of Palestine
are noted and compared, we are at once struck with
the intermittent character of the persecution — at least in
Caesarea. It was very far from being, as it is sometimes
pictured, a reign of terror which continued everywhere
in the East without cessation for ten years or more.
The first edict of Diocletian against the Christians was
issued February 24, 303. It reached Palestine six weeks
or two months later. But no record of proceedings at
Caesarea under its provisions has come down to us. For
it might plausibly be argued that the protomartyr, Pro-
copius, who suffered in June 303, was arrested, not in
consequence of this edict, but under the ordinary law :
» M.P. (Grk.)ll. 5.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 5 f. ; Cureton, p. 25.
^ Cureton, p. 40.
* Printed from four MSS. Analecia Bolland. xvi. 129 fF., and by
Schwartz underneath his shorter Greek text. It reads here bviiv irav
)(p6vov for €T. 8v. oXav )(p.
200 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
certainly sentence of death was passed upon him on
account of language which, was regarded as insulting to
the Emperors.^ It appears, however, that in the latter
part of the year active measures were taken against the
Christian clergy under the second edict — provoked, it
may be, by the somewhat extravagant conduct of Pro-
copius. The result of these proceedings was a large
number of imprisonments, the infliction of tortures in
many cases, and two martyrdoms on November 17, 303.^
But after this there appears to have been a lull for fifteen
or sixteen months. We hear of no martyrdoms and no
acts of violence till March 305. It seems clear that
throughout the Empire the rigour of the persecution must
have largely depended on the anti-Christian zeal of the
local authorities, and that the praeses who held office at
Caesarea up to the end of 304— Flavian by name — was
not eager to exceed his duty in the enforcement of the
imperial edicts.
But if slackness of administration on the part of Fla-
vian accounts for the paucity of records of persecution
in Palestine during the year 303, there was another
1 M.P. (Grk.) 1.1; Cureton, p. 4. The first edict ordered the
destiTiction of churches. Yet, if we may believe the statements of
the Syriac recension, churches were still standing in or near Caesarea
in 310 ; for the bodies of Pamphilus and his companions, we are told,
' were burie with honourable burial, as they were worthy, and were
deposited in shrines [lit. houses of shrines] : and into the temples
[i. e. the naves as distinct from the sanctuaries of the churches] they
were committed, for a memorial not to be forgotten, that they might
be honoured of their brethren who are with God.' I owe the transla-
tion to the kindness of Dr. Gwynn. Cureton (p. 45) is inaccurate.
The longer Greek runs thus : Tijs TrpocTrjKovcrrjs Tififji Ka\ Kr}8eias Xdxovra,
rrj avvrjdfi napebodrj Ta(f>ii, vaav oiicois TrfpiKaWeaiv airoTeOiVTa iv upoii re
Trpo(TfVKTr]piois fls aXtjarov pvT]pr)v tw tov 6eov Xaw ripaadai Trapabedopeva.
^ M. P. (Grk.) 1. 3-5 ; Cureton, pp. 4-6. Somewhat earlier than
this date we may probably put the so-called ' Third Edict ' (Eus. H. E.
viii. 6. 10). See Mason, p. 206 f.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 201
circumstance whicli in combination with it explains their
complete absence in 304, and which affected a much wider
area. After celebrating his vicennalia Diocletian left
Rome on December 19, 303. Shortly afterwards he con-
tracted a slight illness which developed into a serious
disorder affecting both body and mind. For the greater
part of his journey to Nicomedia he had to be carried in
a litter, and so slowly did he travel that he did not reach
that city till August.^ Apparently for seven months after
his arrival there he appeared in public only once, and
then with grave consequences to his health. By the
middle of December a rumour was current that he was
dead, and this suspicion was only dispelled when in
March 305 he ventured outside the palace, scarcely re-
cognizable after nearly a year of sickness.- He was still
afflicted with attacks of temporary insanity.^
During the greater part of that period Diocletian must
have taken a very small share in the government of the
Empire, and for at least the four months preceding
March 305 he appears to have been wholly incapacitated.
From beginning to end of his illness it is probable
that not only Flavian, but all the other provincial
governors in his dominions ^ were left to their own dis-
cretion as to the enforcement or relaxation of the laws
against the Christians. If in 303 it was in the power of
Flavian to be lenient towards them, in 304 and the early
days of 305 there was no need for him to persecute at all.
^ 'Aeetate transacta', Lactantius. A rescript was issued in his
name at Nicomedia, August 28, 304. Cod. lustin. iii. 28. 26.
2 ' Vix agnoscendus quippe qui anno fere toto aegritudine tabuisset.'
The previous narrative implies that the illness had begun more than
a year earlier. Probably therefore 'anno fere toto' refers to the
period during which Diocletian was completely laid aside.
s Lact. De Mori. Pers. 17.
* Viz. the Diocese of Pontus and the East, including Egypt.
202 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
It is at any rate remarkable that the increased violence of
the proceedings in March 305 is directly connected, both
in the Greek and the Syriac,^ with the advent of a new
praeses, one Urban, and the issue of the fourth anti-
Christian edict of Diocletian.
But the argument may be carried somewhat further.
Dr. Mason is probably right in supposing that the fourth
edict, which has just been mentioned, was put forth by
Maximian on the occasion of the ludi saeculares at Rome,
in consequence of a popular outcry, and with the approval
of the Senate, at the end of April 304.2 Professor Gwatkin
follows Dr. Mason 'with some hesitation '; ^ but he has
difficulty in reconciling Diocletian's illness with the
publication of the edict in Palestine. ' It was not all
Maximian's doing,' he writes.^ 'Diocletian may not
have been quite laid aside by illness till later in the
year; and if so Maximian's edict would not have been
carried out in Palestine if Diocletian had not been at
least willing to try the experiment.' The suggestion
here apparently made, that Diocletian gave his consent
to the edict some time between May and August, is not
very easy to square with Lactantius's circumstantial
account of the progress of his illness. But there is no
need to make the attempt. As a matter of fact the fourth
edict was not promulgated in Palestine till after Dio-
cletian's partial recovery.^ He made his public appear-
1 M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1 ; Cureton, p. 8.
2 The Persecution of Diocletian, 1876, i^p. 212 ff.
3 Earli/ Church History to A.D. 313, vol. ii, p. 336. He strengthens
Mason's argument by a reference to Zosimus, ii. 7, for the ludi saecu-
lares of A.D. 304, and discusses a diflficulty which Mason did not
observe.
* Ibid. p. 337.
5 In the second year of the persecution (305), and some time before
March 24. M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1, 4 ; Cureton, pp. 8 ff.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 203
ance on March 1. Within three weeks from that day the
order went forth at Caesarea 'that all persons without
exception in every city should offer sacrifice and make
oblations to the idols '. "What is the meaning of all this ?
Perhaps we may interpret it thus. During Diocletian's
illness it was impossible to carry the new persecuting
edict into operation in his dominions. But there was
nothing to hinder it from being acted upon in the
dominions of Maximian and Galerius. It was not an
edict to which Diocletian would have readily given his
consent.^ But by the time it was possible for him to
dissociate himself from a law which had doubtless been
issued by his colleagues in his name, it was in active
operation throughout half the Empire. B-esistance on
his part, which at an earlier stage might have been
effective, had now become futile. Diocletian therefore
gave his unwilling sanction to an accomplished fact, the
edict was published in Palestine, a praeses was sent there
who was willing to execute its provisions, and so the
persecution began again with added horrors.
Less than six weeks after the martyrdom of Timolaus
and his seven companions Diocletian had ceased to be
Emperor. His abdication is one of the enigmas of
history. It was perhaps long contemplated, though there
is little evidence to show that Diocletian's contemporaries
drew from the magnificence of his buildings at Salona
the inference which modern writers have based upon it.^
When it came it took men by surprise. It is obvious
that if the design had been some time in existence its
' Lact. De Moii. Pers. 11. 8.
^ e. g. Duruy, Roman Empire, Eng. Tr., vi. 2, p. 629 ; Gwatkin, op.
cit., ii. 337. It has been argued from Lact. De Mort. Pet's. 20. 4 ;
Paneg. Vet. vi. 9 ; vii. 15, that the simultaneous retirement of the
Augusti in Diocletian's twentieth year was included in his original
scheme. But the inference is very precarious.
204 THE CHEONOLOGY OF
accomplisliment was achieved sooner than had been in-
tended. Why was the momentous decision so suddenly
made ? The reason given to the general public at the
time was Diocletian's ill health and his need of rest.^
And accordingly this explanation of the proceedings of
May 1, 305, found its way into the pages of many early
writers.^ But the explanation of important acts of state-
craft vouchsafed to the multitude is not always the real
one, and the allegations of Diocletian were not at the
time accepted as the whole truth by men who had the
best opportunities of judging. Lactantius ^ will have it
that Galerius bullied his master into resigning the purple,
taking advantage of the opportunity which his infirmity
offered. Eusebius in one place professes himself ignorant
of the reason.^ Aurelius Victor^ holds that Diocletian
was moved to retire by the belief that the Empire was
threatened with calamity.
Perhaps the facts now before us may suggest, if not the
sole cause of the abdication, at least an element in the
circumstances which must not be lost sight of as we try to
understand it. Advantage had been taken of the incapa-
city of Diocletian to force the pace of the persecution.
An edict had been issued which violated the principle on
which he had insisted from the beginning, that in the
effort to destroy the Church blood should not be shed.
"When therefore he was sufficiently recovered from his
illness to take some part in public affairs he found him-
self in a pitiable position. If he continued to be Emperor
he had to take his choice between insisting on the recall
^ Lact. op. cit. 19. 3.
2 Eus. H.E. viii. 13. 11 ; Const. Orat. 25 ; Paneg. Vet. vi. 9; Eutropius,
Brevlarium Hist. Rom. ix. 27.
3 Op. cit. 18. 1-7. ' V. a i. 18.
5 Cues. 89. 48. Cp. Lact. op. cit. 18. 15.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 205
of the fourth edict, or acquiescing in a policy of which
he could not approve, and becoming a mere tool in the
hands of his own Caesar and his fellow- Augustus, And
what chance had a man, feeble in body and mind, of
holding his own against a colleague like Galerius, who
was ambitious and bloodthirsty, masterful and unscrupu-
lous ? As it was, Galerius compelled him to nominate as
Caesars Maximin Daza and Severus, passing over Con-
stantino whom, almost certainly, he had designated to
the purple.'' If he had power to do this, he had power
to thwart Diocletian in other matters as well. It had
in fact become impossible for Diocletian to continue to
rule as first Augustus with honour to himself; and
therefore he determined to resign his office with as little
delay as might be. It is by no means impossible that
he had already made up his mind to take this course
when early in March he suffered the fourth edict to
be put in force in the East. Aurelius Victor's notion
that he foresaw disasters may not be altogether beside
the mark. His own settled policy concerning the
Christians had now been definitely abandoned ; and he
declined to be responsible for the result.
But to return. If Urban was more zealous than his
predecessor, his activity was speedily checked. Eight
martyrs were beheaded by his order on March 24, 305 ;
but no act of persecution and no martyrdom is recorded
after that day till the following year, when Maximin put
forth an edict more severe than any that had preceded it,^
and as a result Apphianus was put to death, April 2, 306.
It is evident that there was a cessation of persecution for
the greater part of a year. This agrees well, as has been
^ Lact. op. cit. 18. 8 ff. See also Gwatkin, op. cit, ii. 338.
"^ M.P. (Grk.) 4. 8 ; Cureton, \). 13 f. This seems to have been a
republication of the fourth edict in a more stringent form.
206 THE CHRONOLOaY OF
already pointed out, with the fact that Maximin became
Emperor on May 1, 305, and that for some time after
that date his policy was favourable to the Church. After-
wards, indeed, Maximin became a bitter persecutor, but
the change in his attitude towards Christianity was pro-
bably gradual ; and Caesarea may very well have been
unaffected by it till the spring of 306.^
It is surprising to find that the execution of Apphianus
was succeeded by another long respite of a year and a
half.2 fpj^Q next event recorded as having taken place
at Caesarea was the martyrdom of Agapius, November
20, 307.^ On this occasion the revival of persecution was
due to the presence of Maximin himself at Caesarea, and
his desire to celebrate his birthday by a spectacle of an
unusual kind. After the birthday games of Maximin the
persecution seems to have been continued steadily, and
with increasing violence, under Urban and his yet more
ferocious successor Firmilian, until July 25, 309, the
day of the martyrdom of the virgin Khatha, her com-
panion Valentina, and Paul at Gaza.* Then there was
another intermission which for several reasons demands
special attention.
In the first place, it is the only cessation of persecution
^ It is remarkable that in the History there is very little evidence
that Maximin persecuted the Church before the death of Galerius in
311. In H. E. viii. 14. 9 his violence against the Christians is coupled
with his efforts to restore paganism, by rebuilding the temples and
establishing a hierarchy. The rebuilding of the temples seems to
have begun in November 309 (see below, p. 208) ; the formation of the
hierarchy belongs to the end of 311 or later {H. E. ix. 2-4).
^ This is not an argument e sUentio. See Cureton, p. 19 : ' The next
confessor after Epiphanius [Apphianus] who was called to the conflict
of martyrdom in Palestine was Agapius.' Cp. the longer Greek re-
cension, Schwartz, p. 920. The statement, it will be observed, is not
limited to Caesarea.
3 M. P. (Grk.) 6 ; Cureton, pp. 19flF.
* M. P. (Grk.) 8. 4-13 ; Cureton, pp. 26 flf.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 207
to which Eusebius explicitly directs attention. Hitherto
the fact that there were periods of comparative rest to the
Church has been brought to light only by careful attention
to the chronology. The historian makes no mention of
any of them. A hasty reader might easily suppose that
the persecution was continuous from the day when the
first edict of Diocletian reached Palestine in April 303 to
the month of August in the sixth year. But the most
careless student of the G-reek recension of the De Martyr-
ihus cannot overlook the cessation of activity at which we
have now arrived. Eusebius records it as follows : —
' After (or, as a result of) so many heroic acts ^ of the
noble martyrs of Christ, the fire of the persecution having
decreased, and being as it were in the course of being
quenched by their holy blood, and release and liberty
having been granted in the Thebaid to those who laboured
for Christ's sake in the mines there, and we being about
for a little while to breathe the pure air,' &c.^
And yet this interval of peace upon which stress is thus
laid was much shorter than the others which Eusebius
passes over in silence. For three martyrs were sentenced
to death no later than November 13, 309.'"' Thus the
pause cannot have lasted much more than three months.
Why, then, did Eusebius think it worthy of remark ?
Probably because it was not limited to Caesarea or Pales-
tine, but extended throughout the whole of Maximin's
dominions. That this was the case seems to be implied
by the mention of the convicts of the Thebaid. And the
universality of this breathing-space leads us to another
inference. The brief respite was not due to the careless-
ness or apathy of provincial officials. Rather the persecu-
^ eVi S»7 Tois Toaovrois . . . dv8payad^fj.a(Ti.
* M.P. (Grk.) 9. 1. It is also mentioned, but much more briefly, in
the Syriac. Cureton, p. 31.
3 M.P. (Grk.) 9. 5 ; Cureton, p. 32.
208 THE CHEONOLOGY OF
tion ceased, as it was presently resumed, by the fiat of
the Emperor himself.
Eusebius is at a loss to explain the fresh outbreak of
the persecution ; and the reason which he seems to suggest
for its temporary abandonment will scarcely satisfy a his-
torian. But perhaps a sufficient account can be given of
both. The time of rest ended with the issue of the ' Fifth
Edict '. The summary of it which is given by Eusebius ^
leads one to think that it was differentiated from its fore-
runners mainly by increased stringency and brutality.
But one of its clauses arrests attention : the imperial
officers are commanded to rebuild the fallen temples.
This indicates a change of policy. The persecution was
no longer to be a mere effort to destroy Christianity by
brute force, though brute force was still to be used. It
was to be accompanied by a revival of paganism. And
with this revival of the ancient religion the remaining
provisions of the edict were not improbably closely asso-
ciated. We may believe that it was less with the purpose
of embarrassing the Christians than to bring the heathen
rites into closer relation with the daily lives of the mass
of the people that such commands were given as Eusebius
summarizes from his own standpoint : ' That all men, as
well as women and household servants, and even children
at the breast, should sacrifice and perform libations, and
that they should be made to taste the abominable sacrifices,
and that things exposed for sale in the market should be
defiled with the libations of the sacrifices, and that those
who were making use of the baths should be defiled with
the execrable sacrifices.' It is evident, at any rate, that
henceforth there was to be a contest, not merely of the
State with the Church, regarded as a political danger,
but of the old faith, aided by the State, with the new.
1 M. P. (Grk.) 9. 2 ; Cureton, p. 31.
EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 209
We are at once reminded of tlie later attempt of Maximin,
elsewhere recorded — so like, and yet so unlike, that of
Julian half a century afterwards — to organize a new pagan
hierarchy.^ No doubt these two movements, for the build-
ing of temples and for the establishment of a heathen
priesthood, were parts of the same general policy.^ The
temporary cessation of persecution was due to the recog-
nition by Maximin of the failure of the old policy ; it gave
the time and leisure which were needed for the evolution
of the new.
After the issue of the Fifth Edict the persecution
appears to have raged unceasingly at Caesarea for four
months. It then ended as far as actual martyrdoms are
concerned. For Eubulus, ' the last of the martyrs at
Caesarea,' was thrown to the beasts March 7, 310.^ It was
prolonged for a year in other parts of Palestine, where
the Bishop Silvanus and his companions — ' the final seal
of the whole contest in Palestine ' — were beheaded May 4,
311.* This last martyrdom occurred four days after the
publication of the ' palinodia ' of Galerius,^ with which,
as the final proclamation of peace for Palestine, the
Greek recension of the De Martyrihus fitly closed.^
Glancing back through this brief survey, we see that at
^ Eus. H. E. viii. 14. 9 ; ix. 4. 2 ; Lact. De Moti. Pets. 36. 4. Cp.
Eus. H. E. ix. 7. 7, 12.
"^ They are mentioned together in H. E. viii. 14. 9.
3 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 30 ; Cureton, p. 45.
* M. P. (Grk.) 13. 5 ; Cureton, p. 48. The exact date is given in the
Syriac only.
^ April 30, 311. See Lact. De Mort. Pers. 35 ; Eus. U. E. viii. 17.
« The Greek recension of the DeMatitjribus obviously implies that the
palinodia brought the persecution to an end in Palestine. Our scheme
of the chronology is therefore strongly confirmed by the fact that it
makes the last martyrdom so nearly synchronize with it. The copy
of the edict which originally followed M. P. (Grk.) 13 has disappeared
from that place in the MSS.
13S3 P
210 EUSEBIUS'S MARTYRS OF PALESTINE
Caesarea the persecution took the form of five spasmodic
onslaughts ^ on the Church, of which four were ushered in
by imperial edicts, and the fifth by a visit of Maximin
himself to Caesarea for the celebration of his birthday,
and each of which was followed by a period of inactivity.
The first lasted about six months, June to November 303.
The second and third seem to have been very brief, and
may be dated respectively March 305 and March-April
306. The fourth was much the longest, continuing for
about a year and eight months, November 307 to July
309. The last embraced some five months, November 309
to March 310. It ended about three years and a half
before the final edict of toleration of Maximin. Even in
the intervals which were free from martyrdoms, no doubt,
there was persecution of a sort : the Christians were not
allowed full liberty of worship,^ and confessors who had
been imprisoned were not released ; ^ but it is improbable
that fresh arrests were made, or that Christians, as such,
were examined by the magistrates. Thus the time of
actual, whole-hearted persecution was limited. At Caesa-
rea, where the rigour of the government officials is not
likely to have been less than in other places, all the
periods of active persecution of the Faith taken together
amounted to less than three years out of the ten years and
a half which intervened between the first edict of Diocle-
tian and the last edict of Maximin.
^ fVai/arrracTfty, as Eusebius would have called them. See M. P.
(Grk.) 4. 8.
"^ Yet see M. P. (Grk.) 13. 8 ; Cureton, p. 46.
* Pamphilus and his companions were kept in prison even during
the cessation which procured liberty for the exiles in the Thebaid.
M. P. (Grk.) 11.5 ; Cureton, p. 40.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
The ninth book of the History is destitute of exact
chronological data. It is the aim, however, of this paper
to show that careful attention to the vague hints given by
Eusebius and the documents quoted by him, and to the
much more explicit information supplied by Lactantius,^
enables us to fix the dates of the principal events referred
to with some degree of precision. The investigation may
also provide material for a clearer account of the second
persecution of Maximin than is given by either of our
authorities.
A few preliminary remarks are necessary. Some of our
calculations, as will appear presently, are based on assump-
tions as to the time which the Emperor Maximin and his
victorious rival Licinius may have occupied in transport-
ing their armies from one part of Asia Minor to another.
Here two questions are involved. At what rate did a
Roman army proceed on long marches ? And what dis-
tance would have been traversed by an army, about
A. D. 300, in a march from, let us say, Antioch in Syria to
Nicomedia ?
Neither of these questions is easy to answer. The
rapidity of advance must have depended to a considerable
extent on the character of the roads, the time of year and
other circumstances. Hence it is not surprising to find
that the scanty evidence on this subject collected by
1 See Appendix II to this Essay.
P 2
212 THE CHEONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
Dr. L. C. Purser^ is unsatisfactory and to some extent con-
tradictory. But on the whole it seems to indicate an
average speed on good roads (such as those of Asia Minor),
and under normal conditions, of about eighteen Roman
miles a day. Allowing for one day's rest in seven this
would give us 108 Roman miles, or 100 English miles,
a week. It may be remarked that Lactantius seems to
imply that on one occasion Maximin actually did march
eighteen miles in a day.^ And the correctness of our hypo-
thesis is confirmed by the fact that its use in the present
Essay leads to consistent results.
The question as to the distance from Antioch to Nicome-
dia is also a difficult one. The Antonine Itinerary might
indeed be supposed to give us all the information we
require. It states that the distance between the two places
was 682 miles. But unfortunately the Itinerary, at any
rate for Asia Minor, is not to be relied on.^ "We must
actually measure the distances for ourselves on the best
maps available. And in doing this we are obliged to
make some assumption as to the route followed. Both
route and distances from Antioch to Tyana, by Tarsus and
the Gates of Cilicia, are easily determined. But it is less
clear what road an army would have used in proceeding
from Tyana to Nicomedia. The course which I have
actually followed is this. I have measured the distances,
from point to point, along the Byzantine Military Road, as
traced by Sir William Ramsay,^ making use of his
excellent maps. The ' organization ' of this road is appa-
rently of later date than our period,^ and it is not the
' See Appendix I.
' From Perinthus-Heraclea to the next mansio. Lact. De Mort.
Pers. 45. 6.
' See Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, p. 66.
« Ibid, part ii, chap. G. p. 197 ff. "* Ibid. p. 200.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 213
shortest route from Tyana to Nicomedia.^ But it pro-
bably followed, in the main, an older track; and the
difference in length between it and the Pilgrims' Eoad,
described in the Itineraries, is not sufficient to affect our
argument.2 Along the Military Eoad we get the following
measurements :
English miles
Nicomedia to Tyana 450
Tyana to the G-ates of Cilicia 46
The Gates to Tarsus 27
Tarsus, by Aegaeae, to Antioch, about 140
Nicomedia to Antioch 660
It may be added that similar measurements give us as the
distance from Nicomedia to Chalcedon, 55 English miles.''
The ninth hook of the Ecclesiastical Histori/ begins with
a reference to the publication of the palinode of Galerius
' in Asia and the neighbouring provinces \^ by which no
doubt Eusebius means the Diocese of Asia, which with the
Diocese of Pontus constituted the eastern dominions of
Galerius. Since, according to Lactantius,^ the edict was
issued at Nicomedia on April 30, 311, it may be assumed
that it was promulgated in Asia in May and came into the
hands of Maximin in the same month. ^^ Eusebius tells us
that Maximin concealed the terms of the edict, but never-
' Ibid. p. 199.
* The distance by it from Nicomedia to Tyana, measured on
Ramsay's maps, is about 440 miles, only some ten miles shorter than
by the Military Road. For the whole distance from Nicomedia to
Antioch the Itinerary gives 682 Roman milee, equivalent to about 630
English miles.
2 60 Roman miles, which is the distance given in the Itinerary.
* H. E. ix. 1.1. ^ De Mot-t. Pers. 35. 1.
« The imperial post travelled at the rate of about 120 Roman miles
a day (Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Boms, vol. ii, p. 17). Thus it would
reach Antioch from Sardica (1,150 miles) in about ten days.
214 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
theless gave orders to the governors that the persecution
of the Christians should cease. ^ The letter issued by
Maximin's Praetorian Prefect, Sabinus, to the provincial
governors is quoted, apparently in full.^ It is evidently
founded, so far as the preamble is concerned, on the edict
of Galerius ; but the operative clauses fall far short of the
provisions of that document, merely directing, or permit-
ting, a suspension of active measures against the Church.
The letter of Sabinus was misconstrued by the governors,
who acted in excess of the powers conferred upon them,
glad enough no doubt, in many cases, to be rid of an un-
pleasant duty. The imprisoned confessors were released,
and Christians who were undergoing penal servitude at
the mines were set at liberty. Those who had suffered for
the faith returned to their homes, and assemblies were
freely held as of old. It is obvious, if Eusebius may be
trusted — and he is not likely to have overstated the case
— that all believed that an era of peace had begun.^ How-
ever, the expectation was doomed to disappointment. The
Church had rest ' not six whole months '.* In accordance
with Eusebius's usage this phrase may be taken to mean
a period of five calendar months, with portions of the
months immediately preceding and following it.^ Thus
the resumption of persecution which followed it probably
took place in November 311. This we may take as a
second fixed date.
It is not unimportant for our purpose to ask the question,
why did Maximin allow the persecution to cease during
1 H. E. ix. 1. 1. 2 §§ 3-6.
^ Ibid. 1. 7-11. Lactantius (36. 6 f.) does not paint the picture in
sucli glowing colours ; but he may include in his survey a later period
when, according to Eusebius, the persecution had recommenced,
though it had not reached its most violent stage.
* H. E. IX. 2. 1 ovS' oKovs (TTi fjifjvas e^.
■* See above, p. 198.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 215
the period of six months that followed the edict of
Galerius ?
Licinius was with Galerias when he died at Sardica a
few days after the publication of the palinode, and he was
evidently designated to succeed to that Emperor's domi-
nions.^ But in his effort to get possession of them he had
to deal with a rival who was not only alert but, as it
proved, for the moment successful. No sooner had tidings
reached Maximin that Galerius was dead than he hurried
up, as Lactantius tells us,^ from the East — probably from
Antioch — ' that he might occupy the provinces and, while
Licinius was otherwise engaged {morante), secure for him-
self the whole region up to the straits of Chalcedon.'
His aim was to forestall Licinius by at once possessing
himself of the Dioceses of Pontus and Asia. With designs
like this in hand it was plainly expedient not too quickly
to reveal his intentions in regard to persecution. If he
had at once declared against the edict he would have
brought Licinius to the East, and a surprise would have
been impossible ; and with Licinius would probably have
come Constantino as his ally. He therefore issued a letter
which, if not fully accepting the edict, was capable of
being so understood. His object, in short, was to steal a
march on Licinius, to conciliate his subjects, Christian as
well as heathen, and to fight not two emperors but one.
And he succeeded in attaining his end. ' There was dis-
cord/ says Lactantius, ' almost war,' between Licinius
and Maximin. But Constantino took no part in the
quarrel ; and apparently Licinius did not feel strong
enough to take the field against his opponent. The two
concluded a treaty which left Maximin master of the whole
of Asia Minor.
1 Lact. 35. 3. For the fact that Galerius died at Sardica see Bury's
Gibbon, vol. i, p. 411, n. 45. ^c.%^.
216 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
The next event of first-rate importance in the narrative
of Eusebius is the sending of memorials from various
cities to Maximin praying that the Christians should be
expelled from their borders.^ Lactantins connects them
with the return of the Emperor from the Bosporus.
Eusebius leaves the impression that the first of the memo-
rials came from the city of Antioch ; and both writers
regard them as the starting-point of the later persecution.
We might therefore be tempted to date the Antiochene
memorial inNovember 311.
But this inference would be too hasty. In the first
place it is probable that Maximin was near Antioch when
the deputation waited on him from that city. Eusebius
asserts that he had some hand in arranging that it should
be sent,^ and Lactantius confirms his statement.^ If we
can rely on Eusebius, the preliminaries must have occupied
a considerable time.^ But it is unlikely that Maximin should
have left Bithynia immediately after it had come under
his rule ; and if he did he would scarcely have travelled
so quickly as to be at Antioch within five months of his
departure from it.^ And again, if Eusebius declares in one
place that as a result of the memorials the flame of perse-
cution was again kindled,^ in another he intimates that
1 H. E. ix. 2-4. '^ Ibid.
' 36. 3 ' suboi-natis legationibus ciuitatum '. * H. E. ix. 8 ; 4.
^ The whole distance from Antioch to Chalcedon and back was
1,430 miles. On his outward journey Maximin was accompanied by
an army, and he must have brought a portion of it back with him.
But a march of 1,430 miles, under ordinary conditions, would have
taken some fourteen weeks, or over three months, without allowing
for delays. In this case there appeai-s to have been at least one
stoppage on the outgoing march, at Nicomedia (Lact. 36. 1.), and
probably another at Chalcedon. The return journey was of the
nature of an imperial progress through newly-won dominions, and
would therefore almost certainly be very slow.
« H. E. ix. 4. 2.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 217
it began with the prohibition of assemblies in the
cemeteries.^ This was obviously not due to the granting
of petitions which demanded the expulsion of the Chris-
tians. It must therefore be placed at an earlier time. And
finally we have evidence that Antioch was not the first
city to present a memorial. Maximin himself gives a
different account of the matter in a letter to Sabinus,
the Prefect already mentioned, the text of which is pre-
served by Eusebius. ' When I went last year ', he writes,^
' under auspicious circumstances to Nicomedia, and was
tarrying there, the citizens of that city came to me with
images of the gods, earnestly praying that such a nation
[the Christians] should by no means be permitted to
dwell in their country.' The petition from Nicomedia
was for a while refused ; but it is instructive to note it.
The very fact that it was rejected marks it as earlier than
the series of memorials of the same purport which began
with that which emanated from Antioch. For they were
all granted.
Let us consider the passage which I have quoted a little
more in detail. In connecting the renewal of the
persecution with memorials from the cities Maximin
agrees with both Lactantius and Eusebius. I shall
presently have occasion to suggest that his seeming
contradiction of the latter writer in the matter of the
priority of the Antiochene memorial is more apparent
than real. Meanwhile we have sufficient reason to believe
that the Nicomedian petition was presented before the
persecution was resumed ; that is, in or before November
311.
Its occasion was a somewhat prolonged visit of the
Emperor to that city. Now Maximin must have gone to
Nicomedia after his treaty with Licinius. And it is in
^ H.E. ix, 2. ^ H. E. ix. 9. 17 rw ivapf\66vTi eViayrw.
218 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
harmony with the probabilities of the case that he should
have remained there some time resting his troops after
their long march. But there were other matters of much
importance to detain him. Nicomedia was the seat of
the imperial government under Galerius, and under his
predecessor Diocletian. It was the principal city of
Asia Minor and the most natural place in which to make
arrangements for the government of the extensive
territories which had now come into Maximin's hands. It
is hardly possible to find room for a second visit there
between the treaty with Licinius and the end of the year
311;^ and certainly no other visit which he paid to it
could be so fitly described as made 'under auspicious
circumstances'. We may assume, therefore, that the
reference is to a sojourn there immediately after Licinius's
cession of his Asiatic dominions. And the letter states
that it began 'last year'.
Now the date of the letter to Sabinus can be fixed within
narrow limits. In the first place it followed the receipt
of the Edict of Milan by Maximin.^ But, after the victory
of the Milvian Bridge (October 27, 312),'^ Constantine and
Licinius remained about two months in Rome.* They
cannot therefore have reached Milan much before
December 27. The composition of the edict, and the
marriage of Licinius to Constantine's sister, Constantia,
1 There was a visit later on -apparently late in 312— during which
Lucian was martyred {H. E. viii. 13. 2 ; ix. 6. 3). But Eusebius seems
to imply that the persecution was then at its height, and that the
petitions had been already granted. This is confirmed by the Apology
of Lucian preserved by Rufinus {H. E. ix. 6 ; see also Routh, Rel. Sac.
iv. 5) in which reference is made to the forged Acts of Filate.
^ H. E. ix. 9. 12 f. That the edict was drawn up at Milan appears
from the text of the letter of Licinius, H. E. x. 5. 4 ; Lact. 48. 2.
3 Lact. 44. 4.
* Paneg. Vet. x. 33. ' Quicquid mali sexennio toto dominatio
feralis inflixerat bimestris fere cura sanauit.' Cp. Lact. 45. 1.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 219
which took place on the same occasion, must therefore be
placed in the last days of 312 or early in 313.^ News of
the two events cannot have reached Maximin, who at this
time was in Syria,^ presumably at or near Antioch, till
well on in January_3I5^ probably about- the^20th.^ That
is therefore the earliest possible date for the letter to
Sabinus.
Again, Lactantius informs us that when Maximin heard
of the marriage of Licinius he marched from Syria to the
Bosporus, and crossed over into Europe. He was in
Europe three weeks before his defeat at Campus Serenus,
April 30, 313.'^ Hence he must have reached the straits
by April 9 at the latest. Let us suppose that he had got
as far as Nicomedia by April 6. How much time was
spent on the road from Antioch to that place ? Maximin
no doubt advanced with all possible speed.^ But the way
^ It is curious that a law of Constantine is dated at Rome January 18,
313 {Cod. lust. xi. 58. 1). If this date is correct the earliest possible
date for the letter is about February 10. 2 Lact. 45. 2.
^ The Antonine Itinerary (Parthey and Pinder, p. 57 f.) gives the
distance from Milan to Antioch as 2,167 miles. At the ordinary rate
of the imperial post — 120 miles a day (see above, p. 213)— this distance
could be traversed in eighteen days.
* Lact. 45. 5 f. ; 46. 8 f. He was eleven days at Byzantium, several
days (apparently at least three) at Perinthus-Heraclea ; and it would
seem that the armies were encamped opposite one another for a day
or two before battle was joined. To all this must be added the time
required for the march from Byzantium to the mansio after Heraclea
(Tzurulum)— a distance of over 80 Roman miles— which would occupy
five days.
^ Lact. 45.2 ' Mansionibus geminatis in Bithyniam concurrit'. I
take this obscure phrase to mean that Maximin, on account of the
difficulties of the march, could not go as quickly as he would, and
therefore stopped for rest after comparatively short stages. It is not
of course to be inferred that the stages were only half the usual length.
I do not know why Mason says (p. 333) that ' he loitered on the march ',
or (p. 335) that when he reached Bithynia 'he was obliged to wait for
some time to recruit '.
220 THE CHEONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
was long, and it led over the Taurus mountains, the
passage of which could not, under any circumstances, have
been quickly made.^ And Maximin encountered fierce
winter weather. His army marched through mud, in snow
and rain and cold.^ It is therefore unlikely that, in spite
of his exertions, the average pace of the advance was
greater than that of an ordinary march on a level road.
We may fairly conclude that it was not above 100
miles a week, possibly much less. If Maximin reached
Nicomedia seven weeks after his departure from
Antioch, he must be regarded as having performed a
considerable feat, considering the adverse conditions.
Now counting back seven weeks from April 6 we reach
February 16 as the latest date for the beginning of the
expedition. It is also the later limit of date for the letter
to Sabinus. For the purpose of that letter must have been
either to conciliate his Christian subjects by way of
preparation for his war against Licinius, or to conceal his
hostile intent from his fellow emperors, if it was not
designed to achieve both these ends. To be effective in
either direction it was plainly desirable that it should be
issued as soon as possible, and, at any rate, before the
troops actually began to move. Thus we may with some
confidence place it between January 20 and February 16,
.313.
Yet this letter refers to a visit to Nicomedia not later
than November 311 as having taken place 'last year'.
This would obviously have been impossible if Maximin, in
^ The road from Tarsus ascends in the course of 25 or 30 miles to a
height of nearly 4,000 feet, through a very narrow and difficult pass.
See Ainsworth in the Journal of the London Geog. Society, x. 499 ; cp.
W. M. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., p. 58. The road was mountainous the
whole way from Tarsus to Tyana, a distance of over 70 miles. See
Ramsay's map opposite p. 330.
2 Lact. 1. c.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 221
Eoman fashion, had counted January as the first month
of the year. But, this supposition being excluded, it
is probable that in his reckoning the year began in
September.^ For this hj^othesis we shall find confirma-
tion as we proceed. If it is correct, Maximin writing
early in 313 would naturally describe an event in, or
shortly before, November 311 as belonging to the previous
year. But he could not have so spoken of the visit to
Nicomedia if it had been earlier than September.
Maximin's arrival at Nicomedia after his compact with
Licinius must therefore be set provisionally between
September and November 311.
Before carrying the argument to a further stage we
may pause here to inquire how far this date fits in with
what we can infer from other considerations. Galerius
died at Sardica early in May 311. The news may have
reached Antioch before the end of the same month.^
Now, as we have seen, a march from Antioch to Nicomedia
would have been accomplished in a little under seven
weeks.^ Thus if the expedition set out on June 1 it would
have reached Nicomedia about July 15. Here there was
a delay the length of which cannot be determined. It
was sufficient however to enable Maximin to purchase the
allegiance of the Bithynians by removing an oppressive
tax.* A further march of four days brought him to
Chalcedon.5 So we reach the last week of July. At
1 Or perhaps October. See C. H. Turner in Journal of Theological
Studies, i. 188.
2 See above, p. 213. The death of Galerius seems to have been
announced at Nicomedia May 15 (Lact. 35. 4). It might have been
made known at Antioch a week later.
^ Maximin does not seem to have been so anxious on this occasion
as in the expedition of 313 to advance at high speed. But the time
of year was more favourable.
* Lact. 36. 1. ^ 60 Roman miles.
222 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
Chalcedon he was perhaps obliged to wait for his
adversary,^ and when he came some days would be
occupied in stormy negotiations conducted by the two
emperors from opposite sides of the straits. For all this
a week may be allowed. To this we have to add four days
for the return to Nicomedia. Thus we may take the first
or second week in August as the earliest date for the
commencement of his sojourn in that city. But obviously
it is more likely than not to have been considerably later.
He may, for all we know, have been far south of Antioch
when the report of Galerius's death came. He may not
have been able to mobilize a sufficiently strong army in
a few days. There may have been delays on the way, or
at Chalcedon, which we have not allowed for. There
would be nothing to surprise us if Maximin did not
arrive at his new capital till September was pretty far
advanced.
I may now attempt the task of dating another im-
portant document, the reply to the memorials from the
cities. For it is to be observed that it was a single
document. Each several petition did not receive a
separate answer, as we might perhaps have expected;
but when all had come in, a rescript was issued which
was sent to all the cities and other places concerned.
This is implied by Eusebius more than once. Thus,
after stating that the officials in other cities and the
provincial governors followed the example of Theo-
tecnus of Antioch in procuring petitions, he goes on to
^ There is nothing improbable in this. If Licinius had been near
Byzantium Maximin would not have stopped at Nicomedia and thus
given him time to land troops at Chalcedon. The secrecy with which
Maximin contrived to envelop his movements is very remarkable.
It will be remembered that he was some weeks in Europe in 313
before Licinius met him. It seems as though Licinius knew nothing
about his advance until he had actually landed (Lact. 45. 5).
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 223
«ay that the tyrant ' by a rescript ' expressed approval of
the memorials that had been voted. ^ And again, when
he comes to insert in his History a translation of the
Emperor's reply, as he found it inscribed on a pillar at
Tyre, though at the beginning of the chapter he speaks
of it as one of a number of imperial ordinances,^ yet
lower down he calls it ' this document which was set up
on pillars '.^ That Eusebius's hints may be relied on as
accurate is proved by an inscription lately discovered at
Arykanda in Lycia.* In it we have the text of the
memorial of the citizens of that place in Greek, to which
the reply of the Emperor, in the Latin language, was
prefixed. Of the latter only a small portion remains;
but it is clearly identical with the underlying Latin of
the conclusion of the Tyrian inscription quoted by
Eusebius.''
Now this rescript must have been sent out between
November 311 and the date of the letter to Sabinus
(January-February 313). The text preserved by Eu-
sebius has an indication of the time of year at which it
was written ; for the Emperor appeals to the ripe corn in
the broad plains, and the meads bright with flowers after
the rain, as a mark of divine favour. "^ This points to the
late summer. The rescript may therefore be assigned to
August or September 312. This agrees with the state-
' H. E. ix. 4. 2 lav brj Ka\ alroiv rois \l/ri(piafj,a(riv 8i' avriypacfirjs
aafifvea-Tara eirivevaavTos tov rvpavvov.
^ Ibid. 7. 1 biard^ecoi/ avTiypn(j)ai. Cp. 10. 12.
' § 2 e'vTavdd pot. mayKnlov flvm (finivtTai avTrjV 8q ravrrjv rrjV iv (TTrjXais
auarede'iaav tov Maiipivov ypa(}>f]U eurd^at. See also § 16; and compare
the title of the Tyrian inscription 'AvTlypa(pou epprjveias r^s Ma^ipivov
Trpos ra KaB" r]pu)V \j/r](f)icrpaTa dvTiypa<f>ris, drro rrjs iv Typw (TTrjXrjs peraXif-
* See Gebhardt, Ada maHyt-um selecta, Berlin, 1902, p. 184 f.
« ^. ^. ix. 7. 13f. '§10.
224 THE CHEONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
ment of Eusebius immediately following, that the boasts
of Maximin were falsified, when in some places the
messengers who carried the rescript to the governors
had scarcely reached their journey's end, by the failure
of the winter rains.^ The setting up of the pillars must
be put somewhat later in the year 312. They would
hardly have been erected in the midst of the calamities
which signalized the following winter,^ nor after the
letter to Sabinus.
The last document of this period quoted by Eusebius
is Maximin's Edict of Toleration, published a short time
before his death.^ To it we must now turn. The course
of events which led up to it is traced by Lactantius,*
though the edict itself is not referred to by him. He
tells us that after his defeat at Campus Serenus Maximin
fled in disguise to Nicomedia, and thence to Cappadocia,
where he resumed the purple, and collected an army. It
was composed of fugitives from Campus Serenus and
reinforcements from beyond the Taurus. His object,
according to Lactantius, was to escape to the Diocese of
the East, intending there, no doubt, to make a stand
against Licinius. Licinius also proceeded eastwards, but
with no great haste, for he was still at Nicomedia, when
he published the Edict of Milan, on June 13, 313. Sub-
sequently, but how long after we have no hint, he went
in pursuit of Maximin. On receiving word of his ap-
proach Maximin resumed his retreat, and betook himself
to the Taurus mountains, where he fortified the passes.
Licinius had a march of 450 miles before he reached
Tyana, on the lower slopes of the Taurus. This must have
consumed a month. Then began the advance of forty-five
miles through extremely narrow and dangerous passes to
1 H.E.ix. 7. 16; 8. 1. ^ H. E. ix. 8.
3 Ibid. 10. 7. * c. 47 ff.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 225
tlie Gates of Cilicia.^ Each mile of the road must have
been contested, with every advantage on the side of the
defending army. In the end, however, Maximin's forts
were reduced, and he was driven out of the Taurus and
retired on Tarsus.^ Thus far we may follow Lactantius.
But when he adds that Maximin, seeing that all hope
was gone, took poison and died some days after in great
agony, we may withhold our assent. Eusebius says nothing
about poison ; but he does tell us that Maximin issued an
edict in favour of the Christians as ample as that of Milan.
This seems to prove that Maximin did not regard himself
as finally beaten. He was, indeed, dispossessed of Pontus
and Asia, but he apparently hoped to retain his old
dominions in Syria and Egypt.^ He may have perceived
that in order to accomplish this a frank and permanent
abandonment of the policy of persecution had become
necessary. Thus I would explain the issue of his last
edict. But if that was his purpose it was frustrated
almost immediately afterwards by his death. That this
took place very soon after Licinius's victory in the Taurus
^ ' It is said that the rocky walls which form the Gates approached
so close that, until Ibrahim Pasha blasted a road for his artillery,
a loaded camel could just pass between them.' Ramsay, op. cit.,
p. 58.
* Mason (p. 336) writes, ' He secured himself at Tarsus (to which he
had retreated . . .) by blockhouses in the passes of the Taurus '—im-
plying that Maximin went to Tarsus before Licinius carried his forts.
But I can find no support for this in Lactantius. Some such inference,
indeed, might perhaps be drawn from H. E. ix. 10. 14 if Lactantius be
ignored. But the two accounts are not irrttoncilable. Maximin
may have withdrawn at the last moment, when he found that the
passes could no longer be held.
^ The new army which Maximin got together in Cappadocia was
composed of fugitives from Campus Serenus and reinforcements /row
the East (Lact. 47. 6). Obviously the legions in his original dominions
were ready to fight for him.
226 THE CHEONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
is implied by the statement that he died ' in the second
campaign of the war '.^
From all this we cannot fix the date of Maximin's
death with any approach to accuracy. But if we allow no
more than six weeks for Licinius's advance from Nico-
media and the capture of the Taurus passes, with a few
days for Maximin's retreat to Tarsus, the issue of the
edict, and his illness, and if we assume that Licinius left
Nicomedia on June 14, we cannot put the final scene
further back than the first week of August.^ But if we
suppose that Maxim in died in that month we encounter
some difficulties. They may be summed up in the
question, Why did not Licinius follow up his successes?
"Why did he leave Maximin unharmed at Tarsus to make
plans for successful resistance in the following year?
The dilatory tactics of Licinius are indeed puzzling.
But we may account for the fact that he was still in
Bithynia, allowing the enemy to gather a fresh army, in
June. He had a small army when he reached Campus
Serenus in April, and he was probably obliged to wait for
reinforcements before undertaking a further expedition.
That, however, will not explain the fact that when he had
advanced to the Gates of Cilicia he did not descend to
Tarsus and try conclusions with a demoralized foe. Some
other reason must be suggested ; and the most obvious
one is that winter was already approaching. If he should
chance to experience a reverse in Cilicia, and be obliged
to recross the mountains late in the year harassed by an
army more used to the severities of winter in high
' H. E. ix. 10. 13.
' I cannot follow those who put the edict in June — e. g. Mason,
p. 336 ; Bright, Ecclesiastical History of Eusehiiis, p. 325 (with hesita-
tion) ; Gwatkin, JS'a;-?;/ Church Hislori/, ii. 359. The last-named writer
implies that it was issued before the letter of Licinius (June 13).
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 227
altitudes than his own, he might suffer irretrievable
disaster. This consideration may lead us to suspect that
the death of Maximin occurred not nearly so early as the
beginning of August: more probably in September or
October.
Let us examine the edict itself. In it Maximin declares
that ' last year he had decreed by letters sent to the
governors of every province that if any one wished to
follow the custom [of the Christians] or the observance
of that religion' he should be at liberty to do so, but
that his commands had been misunderstood.^ This un-
doubtedly refers to the letter to Sabinus of January or
February 313, Since the writing of the letter, therefore,
it appears that a new year, on Maximin's reckoning, had
begun. Is the edict then to be dated in 314? It must
belong to the early days of that year if Maximin's year
began in January. This date does not seem to be
absolutely impossible. But it is later than the arguments
already advanced would lead us to expect. It seems, for
example, to involve the supposition that Licinius
postponed till mid-winter the attack on Maximin's
fortifications in the passes of the Taurus, which is not
likely. It is therefore desirable to date the edict a couple
of months further back, if the facts permit us to do so.
There is no obstacle in the way if we again assume that
Maximin's year began in September. On that hypothesis
the edict and the death of the Emperor may be assigned
to September or October 313: but earlier than the
September of that year they cannot be placed.
A note of time is given by Eusebius himself which
might seem likely to help us here. But unfortunately it
is ambiguous. After transcribing the Greek version of the
edict, he remarks, 'These are the words of the tyrant,
^ H.E.ix. 10. 8f.
Q 2
228 THE CHEONOLOQY OF THE NINTH BOOK
penned not a wliole year after tlie ordinances against the
Christians set up by him on pillars.' ^ Since, according
to Eusebius's usage, the phrase ' not a whole year ' is in this
sentence practically equivalent to ' in the next year ',2 he
seems to state that the rescript of August 312 and the edict
of 313 belong to successive years. If his year began in
January, that is in agreement with the conclusion that we
have reached. But it is much more probable that his
reckoning of years was the same as Maximin's and that he
counted them as beginning in September.^ In that case the
rescript and the edict cannot have been issued in successive
years, the former having been promulgated in the year be-
fore the letter to Sabinus and the latter in the year after it.
Several solutions of this difficulty may be proposed. In
the first place it may be urged, not unreasonably, that
Eusebius may have fallen into error. It seems that the
rescript was drafted only a few weeks before, and the edict
perhaps only a few days after the beginning of a year.
A very slight misplacement of either would account for his
mistake. It is to be remembered that he was making
a point of the shortness of the interval that separated them.
But again, Eusebius may not have been referring to the
date of the drafting of the rescript, but to that of the setting
up of the pillars, which was of course later, and almost
certainly at the beginning of the next year.* Or he may
have had in mind the date of its arrival at some city in
his own neighbourhood, as for instance Tyre ; ^ for we
know that in some places it was not received till the
beginning of the winter.^ If either of these suppositions
1 H. E. ix. 10. 12. '^ See above, p. 198.
^ See Turner, u. s. * See above, p. 224.
5 So be dates tbe first edict of Diocletian April 303, in M. P. (Grk.)
Pref., obviously intimating tbe time of its publication at Caesarea.
« H. E. ix. 7. 16.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 229
is correct, Eusebius's words confirm our conclusion as to
the date of the edict. It must have been issued in the
year which began in September 313. But I confess that
another sohition seems to me quite as probable as any of
these. The assertion may be merely a false inference from
the text of the edict itself. Eusebius may have supposed
that the letters stated therein to have been sent to the
governors ' last year ' were not the epistle to Sabinus but
the rescript afterwards inscribed on pillars. If so, he is
only expressing in his own language what he understood
the edict to saj^ and we cannot use his words as evidence
at all. A sentence which is so difficult to interpret can
have no weight on either side.
Having determined with sufficient accuracy for our
purpose the dates of the leading events recorded by
Eusebius, we may now return to an earlier period, and
endeavour to combine into a consistent narrative the
various notices of the outbreak of Maximin's second
persecution of the Christians.
We have seen that after his treaty with Licinius,
Maximin entered Nicomedia about September 311. There
he tells us he made some stay. Before he left — it may have
been in November — some of the citizens, as he informs us,^
urged him to prohibit the Christians from living in their
territory. There can be no doubt that this statement is
true. It is borne out by the text of his reply to the
petitions from other cities, which proves that this was the
request made by them all,^ and by several passages in
Eusebius.3 And the very fact that Maximin does not
pretend that the request was made by the citizens as a body
increases its credibility.
It is easy to understand that the petition presented at
^ H. E. ix. 9. 17. ^ Arykanda inscription ; H. E. ix. 7. 12.
' if. £. ix. 2 ; 3 ; 4. 1.
230 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
Nicomedia placed Maximin in a difficult position. It was
no doubt much to his liking. But his plans can hardly-
then have been matured, and it was perhaps too soon to
show his hand and enter upon a serious war against the
Church. Besides, it was the petition of a party, perhaps
of a minority. So it was politely refused. Nevertheless
it was politic to retain the loyalty of the Nicomedians,
with whom he was just then in high favour. And so we
may with some probability date at this time the
prohibition of gatherings in the cemeteries of which
Eusebius speaks.^ This was not a very severe measure, as
compared with others of which the Christians had had
experience in the past. It might be justified on religious
or political grounds. The Christians at such assemblies
might worship the martyrs,'- or they might hatch plots
against the State. It would satisfy the less extreme of the
persecuting party and it would not displease those who
were tired of bloodshed. But by Eusebius it would
certainly be counted an end of the peace.
Not long after the presentation of the petition we may
suppose the Emperor began his long journey back to Syria.
And possibly during that journey he devised the carefully
thought out scheme on which he soon after proceeded to
act. It included, on the one hand, a sharp persecution, and
on the other, definite measures for the restoration of
paganism. Some years before Maximin had ordered
the rebuilding of the temples;^ he now proposed to
supplement this ordinance by the establishment of a
heathen hierarchy in imitation of the Christian ministry,
and by the direction that the forged Acts of Pilate should
be used as a school manual.* The hierarchy was to be
employed not only as a means of revivifying paganism,
1 //. E. ix. 2. => See H. E. viii. 6. 7.
3 M. F. (Grk.) 9. 2 ; Cureton, p. 31. " H. E. ix. 4 ; 5.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 231
but as au instrument of persecution.^ But none of these
things were to be set on foot by the unsupported fiat of the
Emperor. If he wished to persecute, as no doubt he did,
it is not at all improbable that he also wished, as
Lactantius affirms, to appear to be coerced into
persecuting.- And the petition from Nicomedia may have
given him a hint how this was to be accomplished.
Through Theotecnus he got an oracle from Jupiter Philius,
and as an almost necessary consequence, a petition from
the pagan citizens of Antioch, praying him to fulfil the
behests of the god.^ But there was no indecent haste in
acceding to their request. Maximin merely indicated his
gratification. That was sufficient to produce similar
memorials from many other cities, and at length from
country districts. AVhen a large number had reached
him he published the rescript, which banished the
Christians, hinted that the gods should be more zealously
worshipped, and rewarded the memorialists by inciting
them to ask a further boon which he would certainly grant.*
The reply was dispatched to all the cities which had sent
in memorials, not even Nicomedia being forgotten^ This
rescript, as we have seen, was issued about August 313.
If we suppose that the petition from Antioch was presented
about April or May we leave ample time for a leisurely
progress of Maximin through Asia Minor during the
winter months, and also for the engineering of petitions
far and wide.
It is evident that with the publication of this rescript
the final persecution began in earnest.*' It probably came
to an end some five months later, when Maximin issued
^ H. E. ix. 4. 3 ; Lact. op. cit. 36. 4.
2 De Mort. Pers. 36. 3. » H. E. ix. 2 ; 3.
* Ibid. 7. 4, 7, 12, 13 f. ■ Ibid. 7. 1, 15; 9. 19.
« Lact. 36. 3-7 ; H. E. ix. 5 ; 6.
232 THE CHEONOLOGY OF THE NINTH BOOK
his letter to Sabinus, and entered upon his disastrous
conflict with Licinius.
It may be well before bringing this Essay to a close
to say a few words in view of a possible objection.
I have made considerable use of Maximin's letter to
Sabinus as evidence for historical facts. But this letter
has been stigmatized as unworthy of credit. Dr. Mason
sums up his opinion of it in these words :
' In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself
often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy. First
he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon
having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again
on foot, then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders
it to cease. We cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates,
that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and for-
bade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the
strength of it ; for they did not know where to have it.' ^
I cannot think that this criticism is altogether fair.
For what are the statements of the letter on which it is
founded ? Maximin certainly justifies the edicts of Dio-
cletian and Maximian, just as Galeriushad done before him;
and, like Galerius, he does so in the very act of proclaiming
a cessation of violence against the Christians. But he
says nothing about any later edicts, and his words, taken
strictly, do not defend the punishment of the Christians by
death. He then asserts (why should he be said to ' plume
himself ' ?) that on his accession he stopped the persecu-
tion. There is good ground to believe that this is true,^
whatever may be thought of the reasons which he alleges
to have moved him thereto. They are at any rate not
unlike those which he gave at the time, and which were
taken from the edict of Galerius.^ Maximin next recounts
the circumstances under which the persecution had lately
' Mason, p. 334. Quoted in part by Gwatkin (ii. B56\ with approval.
" See above, p. 187. ^ H. E. ix. 1. 6.
OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 233
been renewed. That may in a sense be called an apology
for bis recent action. But it is not inconsistent witb bis
previous assertions ; and wben be connects tbe fresb out-
break of violence witb petitions from tbe cities be is in
agreement witb Eusebius and Lactantius. He could
scarcely be expected to add, witb tbem, tbat be bad bim-
self taken measures to procure tbe petitions. On wbat
words of tbe letter Dr. Mason founds tbe statement tbat
Maximin denies tbat persecution was going on, I do not
know. He certainly ' orders it to cease '.
"Wben Dr. Mason goes on to mention tbe distrust witb
wbicb tbe letter was received, tbe incautious reader migbt
suppose tbat tbis was due to its misstatements and con-
tradictions. But Eusebius gives a very different reason
for tbe fact tbat tbey 'neitber built cburcb nor beld meet-
ing in public '. It was because tbe letter contained no
express permission to do tbese tbings.^ Tbey bad bad
bitter experience in tbe past of tbe unwisdom of going
beyond tbe letter of Maximin 's concessions.^ Tbey were
determined to be more cautious tbis time. Tbere is no-
thing to suggest tbat tbey were in any way influenced by
tbe inaccuracy of tbe Emperor's history.
In one matter, nevertheless, Maximin was certainly
guilty of suppressio veri. If we bad no other document
in our hands than bis letter we migbt have supposed tbat
tbere was no persecution in his dominions from the middle
of 305 to tbe end of 311. This is, of course, contrary to fact.
There was peace apparently from May 305 to April 306,
and from May to November 311 ; and tbere seem to have
been considerable intervals of rest in the intervening
period.' But from November 309 to May 311 there was
fierce and continuous persecution. Maximin writes as
though it bad not been. And it is probably true that in
1 Ibid. 9. 23 f. 2 ii^id. 1. 7. » g^e above, pp. 199 ff.
234 THE CHRONOLOaY OF THE NINTH BOOK
other parts of his letter ' no Turk ever lied more shame-
lessly', though Dr. Mason is not altogether happy in his
selection of the particular statement to which this remark
should be applied. The Emperor was naturally anxious
to put the best face possible on his actions. But however
discreetly Maximin may have avoided disagreeable sub-
jects, it is really incredible that in a deliverance obviously
designed to conciliate his Christian subjects he should
make direct and positive statements which every one of
them must have known to be absolutely untrue. The
statements of the letter on which I have relied are either
such as if they were not true must at the time have been
notoriously false, or relate to matters about which there
is no conceivable reason why Maximin should have lied.
Of the former class is his testimony that the persecution
was stayed on his appointment as Caesar, and that its
recent renewal was the sequel of memorials from his sub-
jects. Of the latter is the date which he gives for his
visit to Nicomedia, and the implication that it was the
first city from which a memorial against the Christians
had come to him.
APPENDIX I
THE EATE OF MAECH OF A EOMAN AEMY
By L. C. Pursee, Litt.D.
It is not very easy to fix definitely tlie normal day's
march of a Eoman army. A iustum iter was considered
to be what was accomplished in about five hours, and
varied according to circumstances from 15 to 20 Eoman
miles. Caesar marched from Corfinium to Brundisium,
a distance stated to be 465 kilometers ( = 289 English, 315
Eoman miles), in 17 days. If he marched every day, the
rate would be 17 English miles a day : if he rested during
two days, the rate would be almost 19|. If this statement
of the distance is correct, the rate assigned in Tyrrell's and
my Cicero (vol. iv. p. xxix), viz. 1 5 Eoman miles a day, is quite
too low : for the march was a rapid one (cp. Cic. Att. viii.
14. 1 £). But I am not quite sure that the distance is so
great as 289 English miles. Eecruits when practising
marching were expected three times a month in five
summer hours to do 20 Eoman miles (75 Eoman = 69
English miles) if they went at regulation rate {militaris
gradus), 24 if at quick march (plenus gradus), see
Vegetius i. 9 : but in a continuous series of days' march-
ing I think that this rate could only be maintained under
special circumstances ; especially if we remember that the
Eoman soldier had to carry 60 Eoman pounds weight
of pack (60 Eoman = 45 English lb.). Asparagium is
about 15 English miles from Dyrrhachium, and Caesar did
that distance in a iustum iter {Bell. Civ. iii. 76). In Bell.
Gall. V. 47. 1 we find Caesar marching 20 Eoman miles in
a day beginning at nine o'clock. A sudden excursion
from Gergovia [Bell. Gall. vii. 40, 41) of 25 Eoman miles
236 RATE OF MARCH OF A ROMAN ARMY
forward and 25 backward appears to have been done within
30 hours, but that was a special effort. In Bell. Gall. vii.
10, 11, the distance (72 Roman miles) from Agedincum
(Sens) to Cenabum (Orleans) seems to have been traversed
in four days=18 miles a day. Mr Rice Holmes {Caesar's
Conquest of Gaul, p. 627) tells us that experienced soldiers
(e. g. the Due d'Aumale) say that an army could march 28
kilometers (nearly 19 Roman miles) a day for ten days
successively, but that, they say, is very hard work. He
quotes Lord Wolseley (Soldiers Pocket Book (ed. 3), p. 226)
as stating that the length of ordinary marches for a force
not stronger than one division moving by one road should
be from 12 to 15 English miles ( = 13 to 16;^ Roman miles)
a day for 5 out of 6 days, or at most for 6 out of 7 : but
French military men say that ancient armies could march
faster, as they had not to drag about so many impedi-
menta and had not so many necessities as modern
soldiers.
APPENDIX II
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE DE MOETIBUS
PERSECUTORUM
The question whether the tract De Mortibus Perse-
cutoi'um is from the pen of Lactantins, as its discoverer,
Baluze, supposed, and as has been assumed in the foregoing
Essay, has often been debated. For the historical inquirer
it is of minor importance, and I do not intend to discuss
it fully here. The arguments have been set forth in recent
years by Brandt, Bury,^ and Pichon.^ Something,
however, may be said about what is generally regarded
as the strongest part of the evidence against the Lactantian
authorship.
Jerome tells us ^ that Lactantius, having taught
rhetoric for some time at Nicomedia, was in his old age
the tutor of the Caesar Crispus in Gaul. And it is
probably to him that we owe the statement, which appears
in the Chronica of Eusebius under the year 317^ — the
year of Crispus's appointment as Caesar — that he in-
structed him in Latin literature. Now Lactantius com-
posed his Institutiones in Gaul before 310 and probably
before 308. Therefore he must have left Nicomedia not
later, at any rate, than 310. It is inferred that he cannot
have been in Nicomedia between 311 and 313. But the
author of the De Mortibus describes the events of those
years at Nicomedia as an eyewitness. Hence he cannot have
^ In his edition of Gibbon, vol. ii, p. 531, where references to the
discussions of Brandt and others are given.
"^ R. Pichon, Lactance, etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieux
soiisle regne de Consfantin, Paris, 1901, p. 337.
' De Vir. HI 80. * Schoene, ii. 191.
238 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE
been Lactantius. I have attempted to show elsewhere ^
that the fifth book of the Institutiones^ or rather a tract
De lustitia, which is embedded in it, was composed in Gaul
as early as 306. It may be suggested that Lactantius left
Nicomedia early in that year with Constantine, when the
latter fled from Galerius.^ By that time Maximin had
established himself in Bithynia, persecution had again
broken out in his dominions, and there was every prospect
that it would be of a more violent type than anything
that Diocletian had sanctioned before the eve of the
abdication. It was just the time when a Christian
living at Nicodemia, if the opportunity offered, would
seek refuge in the only part of the Empire where he
would be secure from molestation.
How then can the Lactantian authorship of the De
Mo7'tihus be defended ? There is much force in the con-
tention that Lactantius did not become the tutor of
Crispus at Trier till 317, and that there is nothing to
hinder us from supposing that he returned for a time to
Nicomedia, and was there from 31 1 until the De Mortibus
was written (313 or 314). But I think we may go further.
The evidence that the writer of the De Mortihus was at
Nicomedia from 311 to 313 is not very strong. It is true
that he knew the exact day on which the news of
Galerius's death became known there. ^ He knew also
the date of the letter of Licinius, published at Nicomedia,
and the fact that he supported it with a speech.* But
these are things of which he might have received infor-
mation from his Nicomedian friends.
On the other hand, he makes a mistake about a matter
of capital importance which gives us good reason to
believe that he was not living at Nicomedia during the
later persecution by Maximin. We have seen that the
ostensible cause of the renewal of persecution was a series
1 Hermathena, vol. xii, no. 29 (1903), pp. 452 fF.
= De Mori. Pers. 24. ^ Ibid. 35. 4. * Ibid. 48. 1,13.
1
DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM 239
of memorials to the Emperor; and that, according to
Eusebius and the authorities quoted by him, as well as
the Arykanda inscription, the purport of all the memorials
was the same, a prayer that the Christians should be
banished. The evidence is specially strong that it was so
in the case of the memorial from Nicomedia.^ The author
of the De Mortihus is alone in telling us that the memorials
merely demanded that Christians should not be allowed
to build churches within the cities. If he had been in
Nicomedia when the memorial from that city was pre-
sented he could hardly have fallen into this error.
Further, there is no hint in the De Mortihus that in
the later persecution Christians were put to death, as
such, by public process of law. Indeed the contrary is
implied. 2 But Eusebius gives the names of several promi-
nent martyrs of this period — among them that of Lucian
who suffered at Nicomedia.^ The author of the De
Mortihus could hardly have written as he did if he had
been resident in Nicomedia at the time.
Now if Lactantius left Nicomedia in the company of
Constantine and remained in Europe under his protection
till 317 or later, he would have been an eyewitness
of the persecution at Nicomedia for about three
years ; but of its later history, though he might
have had accurate information, he could have had little
first-hand knowledge. How does that agree with the
supposition that he was the author of the De Mortihus
Persecutorum ? No one who reads the chapters of that
work which narrate the beginning of the persecution and
the events which followed it up to the abdication in May
305 * can fail to carry away the impression that the man
1 Above, p. 217. ^ 36. 6 f. ; 37. 1.
' H. E. ix. 6. 3. To him might be added Anthimus, bishop of
Nicomedia, if he was beheaded at that time {H. E. viii. 13. 1).
But Eusebius seems to be right in placing his martyrdom much earlier.
See below, pp. 268 flF.
* cc. 10-20.
240 THE AUTHOESHIP OF THE
^
who wrote them was on the spot during that period.
They are full of accurate dates and vivid detail. And if
the author relates a conversation between Diocletian and
Galerius, of which a private citizen would not be likely
to have known,^ it is to be remembered that his imagina-
tion may have been assisted by reports from Constantine,
if he was already on friendly terms with him. The
chapters which follow, giving detailed information con-
cerning the administration of Galerius,^ are such as may
well have been written by one who was living at the
seat of government. They contain particulars which
could not easily have been ascertained in Gaul. But for
our purpose it is as necessary to note what the writer omits
as what he tells in this part of his work. He seems to
have been ignorant of some not unimportant facts. Thus
he has not much to say about Diocletian's visit to Rome.^
He passes over in silence Maximian's important edict of
April 304.'* He implies that Maximian abdicated about
the same time as Diocletian,^ but he gives no particulars.
That is to say, he evinces little knowledge of contemporary
events in the West.
After the flight of Constantine there are sections of the
book which suggest, if not first-hand knowledge, at least
abundance of information. But they are not the sections
which are concerned with Asia Minor. They may be
divided into two groups. The first consists of those
chapters which relate the course of events in the West,
from the proclamation of Maxentius as Emperor at Eome
up to his defeat at the Milvian Bridge.'^ It includes
a very full account of the plots of Maximian, much of
which is not recorded elsewhere. In the latter part of
the narrative the earlier stages of Constantine's Italian
campaign are omitted, perhaps with a view to brevity.
But a reverse which he sustained, apparently not far from
1 c. 18. ^ cc. 21-23. 3 17. 1 f.
* Above, p. 202. " 20. 1. « cc. 26-30, 43, 44.
DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM 241
Rome, is noticed. It is obvious that a great deal of the
information given in these chapters would be accessible
to a hanger-on of the court of Constantine. It may be
suggested, however, that while the writer was in Gaul up
to the death of Maximian (apparently early in 310), he
was in or near Rome when Constantine entered it
(October 27, 31 2). It is at least remarkable not only that,
as I have just observed, no mention is made of the battles
of Susa, Turin, and Verona, but that the highly important
proceedings at Milan after the final defeat of Maxentius
are touched upon very slightly.^
Another group of passages, also concerned with the West,
suggests a connexion of the writer rather with Licinius
than with Constantine. Three chapters relate the story
of the last illness and death of Galerius and give the
text of his Edict of Toleration.^ It will be remembered
that Licinius, as the writer tells us, was with Galerius at
Sardica when he died. Three chapters are also devoted
to the defeat of Maximin at Campus Serenus.^ Here
remarkable knowledge of detail is displayed. Almost
every day is accounted for from the time Maximin set
foot in Europe ; and dates and distances are carefully
recorded. The narrator knows about the message sent
from Byzantium to Licinius, and a careful calculation
makes it probable that Licinius was at Sardica when it
arrived.* The detailed account of the movements of
1 45. 1. 2 33_35_ 3 45_47.
* While Maximin lay before Byzantium letters were sent to Licinius,
informing him of the invasion of his territory. Supposing him to
have been at Sardica the letters would have reached him in three or
four days (400 Roman miles). A march, at the ordinary rate, from
Sardica to Druzipara (16 miles from Tzurulum, 304 Roman or 280
English miles from Sardica) would have taken two weeks and five days.
By a forced march Licinius might therefore have reached that place
within three weeks from the time of the dispatch of the letters. (The
rate would have been about the same as that of Caesar's march from
Corfinium to Brundisium. See above, p. 235.) That is about the time,
1363 , R
242 DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM
Maximin's army in Europe is th.rown into striking relief
by the comparative meagreness of the particulars supplied
of his previous march across Asia Minor, and of the move-
ments of both emperors after the battle of Campus
Serenus. One is tempted to conjecture that the writer
may have resided for some time at Sardica in 311 and
again in the early months of 313. He may have left
Rome not long after the battle of the Milvian Bridge.
It is obvious that all this fits in with what we know
independently of Lactantius. He seems to have left
Nicomedia in 306. He was in Gaul till about 308.
After that we lose sight of him till 317, when he was at
Trier.
as we saw (p. 219), which intervened between Maximin's landing in
Europe and his arrival at Tzurulum.
THE EARLIEE FORMS OF
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
It is evident that the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical
History was a supplement not inchided in the original
design. Of this we are informed by the writer himself.
* Since it was in response to thy prayers', he writes/
'that we added {kmO^vr^si) at this time the tenth book
(rofiov) to those which were already completed of the
Ecclesiastical History, let us inscribe it to thee, my most
holy Paulinus, proclaiming thee as it were the seal of the
whole matter.' An edition of the History had therefore
been in circulation which ended with the ninth book.
Dr. Schwartz,^ however, has recently put forth the
theory that two editions of the entire work in ten books
were published by the author, the earlier before and the
latter after the downfall of the Emperor Licinius in 323.
This theory is based on the phenomena of the authorities
for the text — the seven manuscripts which he indicates
by the symbols A T E E. M B D, the ancient Syriac version
(^), and the Latin version of Rufinus (A). Schwartz
observes that in the last three books the group A T E R
has a number of words, phrases, and longer passages
which are not found in M B D ^ ^, and he claims that
these belonged to the earlier text and were excised in the
final edition, which according to him is represented by
the second group.
1 H. E. X. 1. 2.
^ E. Schwartz and T, Mommsen, Eusehius Werke, Zweiter Band.
Die Kirchengeschichte. Die lateinisclie tJbet'setzting des Rufinus, dritter
Teil, Leipzig, 1909, pp. xlviiff.
R 2
244 THE EAELIER FOEMS OF
To make good this conteritioii it is necessary to assign
some probable motive for the supposed omissions, and to
show that they were made by Eusebius liimself.
Now, according to Schwartz six or seven of the omis-
sions are obviously due to the desire to get rid of the
mention of Licinius as the partner of Constantine in his
efforts on behalf of the Church. If that is so the passages
in question must have been struck out after the final
defeat of Licinius. But since this motive would have
been inoperative after the death of Constantine the
edition in which the passages were omitted must have
been published in his reign and therefore by the authority,
of Eusebius.
Some points of the argument as thus briefly stated
invite criticism. In the first place, one may venture to
doubt whether aU alterations made in the text during
the reign of Constantine must necessarily have had the
authority of Eusebius. In the second century we have
the complaint of Dionysius that his letters had been
tampered :with,^ and the well-known adjuration ap-
pended to Irenaeus's lost work on the Ogdoad ^ indicates
a fear that his writings might be similarly dealt with.
It is worthy of note that Eusebius quoted this adjuration
at the beginning of the second part of his Chronicle.^ But,
again, it is not clear that hatred of Licinius, the last of the
persecuting emperors, would not have led to alteration of
the text after the death of Constantine. Such changes
may no longer have been necessary to make the book ac-
ceptable to the court ; but many a Christian scribe would
have been tempted to discredit Licinius without any
such aim in view. And it must be observed that, apart
^ H.E. iv. 23. 12. 2 Ibid. V. 20. 2.
^ Migne, P. G. xix. 325. It does not appear at the corresponding
place in Schoene (ii, 10).
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 245
from the evidence adduced by Schwartz, there is little
reason to believe that Eusebius made any attempt, by the
omission or modification of his statements^ to deprive
Licinius of credit to which he was justly entitled. In
several parts of the tenth book his eulogies of him remain
in all the authorities for the text ; ^ and if in the ninth
book he has in a couple of places inserted ill-natured
references to his later 'madness',^ at least one of the
passages to which they are added has been left otherwise
unchanged, not a word of the praise accorded to Licinius
being withdrawn.
The exemplar from which the manuscripts A T E E,
were derived was not a copy of the supposed earlier
edition of the last three books of the History, since they
give unanimous testimony to certain passages which must
have been written after the fall of Licinius. It was
therefore — so Schwartz would have us think — a transcript
of the final edition interpolated with extracts from the
edition that preceded it. But if interpolation in a
manuscript is once admitted it cannot be assumed with-
out proof that the added sentences were derived from a
single source. If some of the additions in A T E R should
turn out to be relics of an earlier edition of the Histoi'y,
it will not follow that the others came from it also.
And one further remark must be made. In the mind
of the present writer there is no doubt that the eighth
and ninth books of the History passed through two or
more editions under the hand of their author, and that
the later editions differed more or less widely from their
predecessors. It is quite possible that traces of these suc-
cessive editions may be found in the extant manuscripts
and versions. The question in dispute is whether two
editions of the tenth book were published by Eusebius,
» X. 2. 2; 4. 16, 60. ^ j^. 9. 1, 12.
246 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
the later of which differed in its text from the earlier. If
that cannot be proved Schwartz's theory is untenable.
Let us now examine as briefly as possible the examples
of omission in the final edition which he produces. I
take first those which are obviously the most important —
omissions which he alleges to be clearly due to damnatio
memoriae Licinii.
The first of them is at once granted. It is the omission
of the name and titles of Licinius from the Toleration
Edict of Galerius.^ It will be necessary to return to it
later.
The next example is perhaps less convincing. It is
found in the introduction to the account of the defeat of
Maxentius by Constantine.^ It runs thus, the bracketed
words being omitted in M B D ^ yl :
' So then Constantine, whom we have already mentioned
as an emperor born of an emperor, pious son of a father
most pious and in all things most prudent, [and Licinius
who was next to him in rank, men honoured for good
sense and piety,] stirred up by the all-ruling God and
Saviour of the universe, and making war [ — two men be-
loved by God — ] against [two] ^ most impious tyrants,' &c.
Assuming that the longer form of this passage belonged
to an earlier edition, its abbreviation might well be due
to hatred of Licinius. But two questions may be asked.
On this assumption, why was not the work of eliminating
reference to him more thoroughly done ? For in a later
clause the victory over Maximin is ascribed to Licinius :
and quite unnecessarily, since it lies altogether outside
the scope of the chapter and there was no need to mention
it at all. And the longer form represents the facts more
1 H.E. viii. 17. 5. 2 j^. 9.1.
^ M B D 2 have ' the '. In this recension the participles are of
course in the singular number instead of the plural.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 247
correctly, for it is not true that Constantine raade war
against Maximin as the shorter text implies. Is it not
possible that the longer form was evolved from the shorter,
in the interest of historical accuracy, while Licinius was
still in power ? But on the whole the balance of proba-
bility seems to be in favour of the priority of the text
of ATE R.
If further on in the same chapter ^ the authors of the
Edict of Milan are described as ' both Constantine himself
and with him the Emperor Licinius ', and the shorter
text drops the title 'Emperor', the exhibition of malignity
is not very striking. A sufficient motive for the omission
lies in the fact that Constantine is given no title in either
text. Lower down, after the text of Maximin's letter to
Sabinus has been quoted, mention is made of a letter
written by ' the advocates of peace and piety — Constantine
and Licinius ' to their eastern colleague.- That M B D ^
(the underlying Greek of A is uncertain) here omit the
names Constantine and Licinius can scarcely be due to
damnatio memoriae Licinii, for it would equally damn the
memory of Constantine ; and it would leave to Licinius his
share of credit for the letter, and the title of ' advocate of
peace and piety'. It is more natural to suppose that
' Constantine and Licinius ' is a gloss — not altogether
unneeded, since neither name has been mentioned in the
narrative for a considerable time. And in like manner
when in the next chapter ^ we read in A T E R that the
victory over Maximin was given ' to Licinius, the ruler at
that time ',■* we cannot find much trace of malice in the
mere omission by M B D ^ (^ paraphrases) of the name.
The words ' the ruler at that time ' would very naturally
be glossed by the insertion of ' Licinius ', and it is not at
1 ix. 9. 12. 2 ix. 9. 25. ^ ix. 10. 3.
■* TO) TOTe KparovvTL.
248 THE EAELIEE FORMS OF
all necessary to assume that the glossator laboriously-
transcribed the name from another manuscript.
"We have now considered five instances in which,
according to Schwartz, Eusebius in his last edition
omitted references to Licinius. It has perhaps been made
sufficiently clear that at least three of them are doubtful.
We now pass to another alleged case of omission, which
is more important than any of these, both because the
passage concerned is of much greater length, and because
it is the only one in the tenth book.
The collection of imperial ordinances contained in
chapters 5-7 of that book appear in A T E E, M, but not in
B D ^. Whether they were in the Greek from which A
was translated is uncertain, since Rufinus omitted not only
these chapters but the greater part of the book. We note,
in the first place, that here the grouping of the manu-
scripts is not the same as before. M has gone over to the
side of A T E R. It is extremely difficult, on Schwartz's
theory, to account for this eclecticism of M. Why, if it
is really a manuscript of the supposed second edition
of Books viii-x, did it draw upon the first edition only
in this place and, as we shall see, in one other ? It is at
least possible that it is derived from a recension in which
Books viii, ix appeared without the passages peculiar to
A T E R, or the greater number of them, while Book x
was substantially in the form in which it is printed in
most modern editions, including the imperial ordinances.
M, therefore, so far as it goes, is a witness against the
theory that the passages peculiar to A T E R hitherto
examined were struck out at the same time as chapters 5-7
of the tenth book.
That these chapters were, in any case, dropped out with
the object of casting odium on Licinius is hardly credible.
They contain six ordinances. Only in the first of the
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 249
series — that which is often described with doubtful
accuracy as the Edict of Milan — does the name ofLicinius
occur. The second, though the first person plural ^ is used
throughout, is in the heading, and no doubt rightly,
ascribed to Constantine.^ His name stands in the next
three, and the last, which is anonymous, certainly ema-
nated from him. It is obvious that the supposed purpose
of the omission of the edicts would have been achieved
if the first of the six, or even the clause of it in which
the name of Licinius appears, had been deleted. Is it
conceivable that Eusebius should have struck out six
ordinances, every one of which, from his point of view,
redounded to the credit of Constantine, merely to blacken
the character of Licinius ?
But it is evident that in the fourth century a recension
of the History was current in some quarters, from which
these chapters were absent. We must then observe that
there is much difficulty in believing that it was published
by the authority of Eusebius. For we have in an earlier
passage ^ a reference to them which could not escape the
notice even of a cursory reader. After touching upon the
building of churches which followed the conclusion of the
persecution, Eusebius writes :
' Moreover the supreme Emperors, by successive ordi-
nances on behalf of the Christians, confirmed to us further
and more effectively (e/y (laKpov en kol fiel^ov) the bless-
ings which had come from the Divine bounty, and letters,
honours and gifts of money were sent by the Emperor to
the several bishops. It will not be amiss if at a fitting
point of the discourse I insert in this book, as on a sacred
pillar, the text (^coray) of them, translated from the Latin
into the Greek language, that they may be transmitted to
all who come after us as a memorial.'
^ X. 5. 16 f. ^ovXofjLeda, TrporjpTjfjieda, &C.
~ nfTToirjTai A T E M. R, followed by many modern editors, reads
nenoirji/Tai. ^ X. 2. 2.
250 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
These words are vouched for by all our authorities.'^
There can be no doubt that they stood in the final edition
of the History. On Schwartz's theory we must suppose
that Eusebius, while striking out the ordinances, allowed
this passage to remain unchanged. This is not probable.
Schwartz himself thinks that the deletion of the ordi-
nances involved the deletion of another passage in which
the allusion to them is certainly less definite, and which
from its position in the work was more likely to be over-
looked. To it we must now turn.
It is the closing sentence of Book ix according to the
majority of the printed editions and the manuscripts
A T E R M. It runs thus :
' So then, the impious ones having been purged out,
the government, which was theirs by right, was preserved
firm and undisputed for Constantine and Licinius ; who
having first of all purged out of the world hostility to God,
recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God,
displayed their love of virtue and of God and their piety
and gratitude to the Deity by their ordinance on behalf
of the Christians.'
This is a passage which might well have been altered
after the fall of Licinius. And accordingly in BD "^ A
(here again, we note deserted by M) we have in its place
the thanksgiving with which in all the printed editions,
as in A T E R M, the tenth book opens. Apparently it
stood in both places in the exemplar from which B D 5* ^
were derived. Why was this new ending substituted for
the one that we have quoted? Not merely, according
to Schwartz, because of the prominence which the latter
^ 2, naturally enough, and M, for some reason which is less obvious,
omit the remark that the ordinances were translated from Latin into
Greek. A, dealing with the whole passage very freely, also omits this
clause, and in addition the statement that copies were to be inserted
later on. Otherwise there is no substantial difference among the
authorities.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 251
gives to Licinius, but because it refers to x. 5-7 and was
therefore necessarily omitted along with those chapters.
Schwartz holds, in fact, that the collection of ordinances
originally had its place after this sentence at the end of
Book ix — thus serving as the close of the entire work.
The tenth book was subsequently added for the purpose
of including the panegyric at Tyre ; and the ordinances
were transferred from their old place, so that they might
still be the conclusion of the History. Thus the first
edition of Book x consisted of the first seven chapters of
the book. After the fall of Licinius the eighth and ninth
chapters were added, the collection of ordinances was
struck out, and with it ix. 11. 8 b. Thus the discarding of
the old ending of Book ix is definitely connected with the
issue of a second edition of Book x.
But is it true that the received ending (as we may call
it) of Book ix alludes to the six ordinances preserved in
Book X ? It certainly reads like a preface to an imperial
concession to the Christians, the text of which was placed,
or was intended to be placed, at the close of the book, just
as the Toleration Edict of Galerius stands at the close of
Book viii. But the passage itself suggests that the con-
cession was contained in a single ordinance, not in a series
of letters. It is called a uo/xoOea-La : in x. 2. 2 the series pre-
served in the tenth book is spoken of as i/ofxoOeaiai, in the
plural. Further, the uo/xodeaia in question is said to have
been issued by Constantine and Licinius acting in concert.
That was true of the first of the ordinances of Book x —
the letter of Licinius from Nicomedia — but it was not
true of any of the others. And it is worthy of note that
the word vofioOea-ia is actually twice applied to the letter
of Licinius in the document itself, according to the trans-
lation which Eusebius gives. ^ Apart from this circum-
1 X. 5. 14.
252 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
stance it may fairly be argued that the ordinance here
mentioned was the law of which an account was given in
an earlier chapter :
' After these things (sc. the defeat of Maxentius) both
Constantine and with him the Emperor Licinius, . . . prais-
ing God the author of all good things to them, both with
one counsel and mind draw up in the fullest way a most
perfect law on behalf of the Christians, and send an
account of the wonderful things done for them by God
and of the victory against the tyrant, and the law itself,
to Maximin, who was still ruling over the nations in the
East and feigning friendship towards them.' ^
The law spoken of here was of course the Edict of Milan ;
and the inference seems inevitable that either it or the
letter of Licinius founded upon it was the document the
text of which was reserved for the end of the book.
But we may go a step further. Any one who compares
the received ending of Book ix with the earlier passage
just quoted will, I believe, come to the conclusion that the
man who allowed the latter to stand would not feel com-
pelled to suppress the former merely on account of the
prominence which it gives to Licinius as a believer in
God and a friend of the Church. This argument is not
weakened but strengthened by the fact that Eusebius in
his last revision added a clause to the earlier passage about
the later ' madness ' of that Emperor. If that clause had
not been inserted we might have supposed that Eusebius
let the passage remain through sheer carelessness. Its pre-
sence proves the contrary. The historian in the obtruded
note remarked, as he might ijairly do, that ultimately
the relation of Licinius to the Church became one of hos-
tility. To have withdrawn any of the statements which
he had made when the final catastrophe was still future
would have been a suppressio veri : and to that he did not
1 ix. 9. 12.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 253
stoop. He left Licinius in possession of all the credit
which, in spite of his subsequent conduct, he deserved,
from Eusebius's point of view, for his early friendship to
the Christians. Nevertheless I deem it probable that the
closing sentence of Book ix was deleted and that now
found in B D Z ^ put in its place by Eusebius himself.
The cause of this alteration will be considered presently.
It is sufficient to say now that the assimilation of the end
of Book ix to the beginning of Book x was in Eusebius's
manner.^ The deleted passage was in fact not wholly
suppressed but removed, with some necessary changes,
to the end of Book x, where it now appears in all the
manuscripts and the two versions. It is not probable
that Eusebius closed two successive books of the History,
in the same edition, with sentences so closely parallel.
It is not necessary to examine in detail the remain-
ing four passages found in A T E R and wanting in the
other authorities, because, supposing them to have been
omitted in a later edition, they afford no indication that
the date of that edition followed the death of Licinius,
and they do not in any way connect themselves with the
variations in the manuscripts of the tenth book. Two of
them, according to Schwartz, were omitted because they
described Galerius as the author of the persecution ; ^ and
one of these omissions attained the further end of getting
rid of an allusion to the death of Diocletian.^ Two others
1 See below, p. 289.
^ viii. 16. 2 f, ; App. He points to the silence of Orat. Const. 25
about Galerius. In one sense it was untrue that Galerius was the
originator of the persecution, since Diocletian persecuted before the
edict of 303. See H. E. viii. 4. 2 ; Lact. 10. This might account for
the omissions in question.
^ viii. App. Cf. V. C. i. 23. The principle enunciated in the
Life of Constantine, that no account should be given of the deaths of
persecuting Emperors, is not very strictly adhered to in the last edition
of the History. See e.g. ix. 10. 14 f. Moreover, the evidence that
254 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
are accounted for as an effort to save Constantine from
the imputation of having accused the Christians of un-
reasoning obstinacy.^ But these are motives which might
have operated as powerfully before Constantine became
sole Emperor as afterwards.
I conclude then that from the variations among the
authorities for the text we have no sufficient reason
for believing that Eusebius issued two editions of his
tenth book. I believe, indeed, that stronger evidence for
Schwartz's theory might have been discovered in those
parts of the text of the book itself which have the support
of all the authorities. The first chapter might have led us
to expect that nothing would follow it save chapter 2, § 1
and chapters 3, 4. And even when we read the intimation
of chapter 2, § 2, that a collection of ordinances was to be
included, are we not prepared for the last two chapters
on the war between Constantine and Licinius ? But to
recognize all this is no more than to admit that the book
is badly constructed,^ an admission which must be made
in the case of other books of the same work. It does not
give us a sure foundation on which to build a theory of
successive editions.
And if it is difficult to believe that some of the passages
of the Tyrian panegyric which laud the actions of
viii. App. -was intended by Eusebius to form part of the History is
weak, as will be seen presently.
' viii. 16. 7 ; ix. 1. 3-6. The omission in M B D in viii. 16. 7 does
not appreciably soften the strictures on the Christians ; and it is not
likely that any one would have based a charge against Constantine on
the letter of Sabinus in ix. 1. The letter may have been omitted be-
cause it has at least the ajjpearance of contradicting the statement of
the previous sections, that Maximin did not issue written commands
to the provincials. Sabinus certainly wrote in his name.
"^ In spite of Schwartz's remark (p. liv) I do not see why x. 8. 1 a
may not refer to cc. 5-7.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 255
Licinius ^ were given to tlie public at the same time as the
chapters which describe his subsequent wrongdoing,^ it
must be remarked that the same difficulty attends us
when we maintain that those passages were left unaltered
in a second edition of the book in which the closing
chapters were added. In either case the only explanation
that can be given is that Eusebius, in spite of all attempts
to prove the contrary, was an honest historian who would
not withdraw what he had written until he became con-
vinced that it was false. The tenth book, whatever view
we take of the manner of its composition, is a witness to
his unswerving desire to be just, under strong temptation.
Biased he no doubt was — his final chanters r>rnvp. it —
ERRATA
Page 193 note 2 for Theodoric read Theodosia
Pufie 200 note 1 for burie read buried
Page 254 line 16/or are we not prepared . . .
Licinius ? read we are not prepared . . .
Licinius.
Lawlor, Eusehiana August, 1912
Face 2)age 254
written Eusebius was not aware of the rupture of Licinius
with Constantine which happened in 314 ; "^ and it appears
1 X. 4. 16, 60. 2 gee g^ ^ ^ 3_ 3^ 5 ^^
' See Lightfoot in Did. of CJirist. Biog. ii. 322 f. See also the excellent
lecture on ' Eusebius, the Father of Church History ' by Westcott, of
which Lightfoot made use. It has been published in the volume
entitled The Ttvo Empires, the Church and the World, 1909. The diffi-
culty about Paulinus {Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 232) does not invalidate
Lightfoot's reasoning.
* No doubt Westcott wrote in ignorance of the fact that Constantine
and Licinius were at peace again in 315. But his argument seems to
254 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
are accounted for as an effort to save Constantine from
the imputation of having accused the Christians of un-
reasoning obstinacy.^ But these are motives which might
have operated as powerfully before Constantine became
sole Emperor as afterwards.
I conclude then that from the variations among the
authorities for the text we have no sufficient reason
for believing that Eusebius issued two editions of his
tenth book. I believe, indeed, that stronger evidence for
Schwartz's theory might have been discovered in those
parts of the text of the book itself which have the support
of all the authorities. The first chapter might have led us
viii. App. was intended by Eusebius to form part of the History is
weak, as will be seen presently.
* viii. 16. 7 ; ix, 1. 3-6. The omission in M B D in viii. 16. 7 does
not appreciably soften the strictures on the Christians ; and it is not
likely that any one would have based a charge against Constantine on
the letter of Sabinus in ix. 1. The letter may have been omitted be-
cause it has at least the appearance of contradicting the statement of
the previous sections, that Maximin did not issue written commands
to the provincials. Sabinus certainly wrote in his name.
2 In spite of Schwartz's remark (p. liv) I do not see why x. 8. 1 a
may not refer to cc. 5-7.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 255
Licinius ^ were given to tlie public at the same time as the
chapters which describe his subsequent wrongdoing,^ it
must be remarked that the same difficulty attends us
when we maintain that those passages were left unaltered
in a second edition of the book in which the closing
chapters were added. In either case the only explanation
that can be given is that Eusebius, in spite of all attempts
to prove the contrary, was an honest historian who would
not withdraw what he had written until he became con-
vinced that it was false. The tenth book, whatever view
we take of the manner of its composition, is a witness to
his unswerving desire to be just, under strong temptation.
Biased he no doubt was — his final chapters prove it —
but never a conscious tamperer with truth.
In the remainder of this Essay, then, I shall assume that
Eusebius issued but one edition of the tenth book. And,
as a necessary consequence, I shall regard it as having
been published in its first and final form after the fall of
Licinius in 324 or early in 325.^
It seems clear that the ninth book was composed ten
years or more before this final supplement was added to
the work. To quote the words of Westcott, which have
been adopted in their entirety by Lightfoot :
* If we compare the closing sentences of the ninth and
tenth books it is evident that when the ninth book was
written Eusebius was not aware of the rupture of Licinius
with Constantine which happened in 314 ; * and it appears
1 X. 4. 16,60. 2 Seee.g. X. 8. 3, 5 ff .
' See Lightfoot in Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 322 f. See also the excellent
lecture on ' Eusebius, the Father of Church History ' by Westcott, of
which Lightfoot made use. It has been published in the volume
entitled The Tivo Empires, the Church and the World, 1909. The diffi-
culty about Paulinus {Diet, of CJirist. Biog. iv. 282) does not invalidate
Lightfoot's reasoning.
* No doubt Westcott wrote in ignorance of the fact that Constantine
and Licinius were at peace again in 815. But his argument seems to
256 THE EAELIER FORMS OF
also that he was at the same time very imperfectly in-
formed of the course of affairs in the West, which led to the
decisive victory of Constantine over Maxentius in 312,
though he was well acquainted with the eastern campaign,
which ended with the death of Maximin in 313. "We may
therefore suppose that the nine books were composed [rather
completed] not long after the Edict of Milan in 313.' ^
It has been remarked that the ninth book in its original
form appears to have concluded with the Edict of Milan,
or rather with the letter of Licinius founded upon it.^
This letter, issued at Nicomedia on June 13, 313,^ cannot
have been published south of the Taurus till after the
East had been acquired by Licinius. Thus we may date
the penultimate edition of the History about the end of
313 or in the earlier part of 314.
It probably contained the first nine books nearly in
their present form. But not quite. For three sentences
in Book ix show traces of revision. The words applied
to Licinius in chapter 9, ' not yet at that time seized with
madness,' * almost proclaim themselves intruders by their
unsuitability to the context. They were certainly added
after the final breach between Constantine and Licinius.
At the same time must have been inserted the similar
remark about him lower down in the same chapter, ' his
understanding had not yet at that time been turned to that
madness into which he later fell.' ^ So too when we find
him described as one ' who then ruled ' ^ we recognize
me to hold good. Schwartz dates the book in 315, on the ground that
the letter of Constantine to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse (x. 5. 21),
originally belonged to it.
1 Westcott, op. cit. p. 6. Perhaps it should rather have been said
' not long after the death of Maximin '. For as long as the East was
in the hands of Maximin, and he at war with Licinius, Eusebius would
have little opportunity of acquiring information of western affairs.
^ See Gwatkin, Earhj Chutch History, ii. 357.
' Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 48.
* H. E. ix. 9. 1. ^ § 12. ' H. E. ix. 10. 3.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 257
the hand of a reviser who wrote after he had ceased to be
Emperor. How the original text may have run in this
place we cannot tell. But the three readings which have
been mentioned are attested by practically all the extant
authorities. They certainly came from Eusebius himself.
A fourth passage must be mentioned, though we cannot
speak of it with the same confidence. I have assumed
that as first issued the book closed with the received
ending, followed by the rescript of Licinius issued at
Nicomedia. In place of that ending we find mBJ) S A
a sentence identical with the opening sentence of Book x,
and reasons have been given for the belief that the
original ending was in fact transferred to the close
of the entire work when Book x was added. Why
was this change made? Probably because Eusebius
had decided to include in the new book a collection
of imperial concessions to the Church. This collection
would naturally begin with the most important of
them all — that which hitherto stood at the end of Book
ix. But when it was gone the sentence which had
introduced it became unmeaning. Something else had
to be put in place of it ; and according to his common
practice Eusebius made the same sentence serve both
for the end of Book ix and the beginning of the book
which was now made to follow it.^
We have called the edition containing nine books
the penultimate rather than the first because the question
whether it was preceded by another, or others, ought
not to be prejudged. It has in fact been suggested that
the ninth book, like the tenth, is a supplement to the
original work.^ We must now endeavour to appraise
the likelihood of that suggestion being correct.
1 See below, p. 289.
2 M^Giffeit, Eusebius {Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), pp. 334,
1363 S
258 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
In tlie long sentence with which Eusebius begins the
first book of the Ecclesiastical History we find a full
statement of the purpose of the whole work. He mentions,
first of all, a number of subjects which obviously could not
be dealt with in separate sections, such as ' the successions
of the holy apostles', the rulers of the distinguished
Christian communities, the founders of heretical systems,
and so forth. The treatment of such subjects as these
must evidently, in a work constructed on a chronological
basis, proceed pari passu. But the historian intimates
that, having followed all these different threads for some
distance, he will in the end let most of them drop, and
confine himself to a single topic. One of the many things
which he proposes to set down in writing is an account of
the occasions on which ' the divine word has been made
war upon by the Gentiles ' and of the men ' who as each
occasion came endured the conflict which through blood
and tortures was fought on its behalf ; and having
announced this as one of the topics to be dealt with, he
proceeds, 'And it is also my purpose to relate the
martyrdoms which took place after these in our own time
and the propitious and gracious succour afforded at the
end of all by our Saviour.' This opening sentence, like
most prefaces, must be taken, not as such a crude state-
ment of his aim as might be possible for the author to
make when he first took up his pen, but rather as his
reflection on his work when it had reached the form in
which it was offered to the public. It therefore conveys
to us the information that the last section of the History
recorded a contemporary persecution and closed with the
return of rest to the Church,— rest which the writer clearly
regarded as destined to be permanent. The point at
340. These passages suggested the present Essay. But Schwartz has
now discussed the question with much fuller knowledge of the data.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 259
which this last section begins is definitely marked. In
the last sentence of the seventh book Eusebius tells us
that having in it and the preceding books enlarged upon
the subject of ' the succession of the apostles V he is now
about to relate ' the conflicts in our own time of those who
contended valiantly for piety '.
The final section of the work therefore begins with the
eighth book. Where did it originally end? There are
three incidents in the story of the great persecution each
of which in its turn must have seemed the beginning of
the final peace ; and each of them is related at the end of
a book of the History. They are the defeat of Licinius,
with which the work in its present form ends ; the Edict
of Milan at the close of Book ix, the last book, as we have
seen, of an earlier edition; and the Toleration Edict of
Galerius recited in the last chapter of Bookviii. Any one
of these might have been called ' the succour of the Saviour'.
But had the last named, which is the earliest in point of
date, any appearance of introducing permanent rest ?
It seems to me that it must have been so regarded at the
time. It was, to begin with — for I believe the evidence
warrants the statement ^ — a renunciation, in the name of
^ So vlii. Pref., which is a re-statement of the substance of vii. 32. 32.
In the latter the phrase is ' the matter of the successions '.
"^ On this point the evidence is very strong. Lactantius (36. 3)
speaks of the edict as ' indulgentia Christianis communi titulo data',
where his point seems to be that Maximin was so base as to repudiate
a document in which his own name appeared along with those of his
fellow emperors. Eusebius twice states that the palinode was issued
by the very men who had made war on the Church {H. E. viii. 13. 8;
16. 1.) This implies that it ran in the name of more than one perse-
cutor. But if, as has been sometimes asserted, Maximin had no hand
in it this would not be the case, since neither Constantine nor Licinius
had persecuted. And it may be asked, could an edict have been issued
in the names of three out of the four emperors, that of the fourth
being omitted ? It is instructive to observe that the inscription found
at Arykanda proves that the memorial of the citizens of that place,
s2
260 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
all the four reigning emperors, of tlie policy which had till
that moment been in theory common to all, and which had
been carried into effect by two of them. That must have
seemed likely to usher in a more peaceful era. As a
matter of fact peace had been established over half the
Empire for several years. Since the year of the abdication
there had been no persecution in the "West. And the new
edict produced much effect elsewhere. It put an end
to persecution everywhere except in the dominions of
Maximin. And even there it was followed by a respite
of six months. For that period there was no official
persecution of Christians in any part of the Empire.
Nothing can be plainer than that even the Christian
subjects of Maximin believed that a lasting peace had come.
One has only to read the first chapter of Eusebius's ninth
book to be impressed with their absolute confidence that
they were at the beginning of a new era.^ What if
Eusebius himself, in spite of comments with which later
experience moved him to intersperse his facts in this very
chapter, shared the confidence and the rejoicing of those
six months ? If he did he must for the time have regarded
Galerius's edict as ' the succour of our Saviour ' which had
inaugurated lasting peace between Church and State —
the goal of Church history. There is nothing to prevent
us, if the direct evidence points that way, from supposing
that an edition — probably the first — of the Ecclesiastical
History was completed and published during the six
months' peace between May and November 311, and that
though actually presented to Maximin, was addressed to all the
reigning emperors, Maximin, Constantine and Licinius. The only-
evidence on the other side is the fact that Maximin's name does
not occur in the copy of the palinode given by Eusebius. An
opportunity will occur hereafter of discussing the question whether its
absence can be accounted for.
^ See above, p. 214.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 261
it included only our first eight books. What then is the
evidence ?
Let us turn first to the Preface to the eighth book.
There we have a formal statement which implies that the
book to which it is prefixed was to be the last of the work :
' Having described in seven entire books^ the succession
of the apostles we regard it as a duty in this eighth
fasciculus- to commend to the knowledge of those who
shall come after us the events of our own time ^ — which
are worthy of permanent record — some part, at least, of the
most remarkable of them. '
It is clear that when he penned this sentence Eusebius
intended to confine all that he had to say about con-
temporary happenings to a single book, and that it was to
be the last book of the History. The inference, if the words
are to be accepted in their natural meaning, is that Book
ix was an afterthought — an appendix added after the
original design had been completed. Possibly, however,
some may prefer to adopt the alternative view, that as he
went on Eusebius changed his mind, finding that the
matter which he had accumulated for a single book could
more conveniently be distributed between two. In that
case the present Books viii and ix are really two divisions
of the projected eighth book.
The latter of these two views is scarcely probable.
That which we know as the ninth book seems to have been
a separate book from the beginning. It was certainly such
when the tenth book was added. For not only is the latter
designated 'the tenth book'^ in its opening sentences;
1 /3t/aXi'ot?.
^ <rvyypay.fiaTi. I do not suppose that it will be contended that this
word indicates Books viii, ix, or Books viii-x.
'^ That he means by this phrase the history of the persecution is
evident from vii. 32. 32.
* TUfiOV,
262 THE EARLIEE FORMS OF
Eusebius actually makes a point of the fact tliat it is the
tenth : ' Fitly,' he writes, ' under ^ a perfect number we
shall compose the perfect and panegyrical book^ of the
renewal of the Churches.' But we may go further back.
A passage which will be quoted immediately proves that
if the original plan of the eighth book was modified, the
modification had already been made by the time the
writer reached the thirteenth chapter. Now if in the course
of writing, or shortly afterwards, Eusebius had made out of
his intended eighth book an eighth and a ninth, it is
scarcely likely that he would not have altered the opening
sentence in such a way as to make it agree with the
facts.
But there are two other passages in the book which
support the construction I have put on the Preface. It is
plain that when he wrote them Eusebius believed that the
edict of Galerius had stayed the persecution, and that he
was unaware that any renewal of it had taken place since
its publication.
The first of these has been referred to just now. I
must quote it, as I shall have occasion to make use of it
again. The historian has made mention of a large num-
ber of martyrs, concluding with the remark that there
were thousands more commemorated by the Christian
communities in every country and place. He then pro-
ceeds :
' The task is not ours to chronicle the conflicts of those
men who contended all over the world for piety towards
the Divine Being, and to relate in detail all that happened
to them ; but let it be done by those who beheld their
sufferings. Those with which I myself was conversant I
will make known to posterity in another treatise. In the
present book,^ however, I will subjoin to the things already
said the recantation of those who wrought against us and
^ iv. ^ \6yoi'.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 263
the things that happened from the beginning of the per-
secution— most profitable as they are for my readers.' ^
First, by way of commentary on this passage let it be
noted that Eusebius here sketches accurately the contents
of the remainder of Book viii. He immediately afterwards
takes up the thread of his story where he had let it fall in
chapter 6, and proceeds, with one or two digressions which
will be mentioned presently, to the end, concluding with
the text of the ' recantation ', the edict of Galerius. Thus,
as already observed,^ he had determined at least thus
early that the eighth book should end as it now does.
But again, in the passage before us he exhibits no con-
sciousness that the edict was not the end of the persecu-
tion or that the Christians had any further sufferings to
endure after its issue. He intimates too that, in accor-
dance with his plan, he omits many martyrdoms, especially
a number which he himself had witnessed. The latter
were to be related in a treatise not yet written. There
can be little doubt that the treatise referred to is one of
the recensions of the Martyrs of Palestine, which was thus
intended to serve in some sort as a parallel to the History
on which he was then engaged. It is surely then most
significant that, as has already been pointed out,^ the last
martyrdom in that work, both in the Syriac and the
Greek, took place only a few days later than the issue of
the ' recantation '.
^ H. E. viii. 13. 7f. wv ava rfjv iraa-av olKovfievrjv vnfp rrjs fls to delov
evae^fias Tjycovia^fvtov ypa(f)rj TrapaSiSofai Toiis udXovs en a/cpi/Se? re exaora
Tcoj/ Trept avToiis (rvn^e^rjKOTatv laropfiv ovx fjp.iTfpov, t(oi> 8' o'^ei to. npa-
ypara Trapei\T](p6T(ov iSiof av yivono' oh ye pf]v avTos napfyfvoprjv, tovtovs
Kai To'is pfff ripas yvoapipovs 8i irtpas noiricropai -ypa^^f. koto, ye prjv
Tov napouTd \6yov rfju TrnXipcoSiav tmv Trepi fipai elpyaa-pivMV roii eipr]pevoi.s
eVto-t wi>|/-co rd re e| apX'l^ "rov Bicoypov o-v/x^e^/j/cora, xpW^I^<^^(^^o- TvyxavovTd
Toli euTtv^opit'Ois.
2 Above, p. 262. ' Above, p. 209.
264 THE EARLIEE FORMS OF
The other passage occurs somewhat later, at the point
where he begins to speak at length of the edict of G-alerius.
Here he uses a phrase which clearly indicates that with it
the persecution came to an end. He declares that the
emperors — ' the very persons by whom the warfare was
in our time prosecuted — changing their minds, in a most
wonderful way, issued a recantation,' thereby ' quenching
the fire of persecution which had blazed forth to so great
a height against us '.^ This plain statement that the
edict of Galerius ' quenched ' the flames of persecution
is not in accordance with subsequent events. It directly
contradicts Book ix, the subject of which is a recrudes-
cence of persecution, which ' seemed far more terrible than
the former '.- It could not have been made after the
peace of the Church had again been disturbed by Maximin
towards the end of 311.
But that is not all. After thus describing the effect of
the edict Eusebius immediately proceeds to point out its
true source.^ It had no human origin. It was not to be
attributed to the kindness of emperors who had raged
more furiously as time went on ; it rather proceeded from
Divine Providence. For on the one hand God was being
reconciled to His people, and on the other He was punish-
ing Galerius, the author of the troubles, by inflicting him
with the foul disease which wrung from him the recanta-
tion. What is all this but an expansion of the phrase ' the
succour of our Saviour ', by which Eusebius had already
indicated the end of the persecution, and the last incident
to be recorded in his History ? In a similar passage in the
^ H. E. Vlll. 16. 1. Tore 8rjTa Kal ol Kad^ rj^as np^ovrfs, nvTo\ 81} (Keipoi
fit' GJi/ naXai ra ratv Ka6' rjfids (vrjpyeiro Tiokifiav, irapabo^oTara fieradepet/oi
rr/v yvcop.r]Vy Txakivcdblav fjbov XP'^fi'O'S TTfp\ rjfiav npoypafifiairiv Ka\ diard-
ypacnv rjptpcoTuTois rrjv inX p-iya a(f>6e'i(Tav jov biaypov TTvpKciiav a^evvvvTH,
2 Ibid. ix. 6. 4. 2 Ibid. viii. 16. 2.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 265
Martyr's of Palestine'^ tlie same edict is spoken of as a
manifestation of the Divine favour towards the Church.
No language so direct and forcible connects either the
final edict of Maximin or the Edict of Milan with the
Divine intervention.
One other fact which seems to point to the existence of
an early edition of the History containing only the first
eight books may be mentioned here. It is the insertion
at the end of Book viii, in some manuscripts, of the brief
Appendix which appears in that place in all the printed
editions. It is probably an excerpt from another work of
Eusebius in which he dilated upon the miserable deaths
of the persecuting emperors, contrasting them with the
happy end of Constantius. That it should have come into
its present place when the eighth book was immediately
followed by the ninth is scarcely possible. Schwartz in-
deed supposes that it was added to the eighth book by
Eusebius himself when he published the first edition of
the tenth book, and therefore after the ninth book had
been added. He holds that it was omitted in the final
edition, some parts of it being at the same time inserted in
the thirteenth chapter of Book viii. It appears to me that
in itself the supposition that Eusebius thus destroyed the
connexion between the eighth and ninth books is wholly
improbable. One event recorded in the Appendix — the
death of Diocletian — if not later than the last included in
Book ix, cannot have preceded it by many months.^ And
when Schwartz attempts to work out the details of his
theory" he finds difiiculties which he does not surmount, and
which are perhaps insurmountable. He is also forced to
^ M. P. (Grk.) 13. 14. In both places the words iwia-Koirqv evfievrj /cat
tXeo) are reminiscent of i. 1. 2.
2 The date 316 is strongly attested. ButLact. 43. 1 seems to imply
that Diocletian died before Maximin. Cp. Aurelius Victor, Epit. 39.
^ p. lii.
266 THE EAELIER FORMS OF
regard the sentence which now closes Book viii — 'It is now
time to review what happened after these things'— as hav-
ing been introduced in the last edition, the edition, namely,
in which the tenth book, as he thinks, was remodelled.^
It could, indeed, hardly have stood as an introduction to
the Appendix. But why it should have been written long
after the ninth book had been published rather than when
it was first added to the work is not easily understood.
But the fact is that the evidence that the Appendix was
intended by Eusebius to follow Book viii, or to form a
part of the History, is not strong.^ It is found only in the
manuscripts A E E, and their derivatives. In the exemplar
from which the group A T E R was derived it had a
heading ^ which stated that it was found in some manu-
scripts, coy \dnov : from which it may be inferred that in
the manuscripts from which it was taken it did not follow
Book viii without a break. A heading must have preceded
it ; and it possibly suggested a doubt as to whether it was
really part of the book. Thus, perhaps, we may account for
its omission from T. It is not unlikely that it is an extract
from a lost work of Eusebius, added to some copies of the
first edition of the History which remained in circulation
after the second edition in nine books appeared.
But it now becomes necessary to ascertain, as far as
possible, what passages in the earlier books of the History
must, on our theory, have been added after the work in
its original form had been completed. With this end in
view I shall pass in review all the sentences known to
' p. 794.
^ The fact that Zonaras (xii. 33) had it in his copy of Book viii
counts for little.
' A : TO (OS Xdnov '4v riaiu dvTiyp(i(f)ois iv to! t]' \6ya). That the word
XftTToi' comes from the exemplar is confirmed by the remark in E that
the Apjjendix was added in some manuscripts oix ^^y XtiTrovrn kt\.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 267
me which rest under the suspicion of betraying knowledge
of events which took place after November 311.
1. H. E. i. 9. 2 f Here Eusebius exposes an ana-
chronism in certain memoirs against our Saviour which
had quite recently been put in circulation.^ These are
no doubt the forged ' memoirs of Pilate and our Saviour '
which in 312 received the approval of Maximin,and were
ordered by him to be publicly exhibited and taught in the
schools.^ But, though in 312 they were still recent for-
geries, it is unreasonable to suppose that they had not
for some time been in circulation before Maximin made
use of them for his own purposes. There is nothing to
compel us to believe that they had not come into Eusebius's
hands by 311 ; and it is to be observed that there is no hint
in the passage before us that they had received imperial
recognition. It need not therefore be regarded as a later
addition.
2. H. E. vii. 32. 31. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, is
said to have been beheaded in the ninth year of the per-
secution (312) after an episcopate of twelve entire years.^
This statement obviously could not have been made in 311.
But if an account of his episcopate up to that year had
place here in the original edition, it was inevitable that
in 313 it should be completed by a notice of his martyr-
dom. Eusebius could not leave untouched a sentence which
implied that he was still alive. And the passage seems
to bear traces of the reviser's hand, for the chronological
notes are verbally inconsistent. Peter is said to have been
bishop for less than three "* years before the persecution,
^ ovKovv (Ta(f)(os aiTe\rj\eyKTai to 7rXacr/xa TOiV Kara tov acoTrjpos rjfiaiv
vTTOfivfjfiarn x^^^ '^'J' np(or]i> diabebcoKorai'.
2 H. E. ix. 5. 1.
^ e'0' oXoit 8voKai8(Ku eVmvrois. A notice of his martyrdom appears
also in ix. 6. 2.
* rpialv ov8' oXoii erecni'.
268 THE EAELIER FORMS OF
to have been martyred in the ninth year of the persecu-
tion, and yet to have ruled the Church for twelve entire
years. So contradictory a remark could hardly have been
made originally. The confusion may have arisen from the
use in the revision of a different system of reckoning years.
Peter's death may be dated November 312.^ If he became
bishop shortly before September 300, his rule would have
been counted as twelve entire years, the years beginning
in September. But from before September 300 to the
beginning of the persecution would be ' not three entire
years ', the years beginning, as the persecution-years did,
in January.
3. H. E. viii. 6. 6. The martyrdom of Anthimus is said
to have taken place ' at this time ', an expression which is
lower down defined as meaning ' at the beginning of the
persecution '. This section comes between the notices of
the first and second edicts of Diocletian. But it is to be
noticed that some of the events referred to in it seem to
belong to a later period. The putting to death of
whole families, the drowning of Christians, the digging
up of bodies which had been buried and casting them into
the sea, suggest rather the rule of Galerius than that of
Diocletian. It is not probable that they were connected
with the fires at the palace soon after the first edict, as the
reader of Eusebius might suppose. It seems likely, there-
fore, that Eusebius has gone astray in his dates. And
this may be accounted for if we observe that he appears
at this point to have depended on a document for his in-
formation.2 If the document, giving a confused account
of the persecution at Nicomedia, mentioned the fires in
^ November 24, 311, according to Schwartz: but the ninth year of
the persecution was 312. See further below, p. 274.
^ o re \6yos e^f t. Was this document the letter of the martyr Lucian
mentioned below ?
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 269
connexion with the other things here recorded we can
easily understand that it might have misled Eusebius.
And so we need not lay too much stress on the date
assigned by him to the martyrdom of Anthimus. But
some writers hold that the martyrdom did not take place
until late in 312. In that case Eusebius has made a mis-
take of over nine years. Considering the eminence which
must have belonged to the bishop of Nicomedia, and the
opportunities of obtaining information which Eusebius
possessed, this is very improbable. We shall not accept
this view unless the evidence for it is very strong.
We may take Hunziker ^ as its best exponent. He
points out that Lactantius says nothing of this martyrdom
in the chapter following that in which he gives the
fires,^ though he mentions the execution of preshyteri
ac ministri. But in that chapter Lactantius gives no
names of martyrs, and he obviously includes events not
immediately connected with the fires, but belonging to a
later time. It is absurd to suppose that bishops were wholly
exempt from persecution during the whole period contem-
plated in the chapter. But again, Anthimus is mentioned
along with Lucian, who certainly suffered in 312, in H. E.
viii. 13. 1 f. The arrangement of that passage, however, is
not chronological but topographical. The juxtaposition of
the two martyrdoms is due to the fact that they both took
place at Nicomedia.^ A third argument is derived from a
^ 0. Hunziker, 'Zur Regierung u. Christenverfolgung des Kaisers
Diocletianus u. seiner Nachfolger,' in Biidinger's Untersuchiingen ziir
romischen Kaisergeschichte, vol. ii (1868), p. 281.
2 De Mort. Pers. 15.
' If we suppose that Eusebius, when he wrote H. E. viii. 13, regarded
Anthimus and Lucian as having suffered at the same period we must
believe either that he dated the martyrdom of Anthimus in 312, which
contradicts viii. 6, or that he dated that of Lucian in 303, which con-
tradicts ix. 6.
270 THE EAELIEE FOEMS OF
letter of Lucian, announcing the martyrdom of Anthimus
to the Church of Antioch.^ But there is nothing in the frag-
ment of the letter which remains to show that Lucian was
a prisoner when he wrote, as Hunziker states, and nothing
to imply that the time of his own martyrdom was drawing
near. Hunziker also cites three Acts of Martyrs — includ-
ing the late and unreliable Greek Acts of Anthimus him-
self — in which Maximian (i. e. either Galerius or Maximin)
is named as the Emperor. But who will attach much
weight to such evidence on such a point ? Finally, if the
Greek Acts of Anthimus date his martyrdom September 3,
and if this suits well enough the assumption that he suffered
in the autumn of 312 and Lucian somewhat later in the same
year, there is nothing in the text of Eusebius to prohibit
the belief that Anthimus was beheaded as late as Sep-
tember 303. We should be inclined to place even later
some of the events referred to in the same section. On
the whole the arguments for dating the martyrdom of
Anthimus after 311 do not appear to be strong enough to
stand against the express statement of Eusebius.
4. H. E. viii. 9. 1-5. This is a passage relating to the
sufferings of confessors and martyrs in the Thebaid.
Before examining it we must remark that it occurs
in a section of the book in which we might expect
additions to be made, if it was re-edited some years after
its first publication. At the end of the sixth chapter, after
mentioning the third edict, Eusebius for a considerable
space ^ entirely abandons the chronological method of
arranging his materials. He gives a list of martyrs, with
^ The extant fragment of the letter, presei-ved in the Paschal
Chronicle under the year 303 (Dindorf, p. 516), runs thus : 'Atrn-aferai
iifias ;^op6s anai ojxov ^aj)Tvp(>>v. (vayyeXi^Ofxai. 8e ii^as, cos Avdi^os 6 ndnas
Tw Tov unprvpiov dpofxa irfXeiiodt]. It is printed in Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 5.
'2 H.E.v'm. 7. 1-13. 7.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 271
some details of their sufferings, disposed, not according to
the order of time, but mainly according to the places
where they suffered — the Egyptians who were martyred
at Tyre, while he himself was there, those who suffered
in Egypt, in the Thebaid, at Alexandria, in Phrygia, in
Arabia, at Antioch, in Pontus — ending up with a list of
episcopal martyrs. Clearly these examples are not taken
from any one period of the persecution, but belong for the
most part to the later stage which began with the issue
of the fourth edict in April 304.^ It is plain that in pre-
paring a new edition an author, and more especially an
unsystematic writer like Eusebius, would be tempted
to complete such a section as this by adding in their
proper places the names of illustrious martyrs who had
been brought to his knowledge after the work, in its
original form, had left his hands. We can recognize such
insertions with certainty only when there is evidence that
they belong to a later date than the edict of Galerius.
One of them must be at least a part of the account of
the martyrs of the Thebaid. For Eusebius writes as an
eyewitness of the evil work of one day : ' We ourselves
saw, when we came to the places, many crowded together
in the course of one day.' ^ But it appears that from the
beginning of the persecution till the year 311 he was in
Caesarea and its neighbourhood. He does not seem to
have visited Egypt till after the edict of thatyear.^ Thus
we must count at least §§ 4, 5 as an insertion. We shall
find reason just now to believe that the earlier sections
of the same chapter, though in themselves they contain
nothing to mark them as later than 311, were probably
added at the same time.
But first an attempt must be made to show that the
1 Above, p. 202. 2 § 4.
^ See Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 311 f., and above, p. 198.
272 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
later sections and the whole of the following chapter,
containing accounts of Philoromus and Phileas, and an
epistle of the latter, belong to the earlier period. Accord-
ing to the Acts of Phileas and Philoromus^ these two
persons were beheaded on the same day after examination
before Culcianus. Since Culcianus was a creature of
Maximin ^ this fixes the date not earlier than the end of
305. The later limit is determined thus. A letter is extant,
in a Latin version, which was written in the names
of Phileas and three other Egyptian bishops, protesting
against ordinations performed by Meletius within the
jurisdiction of Peter, bishop of Alexandria. The
bishops were at the time in prison. After their martyr-
dom Peter, from his exile, wrote a letter directing that
communication should not be held with Meletius.^ We
may safely infer that the martyrdom of Phileas took place
a considerable time before that of Peter, who probably
suffered in November 312, immediately after the
resumption of persecution by Maximin in Egypt, He
seems, indeed, to have been the first martyr of that
short season of violence. Thus we may place the death
of Phileas before the edict of Galerius. It is in fact
a plausible conjecture that Peter returned from his exile
shortly after its publication.*
But further, Phileas and Philoromus seem to have been
executed at Alexandria. This is apparently the statement
of all the authorities which name the place of the martyr-
dom,^ And it is supported by the passage quoted from
Phileas by Eusebius, in which, writing in prison shortly
before his death, he describes the persecution in that city.
1 Euinart, Acta sincera, 1713, p. 494. ^ H. E. ix. 11. 4.
3 Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 91 flF., 94.
" Diet, of Oirist. Biog. iv. 333. See also below, p. 274.
^ See Valois on H. E. viii. 9.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 273
That, at any rate, Phileas did not suffer in the Thebaid ^ is
pretty certain, since he was bishop of Thmuis in Lower
Egypt.
These facts show that the account of Philoromus and
Phileas, and the narrative of the persecution by the
latter, cannot have been intended by Eusebius as an illus-
tration of his general remarks about the martyrs of the
Thebaid,^ but must rather be read with what he says in the
previous chapter about the Egyptians ' who suffered in
their own land '. The intervening passage obscures the
connexion, and so might have been suspected as a later
addition, apart from any theory as to the date of the
composition of the book in which it is found.
5. H. E. viii. 13. 1-7. Here we have a list of rulers of
the Church who suffered martyrdom. The following are
mentioned: Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia; Lucian,
a presbyter of Antioch ; Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre;
Zenobius, a presbyter of Sidon ; Silvanus, bishop of the
churches about Emesa ; Silvanus, bishop of the churches
about Gaza ; Peleus and Nilus, Egyptian bishops ; Pam-
philus ; Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and with him the
presbyters Faustus, Dius and Ammonius; Phileas, Hesy-
chius,Pachymius and Theodorus,Egyptian bishops. There
are in all eleven bishops and six presbyters. Of these,
eight certainly suffered before the short peace which
followed the edict of Galerius, namely, Silvanus of
Gaza,^ Peleus, Nilus,* Pamphilus,^ Phileas, Hesychius,
Pachymius, and Theodorus,^ to whom we may add
1 Epiphanius, Haer. 68. 1, makes Culcianus praeses of the Thebaid,
but he may have been misled by Eusebius.
2 9. 1-5. 3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 3 ; 13. 4 f. ; Cureton, pp. 24, 47.
' Ibid. 13. 3 ; Cureton, p. 46. ^ jbid. n ; Cureton, p. 36.
^ These are the authors of the letter against Meletius referred to
above. M<=GifFert, after remarking that Silvanus of Emesa, Peter of
Alexandria, and Lucian suffered 'in the year 312 or thereabouts',
1363 ]}
274 THE EAELIEE FORMS OF
Antliimus.^ On tlie other hand, Lucian, Silvanus of
Emesa, Peter of Alexandria and his three companions
were all 'perfected' in the later persecution of Maxi-
min.2 Of Tyrannion and Zenobius nothing is known.
Thus six (perhaps eight) of the seventeen martyrdoms
mentioned were, on our theory, added when the book
was revised. The account of them occupies about half
the paragraph.
Such additions, as we have already remarked, are no
more than might be expected in this section of the book.
But it is worth while to note the way in which Peter of
Alexandria is spoken of. Eusebius's language is not free
from ambiguity. But he seems to call him ' first of those
who were perfected at Alexandria and throughout the
whole of Egypt and the Thebaid '.^ This is not true to
fact, for Phileas and his fellow-bishops suffered before
him. But it is explained if we take the meaning to be
that he was the protomartyr of the persecution which
began in 312. That this was the case seems to be implied
by the unexpectedness of his execution.^ It is not
difficult to understand that the epithet ' first ' might be
applied to him inadvertently in this sense, if the words
relating to him are an addition ; but not so easy if the
entire sentence, containing also the names of Phileas and
the rest, was penned at the same time.
It must be admitted as a difficulty in the way of the
adds, 'We may assume it as probable that all mentioned in this
chapter suffered about the same time ' : an observation which, if it
has any definite meaning, is contradicted by his subsequent notes.
1 See above, pp. 268 ff. "^ H. E. ix. 6.
^ H. E. viii. 13. 7 rav S' eV 'AXe|avSpeta? . . . TeXeioj^eVrwi/ irparos
Uerpos . . . avayfypd(f)da) (cp. § 1). If the words are to be rendered
' Let Peter be first mentioned ' it is hard to see why the Thebaid is
referred to. No examples of martyrdom from that region are given,
nor indeed, it seems, from any part of Egypt outside Alexandria.
* H. E. ix. 6. 2.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 275
theory here proposed that it obliges us to assume that
the mention of the martyrdoms of Peter of Alexandria,
Lucian of Antioch, and Silvanus of Emesa in the seventh^
and eighth books was inserted at the very time when the
ninth book was added ; for they are all related again in
that book.2 rpj^g difficulty is perhaps sufficiently met by
observing the difference of the contexts in which they
occur in the different books. The only way of removing
it is by carrying forward the date of the composition of
the eighth book to a period subsequent to the last of these
martyrdoms. And this Schwartz does. He puts it
between January 312 and the summer of 313. If, as I
believe, Peter was put to death in November 312, he must
bring it yet further down. But this lands us in the very
much greater difficulty of supposing that Eusebius put
forth the first edition of his History when the persecution
of Maxim in was at its height. In spite of the pleading
of Schwartz ^ this seems to me impossible. But even if
the book was written after the martyrdom of Peter, we
still have his martyrdom mentioned both in the seventh
and eighth books, and that of Anthimus mentioned twice
in the eighth. Is that very much easier to believe than
that three martyrdoms were inserted in earlier books
at the same time that they were recounted in the ninth ?
6. H.E. viii. 13. 15. Mention is made of the destruction
of the public memorials of Maximian. If, as Lactantius
tells us,^ this contributed to the death of Diocletian,
which seems to have taken place not earlier than the
middle of 313,^ this note is probably later than 311. But, on
the other hand, the destruction of the memorials might be
expected immediately to follow Maximian's death, which
occurred in 310,
1 See no. 2. "^ Cp. Schwartz, p. Ivi. ' p. Ivii.
* De Mort. Pers. 42. ^ (y^^^ Theod. xiii. 10. 2. See above, p. 265.
T 2
276 THE EAELIER FORMS OF
7. H. E. viii. 14. 7-16 a. The sections relating to Maxi-
min, and a few other passing references to him in the same
chapter,^ are probably insertions. The references to the
secret alliance between Maxentius and Maximin,^ which
followed the betrothal of Licinius and Constantia (312),^
to the establishment of Maximin's heathen hierarchy,*
and to the victory of Licinius at Campus Serenus,^ must
all be dated after 311. It is true that these allusions
might be deleted without altering the general drift of the
passage. But the awkward construction of the chapter it-
self lends countenance to the hypothesis that the mention
of Maximin in this place was an afterthought. All the
preceding sections are devoted to Maxentius ; and to him
Eusebius suddenly returns at § 16 b, in a paragraph which
would have had a more appropriate place in the earlier
part of the chapter.
8. H.E.Yiii.lo. This chapter professes to give an
account in general terms of the state of affairs throughout
the Empire during the entire ' decade'^ of the persecution.
And the picture is faithful enough, though no doubt
rhetorical and exaggerated, until we reach the last sen-
tence. That sentence, however, merely from the point of
view of grammar, reads like an addition, and, unlike the
rest of the chapter, it contains a note of time which
indicates that it did not apply to the period as a whole.
It runs thus : —
' To these are added the famine and pestilence which
came after these things ; about which we shall relate what
is fitting at the proper time. '
The allusion is apparently to the calamities which over-
took Maximin in 312, recorded in H. E. ix. 8. According
to that chapter they did not extend to the whole Empire,
1 §§ 16 b, 18. 2 § 7_ 3 Lj^ct. 43 ; Zos. ii. 7.
^ § 9. 5 § 7. ^ beKairovs. Cp. 16 1.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 277
but were confined to Maximin's dominions. Tlie sentence
therefore proclaims itself to be an intruder. Probably
when the book was revised oKrairovs in the first line was
changed into SeKairov?, and the tale of misery was com-
pleted by adding the awkward reference to the newly-
written ninth book.
9. H.E. viii. 16. 1. The opening sentence of the
sixteenth chapter runs thus : —
' Such were the events which continued throughout the
entire persecution, which in the tenth year by the grace
of God was completely stayed, but after the eighth year,
however, began to decrease.' ^
Comment on the grammatical clumsiness of this is
almost needless. As originally conceived the sentence
can hardly have contained two participial clauses co-
ordinate with each other and agreeing with the same
substantive. But, apart from this, certain questions
suggest themselves. Why was the tenth year mentioned
here at all ? Why, being mentioned, was it referred to
before instead of after the eighth? And why was so
misleading a statement made as that the persecution began
to be less after the eighth jear ? For, in one sense, it had
begun to abate long before : there had been no persecution
in the West since 305. In another part of the Empire —
the European dominions of Galerius — it came absolutely
to an end, not after but in the eighth year. Under the
sway of Maximin, on the other hand, after the eighth
year, according to Eusebius himself, it attained the height
of its fury. And the sentence becomes even more sus-
picious when it is considered in connexion with the re-
mainder of the book. In it, if we except the last line,
there is no further reference to anything that happened
' ToiavT Tjv TO. 8ia irnvros Toii Siwy/^ou TrapaTfTaKora, beKtir^o y.iv eVei aw
6iov X"ptTi TTavTekSii nenavfievov, Xco^ar ye jjLrjv ^(t oydoov eVoj ivap^an^vov.
278 THE EARLIEE FOEMS OF
after April 311. It is wholly taken up with the edict of
Galerius, and we have seen that it leaves the impression
that that edict ended the persecution. It would simplify
matters if we might regard the sentence as an editorial re-
vision of one which ran somewhat as follows : ' Such were
the events which continued throughout the entire per-
secution, which in the eighth year, by the grace of God,
was completely stayed.' ^ Such a remark would impera-
tively call for revision when the ninth book was added.
10. H.E. viii. 17. 3. Here begins the text of the
edict of Galerius, in which all the authorities omit the
names and titles of the Emperor Maximin. They must
have been in the edict.^ Their omission in Eusebius's
translation might have been due to accident.^ But the
similar omission of the name and titles of Licinius in the
manuscripts M B D and 5* A does not admit of this
explanation, and must be regarded as a deliberate
excision after the fall of that Emperor, by Eusebius or the
scribe of the exemplar of this group. Hence it is probable
that the name of Maximin was deleted when Book ix was
added after his death.
11. H.E. viii. 17. 11. The remark 'It is now time to
examine what happened after these things ' must obviously
have been penned when the ninth book was added. We
may compare the very similar closing sentence of the
Theophania, Book ii.
^ Compare the last sentence of Jf. P. (Grk.) 11.
^ See above, p. 259.
^ From the Arykanda inscription compared with this edict we may
infer that the four emperors would have been named in the order
Galerius, Maximin, Constantino, Licinius. But the imperial names of
the first two were identical— Imperator Caesar Galerius Valei-ius
Maximianus (Maximinus). The dropping out of the second would be
an instance of a very common form of clerical error. It might have
occurred in the autograph of Eusebius, or in a very early copy.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 279
AVe have now considered eleven passages, as to which
there was some ground to suspect that if the History
originally ended with the eighth book they must have been
revised when the ninth book was added. In two — perhaps
three — of them the suspicion proved to be not well
founded.^ There remain eight or nine passages which we
must suppose to have been altered or inserted in the second
edition,- three of them of considerable length.=^ If it seems
difficult to believe that Eusebius revised his work in such
drastic fashion, it must be borne in mind that some of the
changes which we suppose to have been made in the text
were on our hypothesis absolutely necessary emendations,*
and others just such alterations as might have been ex-
pected if a revision was undertaken at all.^ And it must
further be remembered that six of the eight passages bear
more or less obvious marks of the reviser's hand, quite apart
from any theory as to the date of the completion of the
first eight books.^ These passages lend support to the
theory, the main arguments for which have been drawn
from considerations of a different kind.
Assuming then that the Ecclesiastical History in an early,
if not the earliest edition, ended with Book viii, we may
now consider the relation to it of the Martyrs of Palestine.
All conclusions on this question must be held with some
reserve owing to the uncertainty which still remains as to
the relation between the two recensions of the Martyrs.
Is the longer recension, represented by the Syriac version
and some fragments of its underlying Greek, an earlier
edition of which the Greek recension usually printed with
the History is an abridgement ? or is the former an ex-
' Nos. 1, 3, and perhaps no. 6.
2 Nos. 2, 4-11.
3 Nos. 4, 5, 7. * Nos. 2, 8, 9.
s Nos. 4, 5. « Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. Cp. no. 10.
280 THE EAELIEE FORMS OF
pansion of tbe latter ? Lightfoot held the former view,
and I believe rightly.^ His argument is apparently based
on the assumption that the recension which is at once
more diffuse, more didactic, and obviously intended
mainly for readers who lived in Caesarea and its neigh-
bourhood, has a prima facie claim to priority over a
recension of reduced bulk from which local allusions and
hortatory passages have been excised, and which bears
marks throughout of being designed for a larger public.
The argument is of course not conclusive. But it may be
supplemented by a more minute comparison between the
two recensions.
For example, there is a passage in which Eusebius, after
giving a short account of the death of the praeses Urban,
proceeds thus in the Greek :
' But let this be said by us by the way. But a fitting
time may come when we shall relate at leisure the ends
and the disgraceful deaths of those impious men who
specially made war against us, [both of Maximin himself
and of those associated with him].' ^
The Syriac is more diffuse in the first clause ; but in
the remainder it is practically identical with the Greek,
except that it omits the words which I have enclosed in
brackets. Now these words are so alien to the context —
which obviously refers not to the Emperor, but to Urban
and his like — that they rest under grave suspicion of
being a later addition. If, then, they are part of the
original text of the shorter recension we can scarcely avoid
the conclusion that it is later than the longer, which lacks
them. But let us make the contrary assumption. Let us
suppose that the clause about Maximin belonged to the
original text and was omitted in a later edition. It follows
^ See Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 320 f.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 8 ; Cureton, p. 26.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 281
that the projected work of Eusebius which is referred to
was at first intended to include Maximin, and that its
scope was afterwards restricted to such underlings as
Urban and Firmilian — a direction which the development
of the plan is not very likely to have taken. It will
presently appear indeed that I do not regard the words
relating to Maximin as having had a place in the text of
the shorter recension as first written. I am therefore
obliged to concede that, so far as this passage is concerned,
the longer recension of the Martyrs may have been later
than the shorter. But I believe it most improbable that
the passage as it stands in the Syriac text was written after
the shorter text had assumed its present form, or, indeed,
after the death of Maximin. No Palestinian writer would
have planned a book which should recount the deaths of
a few praesides of the province and omit that of their
master the arch persecutor, if it had already taken
place.^
The impression that the shorter recension of the Martyrs
is later in date than the longer is left by two passages of
the former which have no parallel in the latter. They
relate to the Tyrian martyr Ulpian- and the Egyptian
confessor John.^ It is obvious that these sections are
more in place in the edition of the work which was
' Schwartz (p.lxi) doubts whether Eusebius ever really intended to
write such a book, in sjoite of his express statement. But he might well
have thought of doing so, while Maximin still lived. As I understand
Schwartz, he supposes that the shorter recension, with its reference to
the death of Maximin, was written before the ninth book of the His-
tory, the longer a good many years afterwards, when the promise to
relate the death of Maximin had already been fulfilled in that book.
The clause referring to him was accordingly struck out, but the re-
mainder of the sentence sui-vives, though ' it may be doubted ' whether
Eusebius had any intention of carrying into effect the design of which
it speaks. All this seems most unlikely.
2 M. P. (Grk.) 5. 1. 3 iiji(j 13 g_3
282 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
intended for wider circulation than in that which was
addressed to Palestinian readers. But the fact that both
of them interrupt the sequence of the narrative marks
them as later additions. The narrative about Ulpian stands
between the martyrdoms of the brothers Apphianus and
Aedesius ; it is appended rather awkwardly to the former
with the connecting particle Si ; and it might be omitted
without the alteration of a single word of the preceding
or following text. Eusebius actually apologizes for its
introduction at this part of the treatise on the ground
that, like Apphianus, Ulpian was cast into the sea. The
reminiscences of John are intruded into the middle of
the story of Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, and others who
dwelt in a place by themselves and suffered martyrdom.
John does not seem to have been one of them, though he
was a companion of Silvanus. Eusebius tells how he saw
him for the first time in the midst of a large assembly
repeating the Scriptures by heart. This must have taken
place after the time of which he was writing in the
context, and probably in Egypt.
The simplest explanation of the presence of these two
sections in the shorter recension only is based on the
hypothesis that they contain information which Eusebius
had not acquired when the longer recension was written.
Schwartz holds a view of the relation between the two
recensions of the Martyrs directly opposed to that of
Light foot. But the reasons which he gives for his opinion
do not appear sufficient to establish it. He maintains
that the priority of the shorter recension is clearly proved
by a comparison of the two in a single passage. At the
end of the sentence in which it is stated that the bodies of
Pamphilus and his companions were by the providence of
God preserved from injury and were buried in a fitting
manner, the longer recension adds that they were deposited
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 283
in shrines and placed in churclies.^ On whicli Dr. Schwartz
remarks that when the first edition was written — imme-
diately (as he thinks) after the fall of Maximin — it would
have been impossible to build a mart3^rium. But nothing
is said about building a martyrium. It is only implied
that some churches in the neighbourhood of Caesarea
were still standing — which is quite credible ^ — and that
the bodies, after having been exposed for some days, were
buried in them. This might certainly have been done, if
not at once, yet within a very short time, since within
less than three weeks the last Caesarean martyr was put
to death, and there presently came a lull in the persecution
throughout the whole of Palestine, which lasted for some
months, and during which even churches were built.^
Moreover, the detail about the depositing of the bodies in
churches was just such a feature of the story as, though
of much interest for Palestinian churchmen, might well
be omitted in abridging the tract for the benefit of a
wider circle of readers.
I confess that I am at a loss to understand an argument
by which Schwartz seeks to support his inference from
the passage just considered, and to prove that the longer
recension dates from 323 at the earliest.* I conclude,
therefore, that on the whole probability is in favour of
the hypothesis that the shorter recension was abridged
from the longer.
1 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 28 ; Cureton, p. 45. For the text see above, p. 200 n.
2 See Optat. i. 14; Gesta Purg. Felicis (Gebhardt, Act. Mcu-t, Sel. 205) ;
Pass. S. TJieodoti, 15 f. ; Pass. S. Philippi ep. Heracl. 3-5 (Ruinart,
pp. 342 f., 410 f.) — all referred to in Mason, Persec. of Diocl., pp. 153,
160 f., 176, 179, 362-364.
3 M.P. (Grk.) 11.30; 13. 1.
* p. Ixi: ' ...verrat die Art wie von Licinius gesprochen wird [p. Jj ;
)JLs) '^'v Joot V .\^ • Oot = of fi"' Tcov K(itpo)v TTjv f^ovcriav etx*"] ^^^ Zeit
nach 323.' But surely it is Maximin, not Licinius, who is here spoken
of, and neither from the Syriac nor from Schwartz's restoration of the
284 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
The shorter recension was regarded by both Lightfoot
and "Westcott^ as a portion of a larger work. What
then was the work of which it is to be regarded as a
fragment? Westcott identified it with that 'in which
Eusebius included the records of ancient martyrdoms,
reaching back as far as the reign of Marcus Aurelius '.
This theory is not mentioned by Lightfoot, and in truth
it is untenable. For the references to the ' Collection of
Ancient Martyrdoms ' of Eusebius found in his Ecclesi-
astical Histoiy 2 clearly prove that it was already compiled
when the fourth and fifth books of the History were
written, that it referred exclusively to the early martyrs,
and that it was not a composition of Eusebius but a
collection of documents, some of them, at any rate, con-
temporary with the events which they described.
But Lightfoot's own account of the matter is not much
more satisfactory. The Greek recension, he says, ' was
part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the
martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors.'
And he proceeds to argue that the Appendix to the
eighth book of the History, which ' contrasts the miserable
deaths of the persecutors with the happy end of Con-
stantius the friend of the Christians, crowned by the
happy accession of his son Constantine', is another frag-
ment of the same work.
It is plain that when the earlier recension of the
Martyrs was composed Eusebius had a treatise de morti-
hus persecuto7'U77i in contemplation. And though his first
design was merely to relate the deaths of some subordi-
nate officials, the plan was afterwards enlarged so as to
Greek can it be inferred that he was not alive and in power when the
sentence was penned.
^ The Two Empires, p. 4 f. It would seem that when Westcott's Essay
on Eusebius was written the Syriac version had not been discovered,
2 iv. 15.47; v. Pref. 2; 4. 3; 21. 5.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 285
include at least the Emperor Maximin. If this design
was accomplished the Appendix to Book viii may well be
a fragment of the projected work. But if so, it is not likely
that the Greek Martyrs of Palestine also belonged to it.
For it is one thing to contrast the happy end of Emperors
who favoured the Christians with the miserable deaths of
those who persecuted them, and another to 'set off" the
sufferings of the martyrs against those of their enemies.
Moreover, the passage in which he mentions it remains,
with but slight alteration, in the shorter recension. The
language there used does not suggest that he is referring
to a second part of the work of which the Martyrs formed
the first. And indeed Lightfoot regards the Syriac
recension as a tract complete in itself. Further, I can
find nothing in the Greek Martyrs any more than in the
Syriac to suggest such a motive as Lightfoot conceived to
have been that of the entire work.
I venture to suggest another hypothesis. It is perhaps
worth considering whether the ' larger work ' may not be
the Ecclesiastical History itself.
The eighth book of the History is confessedly not an
exhaustive account of the persecution. In it Eusebius
designedly omits many facts of which he had first-hand
knowledge, and he refers his readers for them to a forth-
coming work which is certainly the Martyrs of Palestine}
The omissions in the eighth book are in fact much more
serious than this reference would lead us to expect. They
concern not only the conflicts of individual martyrs in
one district, but leading incidents of the persecution as a
whole. It is impossible, even with the eighth book in its
present form, to gather from the History anything like an
intelligible and consecutive account of the development
^ H. E. viii. 13, 7. The sentence in H. E. viii is almost quoted
in the Syriac recension, Cureton, p. 3.
286 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
of tlie persecution up to the palinode. Of incidents in
the dominions of Maximin we are given a good many,
but he is mentioned by name only in one chapter, and in
a single sentence elsewhere.^ Of his career as a per-
secutor we are told only what may be gathered from a
single sentence. And in it stress is mainly laid on his
erection of a pagan hierarchy, which belongs to the
period following the Edict of Toleration." In its earlier
form the book must have been still more unsatisfactory.
The Martyrs of Palestine is now, and always was, an
indispensable ancillary to the Ecclesiastical History.
Moreover, it was written, at least in its Greek form,
after the eighth book of the History. In proof of this
statement it is only necessary to quote a passage to which
reference has been already made : ' [the conflicts] at which
I myself was present, these I shall make known to those
that shall come after us in another book {ypa(f)i]s).' ^
But it would seem to have followed it after no great
interval. The text of the palinode with which it once
closed was introduced with words that still remain, in
part transcribed from the eighth book of the History,
which plainly imply that the edict ended the persecution
not only in Palestine but throughout the Empire. Such
a sentence could not have been written by a Christian
subject of Maximin after the year 311.^
The reasonable conclusion from these facts seems to be
that the De Martyribus was actually written as a supple-
ment to the eighth book. It was in fact part of the
History in one of its forms.
We find some corroboration of this from other con-
siderations. Lightfoot uses two arguments to prove that
the Greek recension is a fragment. The first is drawn
1 H. E. viii. 13. 15 ; 14. 7ff. ^ Ibid. 14. 9.
2 Ibid. 13. 7. * Compare also 12 ad fin.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 287
from the twelfth chapter. There Eusebius enumerates
certain things which he omits as unedifying. These
things, he remarks, he passes over ' as it was said by me
when I was beginning'. No such statement appears
elsewhere in the book. From this Lightfoot infers that
the Preface is lost. But a closely similar remark is found
in the introductory portion of the eighth Book,^ and to
it no doubt Eusebius here refers.
Lightfoot's second argument is based on the omission
of the text of the edict of Galerius at the end of the book.
That can easily be explained on our hypothesis. The
edict was already copied at the end of Book viii. It was
an obvious saving of trouble if a scribe on coming to it
a second time in the same manuscript contented himself
with inserting in place of it a cross-reference in his margin.
But the Greek recension of the Martyrs is connected
with the eighth book of the History in another way. It
differs from the Syriac for the most part by omissions.
The narratives of the martyrdoms are abbreviated, and
the hortatory introduction and conclusion are removed.
There are, however, besides the notices of Ulpian and John,
already considered, four considerable passages in the Greek
to which there is nothing corresponding in the Syriac.
The first of these is the Preface, which gives an account of
the first two edicts. This is copied from H. E. viii. 2. 4 f ,
with some alterations, most of which are purely verbal
and wholly unimportant. The more significant are made
in order to adapt the passage to the circumstances of Pales-
tine. They are the change of the date of the first edict from
March, and before Easter, to April, and at Easter .^ the
insertion of the name of Flavian, the praeses of Palestine,
and the omission of the word (Saa-iXtKo. before ypdfxfiara,
indicating, no doubt, that the document referred to was
^ H. E. viii. 2. 2 f, ^ eopTiji firiXaix^avova-rjs.
288 THE EARLIEE FOEMS OF
not the imperial edict itself, but the letter founded on
it by the praeses.
The second is a passage of some length in chapter 1,
which is a reproduction of H. E. viii 3.^ Here again
are some changes, including both omissions and inser-
tions. "Where they are not trivial they are obviously
intended to adapt the passage to its new environment.
In Book viii the occurrences are described in general
terms as an illustration of the results of the second edict.
In the Martyrs the scene is laid at Caesarea, and most of
the other larger changes seem to result from this one.^
The third is chapter 12, concerning certain things
which Eusebius omits from his narrative. It is an expan-
sion of H. E. viii. 2. 1-3, without much verbal resemblance,
and, as we have seen, reference seems to be made in it to
that passage.
The last is the closing paragraph of the book.' It
takes a rapid survey of the course of the persecution
outside Palestine, and originally ended with the text of the
palinode, which has disappeared from this place. The
palinode still remains at the end of Book viii, and the
sentence which here leads up to it is copied from H. E.
viii. 16. 1.^ The preceding sentences, with additional
matter, contain reminiscences of H. E. viii. 6. 10 ; 13. 10 £
^ M. P. (Grk.) 1. 3-5 a.
^ In one case a change seems to have been the result of careless
copying. In H. E. viii. 3. 2 f. we have «XXos T]fii6vr)s alpofievos o)? au
fjdrj veKpos eppLTtrero, [/cat tis nS ttoXlv eV eBdipovs Keipevos paKpav ecrvpfTO
Toiv noboiv,^ eV reOvKocriv avrols "KeXoyiirpevos. In M. P. (Grk.) 1. 4. the
words Km dviero ye tu>v deapav are quite suitably added after eppinreTo,
but the bracketed words are omitted. Thus two persons became one,
and the sentence not very intelligible.
» M. P. (Grk.) 13. 11-14
* The intervening portion of Book viii — the remainder of chapter 16
and the first section of chapter 17 — is omitted. It is chiefly concenied
with the illness and death of Galerius. These would naturally be passed
over, as irrelevant to the subject of the De Mariyribus.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 289
Thus four passages were introduced into the Martyrs of
Palestine when that work was recast : two of them wholly,
and one partly, transcribed from the eighth book, while
the other is expanded from, and refers to, a passage in it.
It is interesting to compare with this the way in which
Eusebius sometimes connects a book of his History with
the one that immediately precedes it. Thus the last
sentence of Book ii is repeated as the first of Book iii.
In like manner the last sentence of Book iv is identical
with the earlier part of the first sentence of Book v. The
sixth book closes and the seventh opens with a reference
to the epistles which Dionysius of Alexandria ' has left ' ;
and the Preface of Book viii is an abridgement of the last
paragraph of Book vii.^ So in the Martyrs of Palestine,
which covers exactly the same period as the eighth Book
of the History, Eusebius, as though desiring to connect it
with that book, commences by extracting from it, with
suitable modification, the first sentence of its direct
narrative, and ends with a passage consisting of two
extracts from its final chapters.
Finally the manuscripts give some support to the theory
that the shorter recension of the De Martyrihus was
intended by its author to serve as a supplement to the
eighth book of the History, and to follow it. The text is
preserved in four primary manuscripts only, those which
Schwartz designates as A T E R. In all of them it has
a heading to the effect that it was found in a certain copy
(R has ' certain copies ') in the eighth book. This state-
ment must therefore have come from the common ancestor
of A T E R. We may infer that the De Martyribus was
not in the codex from which the greater part of the text
of the History in that ancient copy was taken, and that
^ Other examples are given by S. Lee in his English translation of
the Theophania, p. vi. See also above, p. 257.
1363 y
290 THE EARLIER FORMS OF
in the only manuscript of it "which, the scribe knew it
followed the eighth book of the History. That was a
position in which it was most unlikely to be placed by
later scribes or editors. In fact it was felt to be so
unsuitable that, in spite of its heading, the tract has been
removed to the end of the tenth book in T E. How, then,
did it originally find its way to the close of Book viii ?
Not the only possible, but certainly the most obvious,
answer to that question is that it was put there by
Eusebius himself before the ninth book was added.
It remains to be said that on the theory which is here
maintained one clause which is attested by all the manu-
scripts cannot belong to the original text. It is that
already referred to in which Eusebius announces his
intention of describing in the future the deaths of the
persecutors, ' both of Maximin himself and of those who
acted with him.' ^ The last words must have been inserted
after Maximin's death, and probably when the ninth book
was added.
To sum up. I conceive that the history of the com-
position of the Ecclesiastical History was this. Eusebius
had probably nearly completed the seven books of the
History which brought the narrative down to bis own time,
when suddenly the Edict of Toleration was issued by
Gralerius and his colleagues. This event, which appeared
to have ushered in a period of peace to the Church, after
the most cruel of the persecutions, was seized upon by him
as the natural terminus of his story. He therefore wrote
a sketch of the history of the persecution as the eighth
and last book of his great work, and published the whole.
Immediately after, or perhaps before this, he wrote the
longer edition of his Martyrs of Palestine. Somewhat
later he abridged this work and added a few paragraphs
1 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 8.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 291
to it that it might serve as a supplement to the somewhat
meagre record of his eighth book. No doubt it was
inserted at the end of the History in the copies subse-
quently made. All these works were completed between
May and November 311. The eighth book of the History ^
with the addition of the Martyrs, we may count as a second
edition.
But the dream that a permanent peace had been
inaugurated for the Church was rudely dispelled, as far
as the East was concerned, by the resumption of the
persecution by Maximin in the last months of the same
year. Once again the final peace seemed to have begun
with the edict of Constantine and Licinius at Milan. No
sooner had it been proclaimed at Nicomedia than Eusebius
began his preparations for a third edition of the History.
He revised Book viii, and to a small extent also Book vii
and the Martyrs, and wrote Book ix, bringing it to an end
with the text of the letter of Licinius of June 13, 313. It
may be dated about the end of 313.
Some eleven years later, after a temporary interruption
of the peace by Licinius, a fourth edition was issued. The
text of the ninth book was slightly altered and the tenth
was added, the whole work in its present form being
finished in 324, or early in 325. "Whether the De
Martyribus was included in this final edition I do not
venture an opinion.
u 3
INDEX OF PASSAGES OF EARLY WRITERS
QUOTED OR REFERRED TO
Holy Scbiptures.
Genesis ii. 21 : 118.
Isaiah xxxiii. 15, 16: 8.
Matthew xiii. 16 : 90.
xxiii. 34 : 131.
xxviii. 19 : 33.
1 Corinthians ii. 9 : 90.
Hebrews v. 7 : 15.
Acta Anthimi : 270.
Acta lustini '. 168.
Acta Phileae et Philoromi : 272.
Africanus, ap. Eus. H. E. i. 7. 12 :
16.
Anonymus, Adversus Montanistas,
ap. Eus. jy. ^. V. 16. 3 : 118.
V. 16. 7, 8: 119.
V. 16. 7: 117.
V. 16. 9: 117,119.
V. 16. 12: 131.
V. 16. 14: 113,124.
V. 16. 19, 20, 21 : 132.
V. 17. 2: 119.
V. 17. 3, 4: 118.
V. 17. 4: 16.
Apollonius, Adversus Montanistas,
ap. Eus. H. E. V. 18. 2 : 120,
124, 127.
V. 18. 3: 113,128.
V. 18. 4: 113,124.
V. 18. 5 : 113, 124, 133.
V. 18. 6-9 : 123.
V. 18. 6: 113.
V. 18. 7 : 113, 124.
V. 18. 10: 113.
V. 18. 11: 124.
V. 18. 12: 122.
V. 18. 13 : 120.
Anthimus, Epistola, ap. Chron.
Pasch. : 270.
Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus,
39. 48 : 204.
Cedrenus, Compendium, p. 257 f. :
175.
Chronicon Paschale : 73.
Cicero, Epistola ad Atticam, viii.
14. 1, 2 : 235.
Clemens Alexandrinus, Hypo-
typoses, ap. Eus. H. E. ii. 1. 2,
3: 17.
Stromata, i. 11 (ap. H.E. v. 11,
3-5): 20.
Clemens Romanus, Epistola, 54 :
9f.
Codex lustinianeus, 3. 28. 26 :
201.
11. 58. 1 : 219.
Codex Theodosianus, 13. 10. 2 :
275.
Constantinus, Oratio, 25 : 204,
253.
Cyprianus, Epistolae, 55. 6 : 175.
71: 176.
Didymus Alexandrinus, De Trini-
tate, iii.^l: 110.
Dionysius Alexandrinus, Epistolae,
ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 28. 4, 5 :
20.
vi. 40: 169.
vii. 5. 6 : 160.
vii. 11. 2: 164.
vii. 11.8: 174.
vii. 11. 18, 19 : 164 f.
vii. 11. 18: 174.
vii. 11. 20-5: 164,169.
vii. 11. 23: 173.
vii. 11. 24: 170.
vii. 21. 3 : 172.
vii. 21.4, 6: 171.
vii. 22. 4-6 : 173.
vii. 23. 1-3: 170.
vii. 23. 4 : 163.
vii. 25. 1-5 : 20.
INDEX OF PASSAGE^
293
Dionysius Corinth iorum Epi-
scopus, Epistolae, ap. Eus.
^. £■. iv. 23. 3, 9 : 177.
iv. 23. 12 : 244.
Epiphanius. De Mensuris et Pon-
derihus, 15. 1-5 : 28-34, 101 f.
Epiphanius, Panarion, xxiv. 1 :
73.
xxvii. 5, 6: 73-5, 76, 77-84,
106 f.
xxvii. 6 : 9, 73, 76, 105, 106 f.
xxix. 4: 10, 14, 15,82,98,99.
xxix. 7 : 28-34, 73, 101 f.
XXX. 2 : 28-34, 73, 101 f.
xlviii. 2 : 127.
xlviii. 3, 4: 118.
xlviii. 4: 119.
xlviii. 8, 9 : 127.
xlviii. 8 : 129.
xlviii. 11: 111,127.
xlviii. 14 : 120.
xlix: 113.
xlix. 1 : 120, 122.
xlix. 2, 3 : 120.
Ixviii. 1 : 273.
Ixxviii. 7 : 5 f., 11 f., 14, 16,
35, 82, 98, 102.
Ixxviii. 8 : 12, 98.
Ixxviii. 13: 13,98,99.
Ixxviii. 14: 6, 7, 13, 15, 99,
100 f.
Epiphanius Monachus, De Vita
B. Mariae, 14 : 44 f.
Eusebius, Chronica : 24, 43, 151,
160, 170, 177, 181, 186, 187,
237, 244.
Eusebius, De Mai-tyribus Palest i-
««e,Pref.: 180,181,186,188,
228
Cureton p. 3 : 57, 285.
1. 1, Cureton p. 4 : 192, 200.
1.2, Cureton p. 4: 192.
1. 3-5a, Cureton p. 4: 200,
288.
1.3: 186.
1.4: 288.
1. 5, Cureton p. 6 : 189, 192.
2. 1, Cureton p. 6 : 189, 192.
2. 4, Cureton p. 8 : 192.
3. 1, Cureton p. 8 : 196, 202.
3. 3, 4, Cureton p. 10 : 195.
Cureton p. 12 : 187.
3. 4, Cureton p. 12 : 202.
Eusebius, De Marlyrihus Pal est i-
nae, 3. 5-4. 15, Cureton p. 12 :
185.
4. 8, Cureton p. 13 : 205, 210.
4. 15 : 190.
5, Cureton p. 17 : 186.
5. 1 : 281 f.
Cureton p. 17 : 190.
Cureton p. 19 : 206.
6, Cureton p. 19 : 196, 206.
6. 1, Cureton p. 19: 191.
6. 5 : 57.
7. 1, Cureton p. 22: 193,
196.
7. 3, 4, Cureton p. 24 : 189.
7. 3, Cureton p. 24 : 196, 273.
7. 4-7, Cureton p. 24 : 196.
7. 5, 6, Cureton p. 25 : 199.
7. 6, Cureton p. 25 : 195.
7. 8, Cureton p. 26 : 280, 290.
8. 1, Cureton p. 26 : 183, 196.
8. 4-13, Cureton p. 26 : 206.
8. 10, 11, Cureton p. 30: 57.
8. 12, Cureton p. 31 : 184.
9. 1, Cureton p. 31: 207.
9. 2, Cureton p. 31 : 208, 230.
9. 5, Cureton p. 32 : 207.
Cureton p. 34 f. : 183.
10. 1, Cureton p. 34: 184.
10. 2, Cureton p. 35 : 189.
11, Cureton p. 36: 194,273.
11. 1, Cureton p. 38: 57.
11. 5, Cureton p. 40: 195,196,
199, 210.
11.24, Cureton p. 44: 57.
11. 28, Cureton, p. 45: 200,
283
11. 30, Cureton, p. 45: 209,
283.
11. 31 : 278.
12: 286 f., 288.
13. 1-3, Cureton p. 46 : 183.
13. 1 : 183, 195, 210, 283.
13. 3, Cureton p. 46 : 273.
13. 4, 5, Cureton p. 47: 273.
Cureton p. 48 : 283.
13. 5, Cureton p. 48 : 209.
13.6-8: 281 f.
13. 8 : 198.
13. 11-14 : 288.
13.12: 197.
13-14: 265.
Eusebius, Demonstratio Evan-
gelica, iii. 5 : 7, 92.
294
INDEX OF PASSAGES
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
i. 1. 1, 2 : 258.
i. 1. 1: 81.
i. 1. 3 : 4.
i. 9. 1, 2 : 198.
i. 9. 1 : 17.
i. 9. 2, 3 : 267.
i. 12. 1,3: 36.
i. 13. 11 : 152.
ii. 1. 13: 22.
ii. 2. 2 : 36.
ii. 16. 1 : 86.
ii. 17. 1 : 36.
ii. 18 : 138-145.
ii. 22. 2 : 22.
ii. 23. 1 : 17.
ii. 23. 2 : 24.
ii. 23. 3: 2,11.
ii. 23. 4-18: 4-17,27,96.
ii. 23. 4-7 : 7 f.
ii. 23. 4, 5 : 98.
ii. 23. 4: 15,17.
ii. 23. 5: 10,12.
ii. 23. 6 : 99.
li. 23. 7-18 : 100 f.
ii. 23. 7 : 6.
ii. 23. 8 : 10, 58, 91.
ii. 23. 9: 25.
ii. 23. 10, 11,16: 57.
ii. 23. 18 : 24, 32.
ii. 26. 2 : 289.
iii. 1. 1 : 289.
iii. 5-10 : 27, 50.
iii. 5. 2, 3 : 29-34, 101 f.
iii. 11-20: 50 fF.
iii. 11, 12 : 21, 23.
iii. 11: 11,24-6, 27, 32, 35f.,
57, 80, 93, 102.
iii. 12 : 26, 52, 59-62, 103.
iii. 13, 15 : 82.
iii. 16 : 65, 105.
iii. 17-20: 41-9,50-3.
iii. 17: 52,61,103.
iii. 18. 1 : 80, 95, 104.
iii. 18. 2-4 : 43 f.
iii. 19: 24,44,58,104.
iii. 20: 11,54.
iii. 20. 1, 2 : 96, 104.
iii. 20. 1 : 44, 80, 104.
iii. 20. 3-5 : 104 f.
iii. 20. 6 : 105.
iii. 20. 9 : 95, 104.
iii. 23. 3: 10,11.
iii. 23. 8 : 10.
76.
8. 1 : 2, 62.
2, 3, 10, 68, 90, 98.
147.
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
iii. 24. 2 : 148.
iii. 24. 5, 7, 11 : 22, 36.
iii. 32. 1, 2 : 24, 52.
iii. 32. 1 : 22, 33.
iii. 32. 2 : 40, 57, 58, 103, 105.
iii. 32. 3, 4 : 56.
iii. 32. 3 : 40, 59, 103.
iii. 32. 4 : 54, 105.
iii. 32. 6: 54,55,59,96,105.
iii. 32. 7, 8 : 37-9.
iii. 32. 7 : 86, 102.
iii. 36. 3 : 22.
iii. 37. 1 : 22.
iii. 38. 1 : 148.
iv. 5 : 64, 92 f.
iv. 5. 1, 2 : 22.
iv. 6. 3, 4 : 64.
iv. 7f.: 76.
iv. 7.9:
iv. 7. 15 ;
iv. 8. 2 :
iv. 8. 5 :
iv. 10: 169.
iv. 11-13, 16-18: 145-7.
iv. 11. 7-9: 145.
iv. 11. 7: 68, 71, 72, 75, 89,
106.
iv. 11. 11: 73.
iv. 12: 169.
iv. 13. 6: 169.
iv. 14. 10: 17,137.
iv. 15: 55, 136 f.
iv. 15. 11, 12: 57.
iv. 15. 46-8: 137.
iv. 15. 47 : 137, 284.
iv. 16 : 22.
iv. 16. 2 : 147.
iv. 17. 1 : 147.
iv. 22. 1 : 3, 10, 66, 105, 106,
107.
iv. 22. 2, 3 : 96.
iv. 22. 2: 66,72,105,106.
iv. 22.3: 66, 70, 75, 76, 106,
107.
iv. 22. 4-6 : 39, 96, 103.
iv. 22. 4, 5 : 77.
iv. 22. 4: 11,18-20,25,27,57,
61, 102.
iv. 22. 5, 6 : 38.
iv. 22. 5 : 58, 62, 76.
iv. 22. 7: 58.91,98.
iv. 22. 8 : 8, 35, 96.
iv. 23 : 147 f.
INDEX OF PASSAGES
295
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
iv. 26 : 148 f.
iv. 26. 2: 176.
iv. 27 : 149-151.
iv. 28 : 22.
iv. 30. 3 : 289.
V. Pref. 1 : 289.
V. Pref. 2 : 284.
V. 3. 4: 182,151.
V. 4, 5 : 95.
V. 4. 3: 284.
V. 5. 1, 2 : 22.
V. 5. 4: 151.
V. 5. 9 : 86.
V. 10. 1 : 22.
V. 12 : 64.
V. 12. 2 : 87, 92.
V. 19. 1 : 22.
V. 20: 177.
V. 22 : 198.
V. 28. 8-12 : 125.
vi. 2. 1 : 36.
vi. 4. 3: 22.
vi. 19. 16 : 73.
vi. 20. 1 : 136.
vi. 22 : 151 f.
vi. 26 : 198.
vi. 32. 3: 136.
vi. 33. 4 : 36.
vi. 36. 3 : 136.
vi. 43 : 152 f.
vi. 43. 2, 3 : 175.
vi. 44-6 : 154-8.
vi. 46. 5 : 289.
vii. Pref. : 289.
vii. 1 : 163.
vii. 2-9 : 159 f.
vii. 2 : 160.
vii 5. 3 : 160.
vii. 9. 6 : 176.
vii. 10, 11 : 163, 165.
vii. 12 : 36.
vii. 17 : 36.
vii. 19 : 17.
vii. 20-23 : 160-5.
vii. 26 : 165 f.
vii. 32. 28 : 198.
vii. 32. 31 : 267.
vii. 32. 32 : 259, 261, 289.
viii. Pref. : 259, 261, 289.
viii. 2. 1-3: 288.
viii. 2. 2, 3 : 287.
viii. 2. 4, 5 : 287.
viii. 2, 4: 181,188.
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
viii. 3 : 288.
viii. 3. 2, 3 : 288.
viii. 4. 2 : 253.
viii. 6. 6 : 268-70.
viii. 6. 7 : 230.
viii. 6. 10 : 200, 288.
viii. 9. 1-5 : 270-3.
viii. 9. 4: 271.
viii. 7. 1-13. 7 : 270.
viii. 13. 1-7 : 273 f.
viii. 13. 1, 2 : 269.
viii. 13. 1 : 239, 274.
viii. 13. 2 : 218.
viii. 13. 5 : 183.
viii. 13. 7, 8 : 262 f.
viii. 13. 7 : 274, 285, 286.
viii. 13. 8 : 259.
viii. 13. 10, 11 : 197, 288.
viii. 13. 10 : 187.
viii. 13. 11: 204.
viii. 13. 15 : 275, 286.
viii. 14. 7-16 a: 276,286.
viii. 14. 9 : 206, 209, 286.
viii. 14. 16 b, 18: 276.
viii. 15 : 276.
viii. 16. 1 : 259, 264, 276, 288.
viii. 16. 2-17. 1 : 288.
viii. 16. 2 : 264.
viii. 16. 2, 3 : 253.
viii. 16. 7 : 254.
viii. 17 : 209.
viii. 17. 3 : 278.
viii. 17. 5 : 246.
viii. 17. 11: 266,278.
viii. App. : 253, 265 f., 284 f.
viii. App. 2 : 187.
ix. 1 : 260.
ix. 1. 1 : 213, 214.
ix. 1. 3-6 : 214, 254.
ix. 1. 5 : 232.
ix. 1. 7-11 : 187, 214.
ix. 1. 7 : 233.
ix. 2-4 : 206, 216.
ix. 2 : 217, 229, 230, 231.
ix. 2. 1 : 187, 214.
ix. 3 : 229, 231.
ix. 4 : 230.
ix. 4. 1 : 229.
ix. 4. 2 : 209, 216, 223.
ix. 4. 3: 231.
ix. 5 : 230, 231.
ix. 5. 1 : 267.
ix. 6: 231,269,274.
296
INDEX OF PASSAGES
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
ix. 6. 2 : 267, 274.
ix. 6. 3: 218,239.
ix. 6. 4: 264.
ix. 7. 1: 223,231.
ix. 7. 2 : 223.
ix. 7. 4: 231.
ix. 7. 7 : 209, 231.
ix. 7. 10 : 223.
ix. 7. 12 : 209, 229, 231.
ix. 7. 13, 14 : 223, 231.
ix. 7. 15: 231.
ix. 7. 16 : 223, 224, 228.
ix. 8 : 224, 276.
ix. 8. 1 : 224.
ix. 9. 1 : 245, 246, 256.
ix. 9. 12, 13 : 218.
ix. 9. 12: 245,247,252,256.
ix. 9. 14-22 : 232-4.
ix. 9. 15-17 : 187.
ix. 9. 17: 217,229.
ix. 9. 19 : 231.
ix. 9. 23, 24: 233.
ix. 9. 25 : 247.
ix. 10 : 189.
ix. 10. 3 : 247, 256.
ix. 10. 7 : 224.
ix. 10. 8, 9 : 227.
ix. 10. 8 : 198.
ix. 10. 12 : 197, 223, 228.
ix. 10. 13: 226.
ix. 10. 14, 15 : 253.
ix. 10. 14 : 225.
ix. 11.4: 272.
ix. 11. 8: 250 f., 253, 257.
X. 1. 1 : 250, 253, 257.
X. 1. 2 : 243, 261.
X. 1. 3: 262.
X. 2. 2 : 245, 249, 251.
X.4. 16, 60: 245,255.
X. 5-7 : 248 f., 251.
X. 5. 4 : 218.
X. 5. 14: 251.
X. 8. 1 : 254.
X. 8. 3, 5-18 : 255.
X. 9. 9: 253.
X. 16, 17: 249.
EusebiuB, Theophania,\\. 97: 278.
V. 45 : 92.
Eusebius, Vita Constantini, i. 18 :
204.
i. 23 : 253.
Eutropius, Bt-eviarium Historiae
Romanae, ix. 27 : 204.
Firmilianus, Epistola, ap. Cvpr.
Ep. lb. 10: 113,119.
Gesta Purgationis Felicis i 283.
Hegesippus, Hypomnemata : 98-
107.
See also the references there
given to Epiphanius, Eusebius,
Irenaeus and Photius.
Hieronymus, De Viris lllustrihus,
22: 1.
40 : 126.
66 : 152-4.
69: 156,157,158.
80 : 237.
Hippolytus, Refutationes, v, 24,
27: 90.
viii. 19: 112.
Irenaeus, Ad Flonniim, ap. H. E.
V. 20. 5 : 95.
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 25.
6 : 75, 86, 106 f.
i. 27. 1 (ap. H. E. iv. 11. 2) :
85, 87.
ii. 22. 5 (ap. H, E. iii. 23. 3) :
64.
iii. 1. 1 (ap. H. E. v. 8. 2) : 22.
iii. 3. 3 (ap. H. E. v. 6) : 15, 81.
iii. 3. 4 (ap. H. E. iv. 14. 3-8) :
86, 137.
iii. 4. 3 (ap. H. E. iv. 11. 2):
85, 86.
iii. 12. 8 : 22.
Irenaeus, De Ogdoade, ap. H. E.
V. 20. 2 : 147, 177, 244.
Josephus, Antiquitafes, xviii. 2. 2 ;
4. 2 : 198.
XX. 9. 1 (ap.lT. E. ii. 23. 21-4) :
24.
Josephus, De Bello ludaico, ii. 15.
2 : 24.
Julius Caesar, De Bello Civili, iii.
76 : 235.
Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, v.
47. 1 : 235.
vii. 10, 11 : 236.
vii. 40, 41 : 235.
Justinus, Dialogus, 80 : 121.
Lactantius, De Mortihus Persecu-
tonim, x-xx : 239.
X : 253.
INDEX OF PASSAGES
297
Lactantius, De Mortihus Persecu-
torum, xi. 8 : 203.
xii-xiv : 185.
xii, xiii ; 181.
xii: 188.
XV : 269.
xvii : 185, 192, 201.
xvii. 1, 2 : 240.
xviii. 1-7: 204.
xviii. 8-15 : 205, 240.
xviii. 15 : 204.
xix : 185.
xix. 3 : 204.
XX. 1 : 240.
XX. 4 : 203.
xxi-xxiii : 240.
xxiv : 238.
xxvi-xxx : 240.
xxxiii-xxxv : 241.
XXXV : 209.
XXXV. 1 : 213.
XXXV. 3 : 215.
XXXV. 4: 221,238.
xxxvi: 215.
xxxvi. 1 : 216, 221.
xxxvi. 3-7: 231.
xxxvi. 3: 216,231,259.
xxxvi. 4: 209,231.
xxxvi. 6, 7 : 214, 239.
xxxvi. 6 : 187.
xxxvii. 1 : 239.
xlii: 275,
xliii, xliv : 240.
xliii : 276.
xliii. 1 : 265.
xliv. 4: 218.
xlv-xlvii : 241.
■ xlv. 1 : 218, 241.
xlv. 2 : 219, 220.
xlv. 5, 6 : 219.
xlv. 5 : 222.
xlv. 6: 212.
xlvi. 8, 9 : 219.
xlvii-xlix : 224.
xlvii. 6 : 225.
xlviii : 256.
xlviii. 1 : 238.
xlviii. 2 : 218.
xlviii. 13: 238.
Lucianus, Apologia, ap. Rufin. H.
E. ix. 6 : 218.
Optatus, De Schismate Donati-
stafum, i. 14 : 283.
Origenes, ap. Eus. //. E. vi. 25. 4:
22.
Panegynci Veteres, vi. 9 : 203,
204.
vii. 15 : 203.
X. 33: 218.
Papias, Expositiones, ap. Eus. H.
E. iii. 39. 16 : 22.
Passio Achatii : 133 f.
Passio S. Philippi Episcopi Hera-
cleae, 3-5 : 283.
Passio S. Polycarpi, 6, 7 : 57.
Passio S. Theodoti, 15, 16 : 283.
Photiua, Bibliotheca, 48 : 144,
121 : 152.
232 : 3, 90, 107.
Pseudo-Clemens, Eecognitiones, i.
43: 18.
Pseudo-Tertullianus, Adversus
Haereticos, 7 : 112.
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ii.
23. 3 : 2.
ii. 23. 8: 91.
iii. 16 : 52 f.
Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv.
28: 126.
Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica,
ii. 32 : 134.
vii. 19 : 130.
Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem,
iii. 24: 120.
Adversus Praxean, 1 : 133.
2,8,13: 111.
30: 112.
Apologeticus, 5 : 4.
DeAnima,'d: 114,115,118.
11,21,45: 118.
55: 114,130.
De Corona Militis, 1 : 130.
De Exhortatione Castitatis, 10 :
128.
De Fuga in Persecutione, 9,11:
130.
De Idololatria, lb : 114.
De leiuniis, 1 : 112.
2 : 129.
3,12: 118.
13: 129.
De Monogamia, 2 : 112.
3 : 118, 127.
298
INDEX OF PASSAGES
Tertullianus, De Pudicitia, 19, 21,
22 : 123.
De Resun-ectione Carnis, 63 :
111.
De Spectaciilis, 26 : 114.
De Virginihus Velandis, 1 : 118.
9: 120.
17: 114.
Vegetius, Bei Militaris Instituta, i.
9 : 235.
Zonaras, Annales, xii. 21 : 175.
xii. 33 : 266.
Zosimus, Historia, ii. 7 : 202, 276.
GENERAL INDEX
Abdication of Emperors, 185 f.,
195, 197, 239 f.
date of, 185-8.
Achatius, bishop, 133.
Aedesius, martyr, 282.
Aegaeae, 213.
Aemilianus, 174.
Agabus, 118.
Agapius, martyr, 191, 196, 206.
Agathonice, Acts of, 136 f., 167.
Agedincum, 236.
Ainsworth, W., 220.
Albinus, 24.
Alexander, Montanist, 122 f.
Alexander, Bishop of Jemsalem,
library of, 136.
Alexander Severus, 152, 198.
Alexandria, martyrdoms at, 271 f.
pestilence at, 164, 171-4.
sedition at, 171 f.
Alphaeus, martyr, 189, 192.
Amniia of Philadelphia, 118.
Ammonius, martyr, 273.
Anencletus, Bishop of Rome, 9,
77, 79, 82 f.
Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, 66, 68,
72, 74f., 78-80, 83, 145.
heresy at Rome under, 80, 85 f.
Anonymous writer against Mon-
tanism, date and place of,
117 f.
his statements about martyrs,
131-3.
Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia,
239, 268-70, 273-5.
Antinous, 3, 90 f.
Antioch, 215, 219, 221, 271.
Church of, 270.
distance of, from Chalcedon,
216.
Milan, 219.
Nicomedia, 212 f.
memorial from citizens of,
216 f., 222, 231.
routes to, from Tyana, &c.,
212.
Antio.ch, Synod at, 157.
Antonine Itinerary: see Itine-
rary.
Antoninus Pius, 137, 145 f.
only one martyrdom under,
168 f.
Apocalypse, authorship and date
of, 43, 51, 95 f.
Apollinarius, writings of, 149-151.
Apollonius, Bishop of Ephesus,
113, 122 f., 126-8,133.
date of, 122 f.
Apostles, 26, 28, 33 f ._, 38 f.
Apphianus (Epiphanius), martyr,
185-7, 190, 205 f , 282.
Arabia, 271.
Ardabau, 109, 119.
Ares, martyr, 183 f.
Aristides and Quadratus, Apolo-
gies of, resemblance of titles
of, 178.
volume containing, 178.
Aristo of Pella, 64.
Aristotle, 75.
Armenians, 157.
Arykanda, inscription at, 223,
229, 239, 259, 278.
Asclepiodotus, 125.
Ashkelon, 183.
Asia, Diocese of, 213, 215, 225.
Asia Minor, roads in, 212.
Asparagium, 235.
Assemani, S. E., 185. 189 f.
Asterius Urbanus, 111.
Astyrius, 36.
Aube, B., 133.
Aurelius Victor, 204 f.
Avircius Marcellus, 117.
dpx^, 76 f.
Bardy, G., 110.
Basilides, 2.
Basilidians, 62.
Benson, E. W., 153 f., 158, 175.
Bernard, J. H., 95 f.
Bithynia, 216.
300
GENERAL INDEX
Blastus, waslie contemporary with
Florinus? 177.
Bonwetsch, N., 113, 123, 125-7,
129, 133.
Brandt, S., 237.
Bright, W., 171, 226.
Browne, H., 190 f., 193.
Brundisium, 235, 241.
Bruttius or Brettius, 43, 53.
Burkitt, F. C, 90.
Bury, J. B., 215, 237.
Butcher, S., 188.
Byzantium, 219, 222, 241.
^i^Xiov, 147, 177, 261.
Caesarea, 180, 183, 185-8, 193,
196, 200, 203, 206, 210, 288.
First edict published at, 186,
199, 228, 287.
last martyr at, 209.
library at, 136, 144.
Campus Serenus, Battle of, 219,
224-6, 241 f., 276.
Cappadocia, 224 f.
Montanism in, 113.
Carleton,J.G., 188.
Carpocrates, 74, 79, 84, 86.
the father of the Gnostics, 2,
76 f.
Carpocratians, 62, 74 f., 78 f,, 85.
called Gnostics, 75-7.
Carpus, Acts of, 136 f., 167.
Carthage, pestilence at, 175.
Cataeschinites, 112.
Cataproclans, 112.
Catholic Epistles, 113, 147.
Cemeteries, assemblies in, 217,
230.
Cenabum, 236.
Cerdon, 85.
Chalcedon, 213, 215, 221 f.
Chiliasm : see Millenarianism.
Christians, persecution of under
Domitian, 52, 54, 61.
Chronological errors of Eusebius,
166-77.
Chrysophora, 147 f.
Chrysostom, St., 49.
Churches standing at Caesarea in
310, 200, 283.
Cilicia, Gates of, 212 f., 220, 225 f.
Cities, memorials from : see Maxi-
min Daza.
City let down from heaven, 120 f.
Clement, Bishop of Alexandria,
lOf., 17, 95.
Clement, Bishop of Rome, 9, 77,
79 83
Epistle of, 9 f., 50, 65, 67, 69, 73,
82 f,
Cletus : see Anencletus.
Clopas, 25, 34-7, 39.
Colon or Conon, Bishop of
Hermopolis, 156.
Commodus, 198.
Commune Asiae, letter to the, 145,
168.
' Complete years ' : see o\a err].
Constantia, 218, 276.
Constantino, 205, 215,251 f., 254 f.
at Rome, 218 f.
flight of, from Nicomedia, 238,
240.
patron of Lactantius, 238, 241.
reverse of, near Rome, 240.
victoiy of, over Maxentius, 218,
240 f., 252.
Corfinium, 235, 241.
Corinth, beginning of monarchi-
cal episcopacy at, 69.
Church of, commended for
orthodoxy, 66 f., 87 f.
notice of, by Hegesippus,
parallel to that of Church
of Jerusalem, 69 f.
disturbance at, 50, 65, 67, 69,
Hegesippus at, 64 f.
origin of heresy in, 70.
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, 152-4,
157, 175.
Cramer, J. A., 41 ff., 103 f.
Crispus Caesar, 237.
Culcianus, 272 f.
Cureton, W., 179.
Cyprian, 152-4.
David, descendants of, 50, 52, 54,
56, 59-61.
De Boor, C, 41 f., 48 f., 103 f.
Decapolis, 29.
Decius, 133, 161, 167,169, 174.
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria,
198.
De Soyres, J., 110, 113, 115.
Desposyni, 11, 26, 33 f., 56, 59-61,
63 f., 70.
Didymus : see Domitius.
Didymus of Alexandria, 110.
GENEKAL INDEX
301
Dindorf, 28.
Diocletian, 218.
abdication of, 185-8, 195, 203-6,
240.
at Rome, 201, 240.
death of, 253, 265, 275.
dominions of, 201.
illness of, 201-8.
persecution of, 197-210.
date of commencement of,
181, 199.
end of in Palestine, 209.
First edict in, 181, 199, 228,
268, 287,
Second edict in, 200, 268,
287.
' Third edict ' in, 200.
Fourth edict in, 202, 205,
240, 271.
Fifth edict in, 208 f.
intermittent, 199-210.
remission of, in 309, 206-9.
rigour of, depended on local
authorities, 200.
rescript of, in August 304, 201.
vicennalia of, 192, 201.
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria,
letter of, against Germanus,
164 f., 169, 174.
letter of, concerning Lucian,
159, 176.
letter of, on discipline, 161 f.,
173.
letter of, on martyrdom, 155,
157 f.
letter of, on the Sabbath, 161 f.
letters of, Festal, 160-5, 169-74.
letters of, on Baptism, 159 f.
letters of, on Sabellianism,
165 f,
letters of, on the Schism of
Novatian, 154-8.
Paschal Canon of, 161, 164.
treatise of, On Promises, 166.
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, date
of, 177.
letters of, 147 f., 177 f., 244.
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, 159 f.,
166, 176.
Disciples of the Lord, 26, 28, 33 f.
Dittrich, 163.
Dius, martyr, 273.
Dodwell, H., 191.
Domitian, 37, 50-4, 56, 61, 95 f.
Domitius and Didymus, 161-4,
169-72, 174.
Domninus, maityr, 189.
Druzipara, 241.
Duruy, V., 203.
Dyrrhachium, 235.
8T]X(iid(l(Tai , 163.
BiaSe^erai, SieSe^aro, 1-5 f.
SiaSo^Tj, 22, 66, 70-3, 86-8.
StaKOVlKT], 157 f.
fiia ToiiTO, 19, 37.
Biarpi^fjv €Troir]crdix']if, 70—2, 87.
East, Diocese of the, 224,
Ebionites, 28.
Ecstasy, 109, 117-19.
Egypt, 198, 225.
martyrs in, 273 f.
Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 66-
8, 72,75, 85.
Elias, martyr, 183.
Empire, division of the, 197.
Ephesus, St. John at, 51,53, 54,64,
95 f.
Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,
carelessness of, in quotation,
74, 78, 127.
date and place of work on Mon-
tanism used by, 127.
mutilation of authorities by, 35,
84.
quoted the Hypomnernata of
Hegesippus, 5-11, 14, 73-84.
unsatisfactory method of citing
authorities of, 35, 82.
Epiphanius, martyr : see Apphia-
nus.
Episcopal succession : see Succes-
sion.
Ethiopia, 174 f.
Eubulus, martyr, 209.
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea,
at Caesarea till 311, 271.
Book of Martyrdoms of, 137,
148, 284.
Ecclesiastical History of —
Eighth Book of—
appendix to, 265 f., 284.
date of, 260, 275, 290.
later additions to, 268-78.
originally the last, 261.
unsatisfactory character
of, 285 f.
manuscripts of, 243.
30^
GENERAL INDEX
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea,
Ecclesiastical History of —
Ninth Book of, a supple-
ment, 257-66.
date of, 255 f., 291.
traces of revision in, 256 f.
original end of, 259-66.
purpose of, 258.
Syriac version of, 18, 71.
Tenth Book of, a supple-
ment, 243.
date of, 243, 255, 291.
faulty construction of, 254.
supposed earlier edition of,
243-55.
father of Church Histoiy, 1, 4.
habit of, of beginning a book
with closing words of preced-
ing book, 253, 257, 289.
honesty of, 245, 252 f., 255,
in Egypt, 198,271, 282.
libraries used by, 136.
Martyrs of Palestine of, clause
inserted in short recension
of, 280 f., 290.
corrupt text of passage in
short recension of, 288.
date of, 286, 290 f.
date of long recension of,
179, 279-283.
form of dates in, 182 f.
Greek fragments of long re-
cension of, 185, 190, 199 f.,
206.
inaccuracies of dates in, 189-
94.
manuscripts of, 289.
passages in short recension
of, derived from H. E. viii,
287-9.
passages peculiar to short re-
cension of, 281 f., 287-9.
referred to in the History,
262 f., 285.
relation of, to H. E. viii, 279,
285-90.
two recensions of, 179 f., 185,
190, 279-83.
method of, of paraphrasing
Hegesippus, 47.
method of, of using volumes of
tracts, 137, 145 f., 152, 165.
omissions of, in quotation, 18-
20, 25, 36 f., 65-9, 96 f.
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea,
projected work of, dc mortihus
persecutoriim, 280 f., 284.
work of, on Metonic cycle, 188.
eyKaTeiXeKTai, 148.
€v ravTW, 147,
ev TOVTdi, 185.
en) TrocrtJ/, 176.
initTTokai, 152 f.
eTTt TOVTOl^, 26, 142, 144.
en\ TU) avTO) \6yu>, 61.
en 8l 148 f.
($ns, 142 f.
Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, 152-6.
Fasting, laws of, 129 f.
Faustus, martyr, 173 f,
Feltoe, C. L., 157-9, 162 f., 170,
173.
Festus, 24.
Ficker, G., 110.
Fires at Nicomedia, 268 f,
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea,
113, 119.
Firmilian, praeses, 199, 206.
Flavia Domitilla, 43 f., 51,
Flavian, praeses, 193, 200 f., 287.
Flavins, 161 f., 170.
Florinus, 177.
Friedlander, L., 213.
Galerius, 203-5, 218, 238,240,268.
death of, 215, 221, 241, 288.
dominions of, 213, 215.
tolration edict of, 209, 213-15,
232, 241, 246, 251, 263 f.,
286-8.
believed to be the beginning
of peace, 214, 259 f., 263 f.
issued in the name of the
four emperors, 259 f., 278.
referred to at the beginning
of the History, 264 f.
the originator of the persecu-
tion ? 253.
Gallienus, 161, 163, 174.
toleration edict of, 161, 172.
Gallus, 160, 174.
Gates of Cilicia : see Cilicia.
Gaul, 237, 240, 242,
Gaza, 196, 206.
Gebhardt, 0. von, 133, 167, 223,
283.
Gergovia, 235.
GENERAL INDEX
303
Germanus, 163 f., 169.
Gnosticism, introduced into
Rome, 77, 80.
Gnostics, 2 f., 75 f., 90, 129.
Gobarus, Stephanus, 107.
Gwatkin, H. M., 95, 115, 129, 174,
202f., 205, 226, 232,256.
Gwynn, J., 200.
ypafprj, 136.
Hadrian, 3, 64, 92, 178.
Harnack, A., 9, 21, 71 f., 79, 81 f.,
85-7, 95 f., 113, 117, 122, 135,
1 "^
Harris, R., 114, 178.
Hebrews, Gospel of the, quoted
by Hegesippus, 8.
Hefele, C. J., 175.
Hegesippus, account of Jewish
heresies by, 40.
date of, 2, 68, 95, 145.
date of arrival of, at Rome, 89.
did he write a second treatise ?
81.
ends historical sketch of the
Church of Jerusalem with
Symeon, 64.
father of Church History ? 1, 3.
Hypomnemata of, argument of,
62 f., 90.
fi-agments of, 98-107.
purpose of, 2-4.
quoted by Epiphanius, 5-11.
quoted by Irenaeus, 75 f.
various texts of, 5-9, 44 f .
journey of, to Rome, 64-73, 84,
86-90.
misinterpretation of, by Euse-
bius, 24, 28, 38 f.
Heinichen, F. A., 19, 26.
Heraclea : see Perinthus.
Heresies referred to by Hege-
sippus, 58, 62.
Heresy, recent origin of, 63.
Hermamm:)n, letter of Dionysius
of Alexandria to, 161-3, 170,
172.
Hesychius, Egyptian bishop, 273.
Hierax, 161 f., 164. 170.
Hippolytus, 127, 157.
Canons of, 158.
Syntagma of, 112.
works of, 151 f.
Holmes, Rice, 236.
Hort, F. J. A., 23.
Hunziker, 0., 192, 269 f.
Hyginus, Bishop of Rome, 85, 87.
Ignatius, 22.
Images of Christ, 75 f.
Interpretatio Hehraicoriim nomi-
num, authorship of, 144.
Irenaeus, 43, 53, 83, 95, 244.
his list of Roman bishops, 81.
quotes Hegesippus, 75 f.
volume containing letters of,
177.
Italy, persecution in, 197.
Itinerary, Antonine, 212 f., 219.
lustum iter, 235.
tOTopei, 23.
James the Just, Bishop of Jerusa-
lem, 1, 3-18, 27, 31 f., 93.
appointment of, 15-17, 45, 63.
converts of, 25.
date of martyrdom of, 24, 28.
Jerome, St., 1, 144, 153 f., 237.
Jerusalem, bishops of, 22, 64,
92 f.
history of Church of, given by
Hegesippus, 64.
library at, 136.
sieges of, 24, 28, 64.
' Jerusalem ', a name of Pepuza,
110, 120, 122.
Jewish war, 24, 27 f., 31.
Jews, heresies of the, 62, 91.
persecution of the, 52, 54.
tradition of the, 35, 82.
John, Egyptian confessor, 281 f.
John, St., apostle, alleged martyr-
dom of, 63, 96.
at Ephesus : see Ephesus.
banishment of: see Patmos.
death of, 64.
Joseph, 12-14, 25, 34-7, 39.
Josephus, 24, 27, 31, 198.
Judas, 118.
Jude, grandsons or sons of, 42, 44,
51, 54 f., 60-4.
Julian, 209.
Julius Caesar, 235, 241.
Jupiter Philius, 231.
Justin Martyr, 2.
date of, 145.
date of Second Apology of, 168.
MSS. of Apologies of, 146.
304
GENERAL INDEX
Justin Martyr, origin of Euse-
bius's mistakes about, 168 f.
Second Apology of, quoted by
Eusebius, 146 f.
writings of, 145-7.
Justinian, Code of, 192.
Khatha, martyr, 184, 206.
Ka\ en, 140.
KaraKoyos, 78-80, 84-6.
KardXfKTai, 148.
Lactantius, 181, 185, 187 f., 211-
13, 215 f., 224 f., 231.
at Rome, 241.
at Sardica, 242.
De lustitia of, 238.
departure from Nicomedia,237-
9 242.
in Gaul,' 241 f.
Institutiones of, 237 f.
mistakes of, 238 f.
supposed mistake of, 192.
teacher of rhetoric, 237.
tutor of Crispus, 237 f.
Laodiceans, 156 f.
Lee,_S., 289.
Legio Fulminata, 151.
Libraries to which Eusebius had
access, 136, 144.
Licinius, 215, 222, 226, 241 f., 246-
8, 255 f., 276, 278, 283.
at Rome, 218.
contest of, with Constantine,
244, 251, 255 f., 259.
dilatory tactics of, 226.
letter of, issued at Nicomedia,
224,238, 251 f., 256 f., 291.
marriage of, 218 f.
treaty of, with Maximin, 215,
217 f., 221 f.
victories of, over Maximin, 219,
224, 241, 246, 276.
Lightfoot, J. B., 9, 10, 18 f., 21,
43,57, 74, 79-81, 86,96, 117,
144,152, 167, 179 f., 255, 280,
282 f., 284 f., 286 f.
Linus, Bishop of Rome, 9, 77, 79,
82.
Little Labyrinth, 125.
Lucian, letter of Dionysius of
Alexandria about, 159, 176.
Lucian, martyr, 218, 239, 269 f,
275.
Lucian, martyr, Apology of, 218.
letter of, 268, 270.
Xetrroi/, 266.
Xdyof, 262.
\6yos KaTi)(fi. (fX*^')) 21 f., 26, 36,
51 f., 92 f., 268.
\i)(Tfis yancov, 127 f.
M'-Giffert, A. C, 1, 21, 86, 131-3,
181, 257, 273.
' Mansionibus geminatis ', 219.
Marcellina, 74 f., 79-81, 83, 85 f.,
89.
Marching, rate of, 211 f., 216,
219-21, 235 f.
Marcion, 86.
Marcus Aurelius, 132, 137, 145 f.,
167 f.
Martianus, 133.
Martyrdom of Poly carp, 55, 137f.,
165, 167.
Martyrs, honour given to, 63.
prerogative of, 123.
Martyrs of Lyons, 132.
Mary, B.V., 13 f., 35.
Mason, A. J., 187, 192, 200, 202,
219, 225 f., 232-4, 283.
Maxentius, 218, 240, 276.
Maximian, 203, 205, 240.
abdication of, 185, 240.
author of the Fourth Edict, 202.
public memorials of, destroyed,
275
Maximiila,109f., 113, 119f., 127f.,
131.
oracle of. 111.
Maximin Daza, 185 f., 205, 213,
215, 218-20, 241, 267, 276,
280 f., 283, 285 f., 291.
army of, collected in Cappadocia,
225 f.
at Nicomedia : see Nicomedia.
birthday of, 191, 206, 210.
death of, 225-9, 256.
defeat of : see Campus Serenus.
did not persecute at first, 187,
206, 214 f.
dominions of, 215, 225.
letter of, to Sabinus, 217.
memorials from cities to, 216 f.,
222f., 229-31, 239.
name of, in the edict of
Galerius, 259 f., 278.
GENEEAL INDEX
305
Maximin Daza, pagan hierarchy
of, 206, 208 f., 230 f., 276,
286.
policy of, regarding religion,
209, 230.
rebuilds temples, 206, 208.
rescript of, set up on pillars,
197 f., 222 f., 228 f., 231.
restoration of paganism by,
206, 208.
resumes persecution in Egypt,
272.
secrecy of movements of, 222.
toleration edict of, 189, 197,
210, 224-7.
treaty of, with Licinius, 215,
217 f., 221.
Meletius, martyr, 198.
Meletius, schismatic bishop, 272 f.
Melito of Sardis, date of Ajjologi/
of, 176.
works of, 148 f.
Menandrianists, 62.
Menology quoted by Matthaei,
16, 44.
Metonic cycle, 188.
Metrodorus, Acts of, 136 f., 167.
Milan, Constantine and Licinius
at, 218 f., 241.
distance of, from Antioch, 219.
edict of, 218, 224, 247, 261 f.,
256, 259, 291.
Military road in Asia Minor, 212 f.
Millenarianism, 120 f., 16.5.
Milligan, W., 90.
Miltiades, Montanist leader in
Phi7gian Pentapolis, 117 f.
Milvian Bridge, Battle of, 218,
240-2.
Mommsen, T., 192, 243.
Monarchy, various opinions of
Montanists on, 112.
Montanism, asceticism in, 123-
30.
attitude of, towards martyr-
dom, 130-5.
first steward of, 112, 124.
in Rome, 132, 151.
instances of difference between
Phrygian and African, 117-
35.
later prophets of, 112 f.
local centre of, 109, 120.
Millenarianism of, 120.
Montanism, not homogeneous,
109-16.
oracles of, 110 f., 121-3, 128-30.
origin of, 109, 151.
penitential discipline of, 122 f.
place of women in, 119 f.
prophetic succession in, 118.
teaching of, on fasting, 129.
on marriage, 127 f.
true method of investigating,
116 f.
virgins in, 119, 128.
Montanists, a majority among
Phrygian Christians, 134.
errors of, 111.
Montanus, 109f., 113,124f.,127f.,
131.
Morin, G., 158.
Mera, 142 f., 150, 170 f., 176.
Natalius, 125.
Nazoraeans, 6, 28 f.
Nepos, 165.
Nero, 37.
Nerva, 51, 53-5, 95 f.
Nestorius, 49.
New prophecy : see Montanism.
Nicephorus, 71.
Nicomedia, 186, 201, 212 f., 216,
218, 221, 226.
distance of, from Antioch,
Chalcedon, and Tyana, 213.
edict issued at, 213.
fire at, 268 f.
Lactantius at, 237 f.
Licinius at, 224.
martyrdoms at, 239, 268 f.
Maximin at, 216f., 218 f., 221 f,
224, 229 f.
memorial from citizens of, 217,
229-31, 239.
rescript issued at, 201.
Nilus, Egyptian bishop, 273.
Notes in manuscripts, 144, 147 f.,
177, 244.
Novatian or Novatus, 155-7, 159.
letters on the schism of, 152-4,
154-8.
vofj-odeala, 251.
Oracles, 30, 34.
see also Montanism.
Ordinances, collection of imperial,
248 f., 251 f., 257.
306
GENEEAL INDEX
Origen, 49, 144, 157 f.
letters of, 22, 36, 136, 148.
library of, 144.
Orleans, 236.
Otto, J. C. T. de, 146.
o\n errj, oXoi fi?,ves, 197-9, 214, 228.
267 f.
a.^Amy, 6-9, 45.
Pachymius, Egyptian bishop, 273.
Pagan hierarchy : see Maximin
Daza.
Palestine, last martyrs in, 209,
263.
Palinodia : see Galerius, tolera-
tion edict of.
Pamphilus, 194 f., 210, 273, 282.
imprisonment of, 195 f., 199.
library' of, 136.
Pantaenus, 22.
Panther, James, 35-7.
Papias, 49, 95 f.
Papylus, Acts of, 136 f., 167.
Passion of Christ in accounts of
martyrs, 57.
Patmos, St. John in, 51, 53-6,
60 f., 95 f.
Paul, St., 9, 80.
Paul, martyr, 206.
see also Peleus.
Paul of Samosata, 49.
Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, 243, 255.
Peleus, Egyptian bishop, 273.
Peleus (Paul), martyr, 183.
Pella, flight to, and return from,
28-34, 50, 72.
Pentapolis, Phiygian, 117 f.
Pepuza, 109, 119-22.
Peraea, 29, 33 f.
Perinthus, 212, 219.
Peipetua, Acts of, 114.
Pestilence under Decius and
Gallus, 164, 171-5.
Peter, St., 9, 57, 80.
Peter Apselamus (Absalom), mar-
tyr, 183, 189, 194.
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria,
267 f., 272-5.
letter of, 272.
Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, 272-4.
letters of, 272.
Philemon, presbyter of Rome,
159 f.
Philip, daughters of, 118.
Philo, writings of, 138-45.
Philoromus, martyr, 272 f.
Phrygia, 271.
Pichon, R., 237.
Pierius, 49.
Pilate, 75, 198.
Acts of, 218, 230, 267.
Pilgrims' Road in Asia Minor, 213.
Pinytus, Bishop of the Cnossians,
148.
Pionius, Acts of, 136 f., 167.
Pius, Bishop of Rome, 74, 84 f.
Plato, 75.
Polycarp, 146.
interview of, with Marcion, 86.
martyrdom of. 55, 136 f, 167.
Pontus, 271.
Diocese of, 213, 215, 225.
Post, Imperial, 213, 219, 221.
Praxeas, 111, 132.
Primus, Bishop of Corinth, 66, 69 f.
Primus, martyr, 183 f.
Prisca or Priscilla, 109 f., 113, 119,
128.
Procopius, martyr, 191 f., 199 f.
Latin Passion of, 192 f.
Prophetic succession, 118.
Prophets, Montanistic, preroga-
tive of, 123.
Protevangelinni of James, 12 f., 35.
Publius, Bishop of Corinth, 178.
Purser, L. C, 212, 235.
Pythagoras, 75.
niXiv, 18 f., 32 f.
TTapa Tavra, 140.
TrapiK(TTa<ns, 119.
Trpos Tipfiavov, 163 f.
npos TovTois, 140, 142, 144, 148 f.
TTporepoy, 147.
(/)ao-/, 22, 26, 36f., 94.
Quadratus, apologist, to whom
was his Apology presented ?
178.
was he Quadratus the bishop ?
177.
see also Aristides.
Quintilla, 113.
Quintillians, 119.
Ramsay, Sir W. M., 113, 134,212 f ,
220, 225.
Relatives of the Lord : see
Desposyni.
GENEEAL INDEX
307
Romanus, martyr, 189, 192. .
Rome, 201 f., 218.
arrival of heretics at, 85 f.
Hegesippus's history of Church
of, ended with Anicetus,
85 f., 89.
parallel with that of Church
of Jerusalem, 80,85, 89 f , 92.
list of bishops of, by Hege-
sippus, 77-80, 88 f.
used by Eusebius, 82.
why not quoted by him, 81.
list of bishops of, by Irenaeus,
81.
Montanism in, 132, 151.
Routh, M. J., 218, 270, 272.
Rufinus, 2, 18, 53, 70 f., 91, 218.
Ruinart, T., 133, 193, 272, 283.
Rusticus, 168.
Sabellianism, 111, 165 f.
Sabinus, letter of, 214, 254.
letter of Maximin to, 217-21,
223 f., 227-9, 232-4, 247.
Salaries of clergy, 124 f.
Salmon, G., 113.
Salona, Palace at, 203.
Sanday, W., 95.
Sardica, 213, 215, 221, 241.
Saturnilians, 62.
Saturninus, 2.
Saturus, 114.
Schurer, E., 138-44.
Schwartz, E., 5, 7, 32, 91, 149,
156, 199, 243-55, 258, 265 f.,
268, 275, 281-3.
Sens, 236.
Septimius Severus, 167.
Severus, Emperor, 205.
Silas, 118.
Silvanus, Bishop of Emesa, 273-5.
Silvanus, Bishop of Gaza, 196, 209,
273, 282.
Simonians, 62.
Smyrnaeans, letter of the : see
Poly carp, martyrdom of.
Soter, Bishop of Rome, 66-8, 72,
177.
Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 1 59 f.
Stroth, 19.
Succession of bishops, 63, 70, 77.
of prophets, 117 f.
Susa, Battle of, 241.
Swete, H. B., 96.
Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem,
18-26, 32-4, 40, 54, 56-61,
64, 93.
accusers of, 40, 56, 60, 62.
election of, 15, 19, 32 f., 50,
55, 63, 93.
electors of, 19, 26, 34, 38, 63.
Symmachus, quoted by Hege-
sippus, 8.
Synods regarding the Schism of
Novatian, 152 f., 157,175.
Syria, 219, 225, 230.
avy-ypafifxa, 261.
<JVVr]TTTOy 137, 152.
Tarsus, 212 f., 225.
distance of, from Tyana, 220.
road from, to Tyana, 220.
Taurus mountains, 220, 224-6
passes of, fortified, 224 f.
Tax removed by Maximin, 221.
Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, 169.
Temples, rebuilding of, 230.
Tertullian, 4, 51, 53.
counted as main authority for
Montanism, 108.
De Ecstasi of, 126.
did not admit absolving power
of martyrs, 123.
did not hold the Phrygian view
of the Parousia, 120 f.
did not recognize a prophetic
succession, 118.
does not mention Pepuza, 120.
influence of, on African Mon-
tanism, 114-16.
on unpardonable sin, 123,
protest of, against women
exercising clerical functions,
120.
Thebaid, 207, 210.
martyrs of the, 270-4.
Thebuthis, 25 f., 58, 63, 70, 77, 80,
91.
Themiso, Montanist, 113, 124,133.
Theodoras, Egyptian bishop, 273.
Theodosia, martyr, 193, 196.
Theodotians, 125.
Theodotus, a banker, 125.
Theodotus, first steward of the
New Prophecy, 112, 124, 131.
Theotecnus, 222, 231.
Thmuis, 273.
Tiberius, 198.
308
GENERAL INDEX
Timolaus (Timothy), martyr, 195,
203.
Timothy, martyr, 195f.
see also Timolaus.
Toleration, edicts of: see Gale
rius, Gallienus, Maximin,
Milan.
Tradition of the Jews, 35-7, 82.
Trajan, 37, 54, 56, 64.
Trier, 238, 242.
Turin, Battle of, 241.
Turner, C. H., 17, 24, 92 f, 182,
221, 228.
Tyana, 212 f., 220, 224.
distance of, from Tarsus, 220.
Tymion, 110.
Tyrannion, Bishop of Tyre, 273 f.
Tyre, 228, 271.
inscription at, 223.
panegyric at, 251, 254 f.
Tyrrell, R. Y., 235.
Tzurulum, 219, 241 f.
ras 8iaTpij3as iiroieiTO, 73, 87.
Tofios, 261.
Tcbv dvatrepcL), 74, 84.
Ulpian, martyr, 281 f.
Urban, praeses, 186, 196 f., 199,
202, 205 f., 280.
VTTOnvrjfiara, 1, 10.
VTroiJLvr]fj,aTi(Tfio[, 10-13, 82.
Valentma, martyr, 184, 206.
Valentinus, 85 f.
Valerian, 160, 164 f., 169 f., 173 f.
Valois, 2, 19, 39, 61, 167, 272.
Verona, Battle of, 241.
Vespasian, 50, 52, 59-61.
Vicennalia of Diocletian, 192, 200.
Virgin, a description of the
Church of Jerusalem, 19, 37-
9, 69.
Virgins among the Montanists,
■ 119, 128.
Visions of Montanists, 1 14-16, 119,"
Volumes of tracts used by Euse-
bius, the principle of the
formation of, 166.
Westcott, B. F., 255 f., 284.
Wolseley, Lord, 236.
Xystus, Bishop of Rome, 159 f.,
176.
Year, beginning of, 221, 227 f.
Years, complete : see o\a errj.
of persecution, 181-4, 194-7.
relation of, to years A. D.,
184-9.
regnal, 182.
Zacchaeus, martyr, 189, 192.
Zahn, Theodor, 4, 9, 17, 19, 24,
26 f., 35 f., 38 f., 44, 68, 71,
78, 80, 83, 86-8, 91, 93.
Zenobius, martyr, 273 f.
Zocer and James, 42, 44 f., 54-6.
Zoticus of Otrous, 118.
Oxford : Horace Hart, M.A., Printer to the University
14 DAY USE TE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
This book is due on the last date stamped below,
or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only:
Tel. No. 642-3405
Renewals may be made 4 days prior to date due.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
BEC'DID ilOVT8^i-4PM 3
N0V2n97Z 65
MAR 1 2 200G
REC.C1R. APR 17S
-t^*
JAN 1 1 1 994
IT
Od'94
LD21A-50m-2,'71
(P2001sl0)476 — A-32
General Library
University of California
Berkeley
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
CD^s^E7E7D
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY