The Church History of Eusebius (part 24 of 28)

Notes

1. 2472

   Of Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage.

2. 2473

   Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in this passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and played a prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the most zealous supporters of the Arian cause (see Theodoret, H. E. I. 5 and V. 7, and Athanasius de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. I. 17). He was present at the Council of Nicæa (Labbe, Concil. II. 51), and took part in the council which deposed Eustathius of Antioch, in 330 (according to Theodoret, H. E. I. 21, whose account, though unreliable, is very likely correct so far as its list of bishops is concerned; on the council, see also p. 21, above). He was already dead in the year 341; for his successor, George, was present at the Council of Antioch (In Encæniis), which was held in that year (see Sozomen, H. E. III. 5, and cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.). We have no information that he was present at the Council of Tyre, in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by Labbe, who confounds Theodore of Heraclea with Theodotus; see Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). It is, therefore, possible that he was dead at that time, though his absence of course does not prove it. According to Socrates, H. E. II. 46, and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had trouble with the two Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at Antioch. We do not know the date of the younger Apolinarius' birth (the approximate date, 335, given in the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a gross error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than 320, and therefore as he was a reader in the church, according to Socrates (Sozomen calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it seems best to put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps well on toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as Eusebius says that he became bishop straightway after the fall of Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311; so that he held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables' article on Theodotus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a tissue of errors, caused by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea (an error committed by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus, present at the Council of Seleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I. 12; cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 713).

3. 2474

   Theodotos: "God-given."

4. 2475

   Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage. He was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church of Cæsarea, and probably survived the persecution, but not for many years (see above, p. 10 sq.). Eusebius speaks of him in the past tense, so that he was clearly already dead at the time this part of the History was written (i.e. probably in 313; see above, p. 45).

5. 2476

   Pamphilus, a presbyter of Cæsarea, was Eusebius' teacher and most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed his affection and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself Eusebius Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (according to Photius, under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the head of the catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53), and conceived an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light of that school, which he never lost. Pamphilus is chiefly celebrated for the library which he collected at Cæsarea and to which Eusebius owes a large part of the materials of his history. Jerome also made extensive use of it. It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture, of commentaries upon it, and of Origen's works (see above, p. 38). He wrote very little, devoting himself chiefly to the study of Scripture, and to the transcription of mss. of it and of the works of Origen. During the last two years of his life, however, while in prison, he wrote with the assistance of Eusebius a Defense of Origen in five books, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see above, p. 36 sq.). During the persecution under Maximinus, he was thrown into prison by Urbanus, prefect of Cæsarea, in 307, and after remaining two years in close confinement, cheered by the companionship of Eusebius, he was put to death by Firmilian, the successor of Urbanus, in 309, as recorded below, in the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The Life of Pamphilus which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above, p. 28). On Pamphilus, see Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius, Cod. 118. See also the present volume, p. 5-9 passim.

6. 2477

   On Eusebius' Life of Pamphilus, see above p. 28 sq.

7. 2478

   According to Jerome (de vir. ill. 76) Pierius was a presbyter and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Carus and Diocletian, while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on account of the elegance of his writings was called "the younger Origen," was skilled, moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived an ascetic life, and passed his later years, after the persecution, in Rome. According to Photius, Cod. 118, he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, was the teacher of Pamphilus, and finally suffered martyrdom. Photius may be correct in the former statements. The last statement is at variance with Jerome's distinct report which in the present instance at least is to be decidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first statement also is subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius (§30, below), Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as Pierius, and who lived until after the persecution (when he became bishop), was principal of the school. Eusebius' statement must be accepted as correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the report of Photius, both on account of Eusebius' silence in regard to Pierius' connection with the school, and also because if Pierius was principal of the school, he must apparently have given it up while he was still in Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than Jerome says. It is more probable that Photius' report is false and rests upon a combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If both the first and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little faith can be placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be simply a combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in Alexandria with the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the catechetical school while he was there. It is quite as probable that Pamphilus studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of works (tractatuum) by Pierius were extant in his day, among them a long homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome's Comment. in Osee, prologus). In his second epistle to Pammachius (Migne, No. 49) Jerome refers also to Pierius' commentary on First Corinthians, and quotes from it the words, "In saying this Paul openly preaches celibacy." Photius, Cod. 119, mentions a work in twelve books, whose title he does not name, but in which he tells us Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in regard to the Spirit, pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the Son. This work contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke's Gospel, and another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius' writings are no longer extant. The passages from Jerome's epistle to Pammachius and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by Routh, Rel. Sac. 2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a "younger Origen" in his theology as well as in his literary character, as we can gather from Photius' account of him (cf. Harnack's Dogmengesch. I. p. 640).

8. 2479

   A Meletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by Philostorgius (H. E. I. 8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicæa, and it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here by Eusebius. But Eusebius' words seem to me to imply clearly that the Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he wrote; and, therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring to the same man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his statement, possibly confounding him with the later Meletius of Sebaste, afterwards of Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubtless to be identified with the orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms of praise by Athanasius, in his Ep. ad Episc. Æg. §8, and by Basil in his De Spir. Sanct. chap. 29, §74. It is suggested by Stroth that Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius during the time that the latter was in Palestine, but this is not implied in Eusebius' words (see above, p. 5).

9. 2480

   to meli tes 'Attikes, in allusion to Meletius' name.

10. 2481

    The majority of the mss. and editors read Z?mbdas. A few mss. followed by Laemmer read Zabadas, and a few others with Rufinus, both versions of the Chron. and Nicephorus Z?bdas. We know nothing about this bishop, except what is told us here and in the Chron., where he is called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome calls him the thirty-seventh, but incorrectly according to his own list), and is said to have entered upon his office in the fifteenth year of Diocletian (Armen. fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded him three years later, according to Jerome; two years later, according to the Armenian version.

11. 2482

    In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter.

12. 2483

    According to Jerome's version of the Chron., Hermon became bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301; according to the Armenian, in the sixteenth year. The accession of his successor Macharius is put by Jerome in the eighth year of Constantine, a.d. 312. Eusebius' words seem to imply that Hermon was still bishop at the time he was writing, though it is not certain that he means to say that. Jerome's date may be incorrect, but is probably not far out of the way. Of Hermon himself we know nothing more.

13. 2484

    See above, chap. 19.

14. 2485

    On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10.

15. 2486

    On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

16. 2487

    According to Jerome's Chron., Theonas became bishop in the sixth year of Probus (281 a.d.); according to the Armenian, in the first year of Numerian and Carinus, i.e. a year later. Both agree with the History in assigning nineteen years to his episcopate. An interesting and admirable epistle is extant addressed to Lucian, the chief chamberlain of the emperor, and containing advice in regard to the duties of his position, which is commonly and without doubt correctly ascribed to Theonas. The name of the emperor is not given, but all of the circumstances point to Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in influential positions in his household during the earlier years of his reign. The epistle, which is in Latin (according to some a translation of a Greek original), is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439-445, and an English translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 158-161.

17. 2488

    The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by Athanasius, who calls him "the great Achillas" (in his Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, §23). He succeeded Peter as bishop of Alexandria (Epiphanius makes him the successor of Alexander, but wrongly, for the testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing of Jerome, Socrates, and other writers, is decisive on this point; see Athanasius' Apology against the Arians, §§11 and 59, and Epist. to the Bishops of Egypt, §23), but our authorities differ as to the date of his accession and the length of his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter, §31, puts the death of Peter in the ninth year of the persecution 311-312), and with this Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite inconsistently (unless it be supposed that Achillas became bishop before Peter's death, which, in the face of Eusebius' silence on the subject, is very improbable), Jerome puts the accession of Achillas into the fifth year of Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits another error in putting the accession of his successor, Alexander, in the sixteenth year of Constantine (a.d. 320); for Alexander's controversy with Arius (see above, p. 11 sq.) can hardly have broken out later than 318 or 319, and it would appear that Alexander had been bishop already some time when that took place. Theodoret (H. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the church but a short time, and with him agrees Epiphanius (Hær. LXIX. 11), who says that he held office but three months. The casual way in which Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention him only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm Theodoret's report, and Alexander's accession may, therefore, be put not long after 311.

18. 2489

    tes hieras pisteos to didaskaleion. Eusebius refers here to the famous catechetical school of Alexandria (upon which, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2). The appointment of Achillas to the principalship of this school would seem to exclude Pierius, who is said by Photius to have been at the head of it (see above, note 42).

19. 2490

    Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX. chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage his death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year of the persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb. 311 to Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius own reckoning, Mar. or Apr. 311 to Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o), and evidently after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, when the Christians were not looking for any further molestation (see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage, Peter was bishop less than three years before the outbreak of the persecution, and hence he cannot have become bishop before the spring of 300. On the other hand since he died as early as the spring of 312, and was bishop twelve years he must have become bishop not later than the spring of 300, and he must have died not long before the spring of 312, and even then, if Eusebius' other statements are exact, it is impossible to make his episcopate fully twelve years in length. The date thus obtained for his accession is in accord with the dates given for the episcopate of his predecessor Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession in the nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d. 302), but this is at variance with his own figures in connection with Theonas, and is plainly incorrect. Fourteen Canons, containing detailed directions in regard to the lapsed were drawn up by Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of the first canon), and are still extant. They are published in all collections of canons and also in numerous other works. See especially Routh's Rel. Sac. IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 269-278. Brief fragments of other works—On the Passover, On the Godhead, On the Advent of the Saviour, On the Soul, and the beginning of an epistle addressed to the Alexandrians—are given by Routh, ibid. p. 45 sq. These fragments, together with a few others of doubtful origin, given by Gallandius and Mai, are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ibid. p. 280-283. In the same volume (p. 261-268) are given The Genuine Acts of Peter, containing an account of his life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious and historically quite worthless. Peter seems, to judge from the extant fragments, to have been in the main an Origenist, but to have departed in some important respects from the teachings of Origen, especially on the subject of anthropology (cf. Harnack's Dogmengesch. I. p. 644). The famous Meletian schism took its rise during the episcopate of Peter (see Athanasius, Apology against the Arians, §59).

20. 2491

    Diocletian's edict decreeing the demolition of the churches was published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.

21. 2492

    Literally, "the succession of the apostles" (ten ton apostolon diadochen).

22. 2493

    tas ton ethnon hegemonias

23. 2494

    gametais. Prisca, the wife, and Valeria, the daughter, of Diocletian, and the wife of Galerius, were very friendly to the Christians, and indeed there can be little doubt that they were themselves Christians, or at least catechumens, though they kept the fact secret and sacrificed to the gods (Lactantius, De mort. pers. 15) when all of Diocletian's household were required to do so, after the second conflagration in the palace (see Mason's Persecution of Diocletian, p. 40, 121 sq.). It is probable in the present case that Eusebius is thinking not simply of the wives of Diocletian and Galerius, but also of all the women and children connected in any way with the imperial household.

24. 2495

    Of this Dorotheus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 6, below, where it is reported that he was put to death by strangling. It might be thought at first sight that he is to be identified with the Dorotheus mentioned above in Bk. VII. chap. 32, for both lived at the same time, and the fact that the Dorotheus mentioned there was a eunuch would fit him for a prominent station in the emperor's household. At the same time he is said by Eusebius to have been made superintendent of the purple dye house at Tyre, and nothing is said either as to his connection with the household of the emperor or as to his martyrdom; nor is the Dorotheus mentioned in this chapter said to have been a presbyter. In fact, inasmuch as Eusebius gives no hint of the identity of the two men, we must conclude that they were different persons in spite of the similarity of their circumstances.

25. 2496

    Of Gorgonius, who is mentioned also in chap. 6, we know only that he was one of the imperial household, and that he was strangled, in company with Dorotheus and others, in consequence of the fires in the Nicomedian palace. See chap. 6, note 3.

26. 2497

    apodoches. A few mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and most translators, add the words kai therapeias kai dexioseos ou tes tuchouses, but the weight of ms. authority is against them, and they are omitted by the majority of editors.

27. 2498

    Lam. ii. 1, 2.

28. 2499

    Ps. lxxxix. 39-45

29. 2500

    Ps. cvii. 40.

30. 2501

    Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon the honesty of Eusebius (Decline and Fall, chap. 16), but he has certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p. 49, above).

31. 2502

    Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his nineteenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius is in agreement with all our authorities in assigning this year for the beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and certainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details, states distinctly (in his De mort. pers. chap. 12) that the festival of the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of March (i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement. At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the edicts were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius may have been misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of their publication in Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius that on February 23d the great church of Nicomedia, together with the copies of Scripture found in it, was destroyed by order of the emperors, but that the edict of which Eusebius speaks just below was not issued until the following day. For a discussion of the causes which led to the persecution of Diocletian see below, p. 397.

32. 2503

    Dustros, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.

33. 2504

    Valesius (ad locum) states, on the authority of Scaliger and Petavius, that Easter fell on April 18th in the year 303. I have not attempted to verify the statement.

34. 2505

    This is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer extant, and the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from the accounts of Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the edict has caused a vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by Mason in his important work, The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 105 sq. and p. 343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantius simply describes the edict in a general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate statement of its substance, even reproducing its language in part. The first provision (that the churches be leveled to the ground) is simply a carrying out of the old principle, that it was unlawful for the Christians to hold assemblies, under a new form. The second provision, directed against the sacred books, was entirely new, and was a very shrewd move, revealing at the same time an appreciation on the part of the authors of the persecution of the important part which the Scriptures occupied in the Christian Church. The third provision, as Mason has pointed out, is a substantial reproduction of a part of the edict of Valerian, and was evidently consciously based upon that edict. (Upon the variations from the earlier edict, see Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is noticeable that not torture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This degradation, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of Lactantius (ibid. chap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian (given in Cyprian's Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al. 80), consisted, in the case of those who held public office (times epeilemmenous), in the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is, they fell through two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the interpretation of the fourth provision, however, Mason does not seem to me to have been so successful. The last clause runs tous de en oiketiais, ei epimenoien te tou christianismou prothesei eleutherias stereisthai. The difficult point is the interpretation of the tous en oiketiais. The words usually mean "household slaves," and are commonly so translated in this passage. But, as Valesius remarks, there is certainly no sense then in depriving them of freedom (eleutheria) which they do not possess. Valesius consequently translates plebeii, "common people," and Mason argues at length for a similar interpretation (p. 344 sq.), looking upon these persons as common people, or individuals in private life, as contrasted with the officials mentioned in the previous clause. The only objection, but in my opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive interpretation is that it gives the phrase hoi en oiketiais a wider meaning than can legitimately be applied to it. Mason remarks: "The word oiketia means, and is here a translation of, familia; hoi en oiketiais means ii qui in familiis sunt,—not graceful Latin certainly, but plainly signifying those who live in private households.' Now in private households there lived not only slaves, thank goodness, but free men too, both as masters and as servants; therefore in the phrase tous en oiketiais itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase private persons.'" But I submit that to use so clumsy a phrase, so unnecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply private people in general—hoi polloi—would be the height of absurdity. The interpretation of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me much more satisfactory. He remarks: "Das Edict war zunächst nur gegen zwei Klassen von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die, welche in kaiserlichen Æmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien oder freigelassenen Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren Hofleuten und Statthaltern in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Hausgesinde gehörten." This seems to me more satisfactory, both on verbal and historical grounds. The words hoi en oiketiais certainly cannot, in the present case, mean "household slaves," but they can mean servants, attendants, or other persons at court, or in the households of provincial officials, who did not hold rank as officials, but at the same time were freemen born, or freedmen, and thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons would naturally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is easier to think of their reduction to slavery than of that of the entire mass of Christians not in public office. Still further, this proposition finds support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class of people is especially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion, much more natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall discuss on p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way connected with official life,—either as chiefs or assistants or servants,—and therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the formation of plots against the government, than that it was directed against Christians indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two classes seems to me very natural; and the omission of any specific reference to bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in the second edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately explained, in my opinion, on any other ground.

35. 2506

    As we learn from chap. 6, §8, the edict commanding the church officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular uprisings in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was caused by those outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in some way responsible for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they were a direct consequence of the first edict), and the natural result of them must have been to make Diocletian realize, as he had not realized before, that the existence of such a society as the Christian Church within the empire—demanding as it did supreme allegiance from its members—was a menace to the state. It was therefore not strange that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt to break up a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian officials, should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The first step in such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all church officers (see below, p. 397 sq.). The decrees of which Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evidently to be identified with the one mentioned in chap. 6, §8. This being so, it is clear that Eusebius' account can lay no claims to chronological order. This must be remembered, or we shall fall into repeated difficulties in reading this eighth book. We are obliged to arrange the order of events for ourselves, for his account is quite desultory, and devoid both of logical and chronological sequence. The decrees or writings (gr?mmata) mentioned in this paragraph constituted really but one edict (cf. chap. 6, §8), which is known to us as the Second Edict of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with exactness, for, as Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any time between February and November; but it was probably published not many months after the first, inasmuch as it was a result of disturbances which arose in consequence of the first. Mason is inclined to place it in March, within a month after the issue of the first, but that seems to me a little too early. In issuing the edict Diocletian followed the example of Valerian in part, and yet only in part; for instead of commanding that the church officers be slain, he commanded only that they be seized. He evidently believed that he could accomplish his purpose best by getting the leading men of the church into his hands and holding them as hostages, while denying them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason, p. 132 sq.). The persons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius, were "all the rulers of the churches" (tous ton ekklesion proedrous p?ntas; cf. also Mart. Pal. Introd., §2). In chap. 6, §8, he says tous pantachose ton ekklesion proestotas. These words would seem to imply that only the bishops were intended, but we learn from Lactantius (De mort. pers. 15) that presbyters and other officers (presbyteri ac ministri) were included, and this is confirmed, as Mason remarks (p. 133, note), by the sequel. We must therefore take the words used by Eusebius in the general sense of "church officers." According to Lactantius, their families suffered with them (cum omnibus suis deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that.

36. 2507

    We learn from Lactantius (l.c.) that the officers of the church, under the terms of the second edict, were thrown into prison without any option being given them in the matter of sacrificing. They were not asked to sacrifice, but were imprisoned unconditionally. This was so far in agreement with Valerian's edict, which had decreed the instant death of all church officers without the option of sacrificing. But as Eusebius tells us here, they were afterwards called upon to sacrifice, and as he tells us in the first paragraph of the next chapter, multitudes yielded, and that of course meant their release, as indeed we are directly told in chap. 6, §10. We may gather from the present passage and from the other passages referred to, taken in connection with the second chapter of the Martyrs of Palestine, that this decree, ordaining their release on condition of sacrificing, was issued on the occasion of Diocletian's Vicennalia, which were celebrated in December, 303, on the twentieth anniversary of the death of Carus, which Diocletian reckoned as the beginning of his reign, though he was not in reality emperor until the following September. A considerable time, therefore, elapsed between the edict ordaining the imprisonment of church officers and the edict commanding their release upon condition of sacrificing. This latter is commonly known as Diocletian's Third Edict, and is usually spoken of as still harsher than any that preceded it. It is true that it did result in the torture of a great many,—for those who did not sacrifice readily were to be compelled to do so, if possible,—but their death was not aimed at. If they would not sacrifice, they were simply to remain in prison, as before. Those who did die at this time seem to have died under torture that was intended, not to kill them, but to bring about their release. As Mason shows, then, this third edict was of the nature of an amnesty; was rather a step toward toleration than a sharpening of the persecution. The prisons were to be emptied, as was customary on such great occasions, and the church officers were to be permitted to return to their homes, on condition that they should sacrifice. Inasmuch as they had not been allowed to leave prison on any condition before, this was clearly a mark of favor (see Mason, p. 206 sq.). Many were released even without sacrificing, and in their desire to empty the prisons, the governors devised various expedients for freeing at least a part of those who would not yield (cf. the instances mentioned in the next chapter). At the same time, some governors got rid of their prisoners by putting them to death, sometimes simply by increasing the severity of the tortures intended to try them, sometimes as a penalty for rash or daring words uttered by the prisoners, which were interpreted as treasonable, and which, perhaps, the officials had employed their ingenuity, when necessary, to elicit. Thus many might suffer death, under various legal pretenses, although the terms of the edict did not legally permit death to be inflicted as a punishment for Christianity. The death penalty was not decreed until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap.3, note 2).

37. 2508

    murioi d' alloi. See the previous chapter, note 8.

38. 2509

    i.e. those who, when freedom was offered them on condition of sacrificing, refused to accept it at that price. It was desirous that the prisons which had for so long been filled with these Christian prisoners (see chap. 6, §9) should, if possible, be cleared; and this doubtless combined with the desire to break the stubbornness of the prisoners to promote the use of torture at this time.

39. 2510

    See the previous chapter, note 8.

40. 2511

    stratoped?rches

41. 2512

    In the Chron. we are told of a commander by name Veturius, who is doubtless to be identified with the one referred to here. Why Eusebius does not give his name in the History, we do not know. There seems to be contempt in the phrase, "whoever he was," and it may be that he did not consider him worth naming. In Jerome's version of the Chron. (sixteenth year of Diocletian) we read: Veturius magister militiæ Christianos milites persequitur, paulatim ex illo jam tempore persecutione adversum nos incipiente; in the Armenian (fourteenth year): Veturius magister militiæ eos qui in exercitu Christiani erant, clanculum opprimebat atque ex hoc inde tempore ubique locorum persecutio se extendit. Evidently the occurrence took place a few years before the outbreak of the regular persecution, but the exact date cannot be determined. It is probable, moreover, from the way in which Eusebius refers to the man in the History that he was a comparatively insignificant commander, who took the course he did on his own responsibility. At least, there is no reason to connect the act with Diocletian and to suppose it ordered by him. All that we know of his relation to the Christians forbids such a supposition. There may have been some particular occasion for such a move in the present instance, which evidently affected only a small part of the army, and resulted in only a few deaths (see the next paragraph). Perhaps some insubordination was discovered among the Christian soldiers, which led the commander to be suspicious of all of them, and hence to put the test to them,—which was always in order,—to prove their loyalty. It is plain that he did not intend to put any of them to death, but only to dismiss such as refused to evince their loyalty by offering the customary sacrifices. Some of the Christian soldiers, however, were not content with simple dismission, but in their eagerness to evince their Christianity said and did things which it was impossible for any commander to overlook (cf. the instances given by Mason, p. 41 sq.). It was such soldiers as these that suffered death; and they of course were executed, not because they were Christians, but because they were insubordinate. Their death was brought on themselves by their foolish fanaticism; and they have no claim to be honored as martyrs, although Eusebius evidently regarded them as such.

42. 2513

    We should rather say "for their rash and unjustifiable fanaticism."

43. 2514

    In this sentence reference is made to the general persecution, which did not begin until some time after the events recorded in the previous paragraphs.

44. 2515

    Nicomedia, the capital city of Bithynia, became Diocletian's chief place of residence, and was made by him the Eastern capital of the empire.

45. 2516

    The great church of Nicomedia was destroyed on Feb. 23, 303, and the First Edict was published on the following day (see above, chap. 2, note 3).

46. 2517

    Lactantius relates this account in his De mort. pers. chap. 13, and expresses disapproval of the act, while admiring the spirit of the man. He, too, is silent in regard to the name of the man, though, living as he did in Nicomedia, he can hardly have been ignorant of it. We may perhaps imagine that he did not care to perpetuate the name of a man whom he considered to have acted rashly and illegally. The old martyrologies give the man's name as John. That he deserved death is clear enough. He was not a martyr to the faith, but a criminal, who was justly executed for treasonable conduct. The first edict contemplated no violence to the persons of the Christians. If they suffered death, it was solely in consequence of their own rashness, as in the present case. It is clear that such an incident as this would anger Diocletian and increase his suspicions of Christians as a class, and thus tend to precipitate a regular persecution. It must have seemed to the authorities that the man would hardly commit such a foolhardy act unless he was conscious of the support of a large body of the populace, and so the belief in the wide extension of the plot which had caused the movement on the part of the emperors must have been confirmed. See below, p. 398 sq.

47. 2518

    i.e. Diocletian and Galerius.

48. 2519

    On Dorotheus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.

49. 2520

    i.e. in Nicomedia, before Diocletian and Galerius.

50. 2521

    petros, "a rock." It is clear from the account of Lactantius (chap. 15) that this man, and the others mentioned in this connection, suffered after the second conflagration in the palace and in consequence of it (see below, p. 400). The two conflagrations led Diocletian to resort to torture in order to ascertain the guilty parties, or to obtain information in regard to the plots of the Christians. Examination by torture was the common mode of procedure under such circumstances, and hence implies no unusual cruelty in the present case. The death even of these men, therefore, cannot be looked upon as due to persecution. Their offense was purely a civil one. They were suspected of being implicated in a treasonable plot, and of twice setting fire to the palace. Their refusal to sacrifice under such circumstances, and thus evince their loyalty at so critical a time, was naturally looked upon as practically a confession of guilt,—at any rate as insubordination on a most grave occasion, and as such fitly punishable by death. Compare Pliny's epistle to Trajan, in which he expresses the opinion that "pertinacious and inflexible obstinacy" ought at any rate to be punished, whatever might be thought of Christianity as such (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1); and at such a time as this Diocletian must have felt that the first duty of all his subjects was to place their loyalty beyond suspicion by doing readily that which was demanded. His impatience with the Christians must have been increasing under all these provocations, and thus the regular persecution was becoming ever more imminent.

51. 2522

    Gorgonius has been already mentioned in chap. 1, above. See note 4 on that chapter.

52. 2523

    In a fragment preserved by the Chron. Paschale, and purporting to be a part of an epistle written from prison, shortly before his death, by the presbyter Lucian of Antioch to the church of that city, Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, is mentioned as having just suffered martyrdom (see Routh's Rel. Sac. IV. p. 5). Lucian, however, was imprisoned and put to death during the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 311 or 312). See below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, and Jerome's de vir. ill. chap. 77. It would seem, therefore, if the fragment given in the Chron. Paschale be genuine, and there seems no good reason to doubt it, that Anthimus suffered martyrdom not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, in 311 or 312. In that case Eusebius is mistaken in putting his death at this early date, in connection with the members of the imperial household. Indeed, we see no reason for his execution at this time, and should find it difficult to explain if we were to accept it. In the time of Maximinus, however, it is perfectly natural, and of a piece with the execution of Peter of Alexandria and other notable prelates. Eusebius, as we have already seen, pays no attention to chronology in this Eighth Book, and hence there is no great weight to be placed upon his mention of the death of Anthimus at this particular place. Mason (p. 324) says that Hunziker (p. 281) has conclusively shown Eusebius' mistake at this point. I have not seen Hunziker, and therefore cannot judge of the validity of his arguments, but, on the grounds already stated, have no hesitation in expressing my agreement with his conclusion. Of Anthimus himself, we know nothing beyond what has been already intimated. In chap. 13, §1, below, he is mentioned again, but nothing additional is told us in regard to him. Having observed Eusebius' mistake in regard to Anthimus, we realize that there is no reason to consider him any more accurate in respect to the other martyrdoms referred to in this paragraph. In fact, it is clear enough that, in so far as his account is not merely rhetorical, it relates to events that took place not at this early date, but during a later time after the regular religious persecution had begun. No such "multitude" suffered in consequence of the conflagration as Eusebius thinks. The martyrdoms of which he has heard belong rather to the time after the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2), or possibly to the still later time when Maximinus was at Nicomedia, and was in the midst of his bloody career of persecution.

53. 2524

    Eusebius does not accuse Galerius of being the author of the conflagration, as Lactantius does. In fact, he seems to have known very little about the matter. He mentions only one fire, whereas Lactantius distinctly tells us there were two, fifteen days apart (chap. 14). Eusebius evidently has only the very vaguest information in regard to the progress of affairs at Nicomedia, and has no knowledge of the actual order and connection of events. In regard to the effects of the fire upon Diocletian's attitude toward the Christians, see above, note 3, and below, p. 400. Constantine (Orat. ad Sanct. Coet. XXV. 2) many years afterwards referred to the fire as caused by lightning, which is clearly only a makeshift, for, as Burckhardt remarks, there could have been no doubt in that case how the fire originated. And, moreover, such an explanation at best could account for only one of the fires. The fact that Constantine feels it necessary to invent such an explanation gives the occurrence a still more auspicious look, and one not altogether favorable to the Christians. In fact, it must be acknowledged that the case against them is pretty strong.

54. 2525

    Literally, "The executioners, having bound a large number of others on boats, threw them into the depths of the sea" (desantes de hoi demioi allo ti plethos epi sk?phais, tois thalattiois enape& 207;rhipton buthois). The construction is evidently a pregnant one, for it cannot be supposed that boats and all were thrown into the depths of the sea. They seem to have bound the prisoners, and carried them out to sea on boats, and then thrown them overboard. Compare the Passion of St. Theodotus (Mason, p. 362), where we are told that the "President then bade them hang stones about their necks, and embark them on a small shallop and row them out to a spot where the lake was deeper; and so they were cast into the water at the distance of four or five hundred feet from the shore." Crusè translates, "binding another number upon planks," but sk?phe will hardly bear that meaning; and even if it could, we should scarcely expect men to be bound to planks if the desire was to "cast them into the depths of the sea." Lactantius (chap. 15), in speaking of these same general occurrences, says, "Servants, having millstones tied about their necks, were cast into the sea." Closs remarks that drowning was looked upon in ancient times as the most disgraceful punishment, because it implied that the criminals were not worthy to receive burial.

55. 2526

    Compare Bk. IV. chap. 15, §41, above, and Lactantius, Div. Inst. V. 11. That in the present case the suspicion that the Christians would worship the remains of these so-called martyrs was not founded merely upon knowledge of the conduct of Christians in general in relation to the relics of their martyrs, but upon actual experience of their conduct in connection with these particular martyrs, is shown by the fact that the emperor first buried them, and afterward had them dug up. Evidently Christians showed them such honor, and collected in such numbers about their tombs, that he believed it was necessary to take some such step in order to prevent the growth of a spirit of rebellion, which was constantly fostered by such demonstrations. Compare the remarks of Mason on p. 135.

56. 2527

    Part of the events mentioned in this chapter occurred at the beginning; others, a considerable time later. See note 5, above.

57. 2528

    Melitene was the name of a district and a city in Eastern Cappadocia. Upon the outbreak there we know only what can be gathered from this passage, although Mason (p. 126 sq.) connects it with a rebellion, of which an account is given in Simeon Metaphrastes. It is possible that the account of the Metaphrast is authentic, and that the uprising referred to here is to be identified with it, but more than that cannot be said. There can be no doubt that the outbreak was one of the causes of the promulgation of the Second Edict, in which case of course it is clear that the Christians, whether rightly or wrongly, were held responsible for it. See above, chap. 2, note 7.

58. 2529

    Valesius identifies this usurpation in Syria with that of Eugenius in Antioch, of which we are told by Libanius (in his Oratio ad Theodosium post reconciliationem, and in his Oratio ad Theod. de seditione Antioch., according to Valesius). The latter was but a small affair, involving only a band of some five hundred soldiers, who compelled their commander Eugenius, to assume the purple, but were entirely destroyed by the people of the city within twenty-four hours. See the note of Valesius ad locum, Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. IX. 73 sq., and Mason, p. 124 sq. This rebellion took place in the time of Diocletian, but there is no reason for connecting it with the uprising mentioned here by Eusebius. The words of Eusebius would seem to imply that he was thinking, not of a single rebellion, but of a number which took place in various parts of Syria. In that case, the Antiochian affair may have been one of them.

59. 2530

    tous pantachose ton ekklesion proestotas. Upon this second edict, see above, chap. 2, note 7.

60. 2531

    It is evident enough from this clause alone that the word proestotas, "rulers," is to be taken in a broad sense. See the note just referred to.

61. 2532

    The Third Edict of Diocletian. Eusebius evidently looks upon the edict as a sharpening of the persecution, but is mistaken in his view. The idea was not that those who refused to sacrifice should be punished by torture for not sacrificing, but that torture should be applied in order to induce them to sacrifice, and thus render it possible to release them. The end sought was their release, not their punishment. Upon the date and interpretation of this edict, see chap. 2, note 8.

62. 2533

    Eusebius is probably again in error, as so often in this book, in connecting a "multitude of martyrs in every province" with this Third Edict. Wholesale persecution and persecution as such—aimed directly at the destruction of all Christians—did not begin until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2). These numerous martyrdoms referred to here doubtless belong to the period after the issue of that edict, although in Africa and Mauritania, which were under Maximian, considerable blood was probably shed even before that time. For it was possible, of course, for a cruel and irresponsible ruler like Maximian to fix the death penalty for refusal to deliver up the Christian books, or for other acts of obstinacy which the Christian would quite commonly commit. These cases, however, must be looked upon as exceptional at this stage of affairs, and certainly rare.

63. 2534

    From the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 8 sq. (more fully in the Syriac; Cureton's English translation p. 26 sq.), we learn that in the sixth and following years of the persecution, many Egyptian Christians were sent to Palestine to labor in the mines there, and that they underwent the severest tortures in that country. No mention is made of such persons in the Martyrs of Palestine previous to the sixth year. Those in Tyre to whom Eusebius refers very likely suffered during the same period; not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, when the persecution was at its height. Since in his Martyrs of Palestine Eusebius confines himself to those who suffered in that country (or were natives of it), he has nothing to say about those referred to in this chapter, who seem, from the opening of the next chapter, to have suffered, all of them, in Tyre.

64. 2535

    No part of Christendom suffered more severely during these years than the territory of the tyrant Maximinus, who became a Cæsar in 305, and who ruled in Egypt and Syria.

65. 2536

    Thebais, or the territory of Thebes, was one of the three great divisions of Egypt, lying between lower Egypt on the north and Æthiopia on the south. From §4, below, we learn that Eusebius was himself an eye-witness of at least some of the martyrdoms to which he refers in the present chapter. Reasons have been given on p. 10, above, for supposing that he did not visit Egypt until the later years of the persecution, indeed not until toward the very end of it; and it is therefore to this period that the events described in this chapter are to be ascribed.

66. 2537

    archen tina ou ten tuchousan tes kat' 'Alex?ndreian basilikes dioikeseos enkecheirismenos. Valesius says that Philoromus was the Rationalis, seu procurator summarum Ægypti, i.e. the general finance minister of Egypt (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 10, note 8). But the truth is, that the use of the tina implies that Eusebius is not intending to state the particular office which he held, but simply to indicate that he held some high office, and this is all that we can claim for Philoromus. We know no more of him than is told us here, though Acts of St. Phileas and St. Philoromus are extant, which contain an account of his martyrdom, and are printed by the Bollandists and by Ruinart (interesting extracts given by Tillemont, H. E. V. p. 486 sq., and by Mason, p. 290 sq.). Tillemont (ibid. p. 777) and others defend their genuineness, but Lardner doubts it (Credibility, chap. 60). I have examined only the extracts printed by Tillemont and Mason, and am not prepared to express an opinion in the matter.

67. 2538

    Phileas, bishop of Thmuis (an important town in lower Egypt, situated between the Tanite and Mendeaian branches of the Nile), occupies an important place among the Diocletian martyrs. The extant Acts of his martyrdom have been referred to in the previous note. He is mentioned again by Eusebius in chaps. 10 and 13, and in the former a considerable part of his epistle to the people of his diocese is quoted. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap. 78, where he says: elegantissimum librum de martyrum laude composuit, et disputatione actorum habita adversum judicem, qui eum sacrificare cogebat, pro Christo capite truncatur. The book referred to by Jerome seems to be identical with the epistle quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter, for we have no record of another work on this subject written by him. There is extant, however, the Latin version of an epistle purporting to have been written by the imprisoned bishops Hesychius, Pachymius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to Meletius, author of the Meletian schism. There seems to be nothing in the epistle to disprove its genuineness, and it is accepted by Routh and others. The authorship of the epistle is commonly ascribed to Phileas, both because he is known to us as a writer, and also because his name stands last in the opening of the epistle. Eusebius says nothing of such an epistle (though the names of all four of the bishops are mentioned in chap. 13, below). Jerome's silence in regard to it signifies nothing, for he only follows Eusebius. This epistle, and also the fragment of the one quoted in the next chapter by Eusebius, are given by Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. p. 87 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 161 sq. Phileas' learning is praised very highly by Eusebius and Jerome, and his scholarly character is emphasized in his Acts. The date of his death cannot be determined with exactness, but we may be confident that it did not, at any rate, take place before 306, and very likely not before 307. The epistle quoted in the next chapter was written shortly before his martyrdom, as we learn from §11 of that chapter.

68. 2539

    On this epistle, see the previous chapter, note 3.

69. 2540

    Phil. ii. 6-8.

70. 2541

    1 John iv. 18.

71. 2542

    tois amunteriois. The word amunterion means literally a weapon of defense, but the word seems to indicate in the present case some kind of a sharp instrument with claws or hooks. Rufinus translates ungulæ, the technical term for an instrument of torture of the kind just described. Valesius remarks, however, that these amunteria seem to have been something more than ungulæ, for Hesychius interprets amunterion as xiphos distomon, i.e. a "two-edged sword."

72. 2543

    The majority of the mss., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, omit tess?ron, "four." The word, however, is found in a few good mss., and is adopted by all the other editors and translators, and seems necessary in the present case. Upon the instrument referred to here, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9. It would seem that "four holes" constituted in ordinary cases the extreme limit. But in two cases (Bk. V. chap. 1, §27, and Mart. Pal. chap. 2) we are told of a "fifth hole." It is possible that the instruments varied in respect to the number of the holes, for the way in which the "four" is used here and elsewhere seems to indicate that the extreme of torture is thought of.

73. 2544

    phesi: "He says," or "the Scripture saith."

74. 2545

    Ex. xxii. 20.

75. 2546

    Ex. xx. 3.

76. 2547

    I read polichnen with the majority of mss. and editors. A number of mss. read polin, which is supported by Rufinus (urbem quandam) and Nicephorus, and is adopted by Laemmer and Heinichen; but it would certainty be more natural for a copyist to exaggerate than to understate his original.

77. 2548

    Lactantius (Dio inst. V. 11), in speaking of persecutions in general, says, "Some were swift to slaughter, as an individual in Phyrgia who burnt an entire people, together with their place of meeting (universum populum cum ipso pariter conventiculo)." This apparently refers to the same incident which Eusebius records in this chapter. Gibbon contends that not the city, but only the church with the people in it was burned; and so Fletcher, the translator of Lactantius in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, understands the passage ("who burnt a whole assembly of people, together with their place of meeting"). Mason, on the other hand, contends that the population of the entire city is meant. The Latin would seem, however, to support Gibbon's interpretation rather than Mason's; but in view of the account in Eusebius, the latter has perhaps most in its favor. If the two passages be interpreted differently, we can hardly determine which is the true version of the incident. Mason has "no hesitation" in referring this episode to the period immediately following the First Edict of Diocletian, at the time when the rebellions in Melitene and Syria were taking place. It may have occurred at that time, but I should myself have considerable hesitation in referring it definitely to any particular period of the persecution. If Eusebius' statement at the close of this paragraph could be relied upon, we should be obliged to put the event after the issue of the fourth edict, for not until that time were Christians in general called upon to offer sacrifices. But the statement may be merely a conclusion of Eusebius' own; and since he does not draw a clear distinction between the various steps in the persecution, little weight can be laid upon it.

78. 2549

    Rufinus connects this man with the town of Phrygia just referred to, and makes him one of the victims of that catastrophe. But Eusebius does not intimate any such connection, and indeed seems to separate him from the inhabitants of that city by the special mention of him as a martyr. Moreover, the official titles given to him are hardly such as we should expect the citizen of an insignificant Phrygian town to bear. He is said, in fact, to have held the highest imperial—not merely municipal—offices. We know nothing more about the man than is told us here; nor do we know when and where he suffered.

79. 2550

    tas katholou dioikeseis tes tar' autois kaloumenes magistrotetos te kai katholikotetos. The second office (katholikotes) is apparently to be identified with that mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5 (see note 8 on that chapter). We can hardly believe, however, that Adauctus (of whom we hear nowhere else) can have held so high a position as is meant there, and therefore are forced to conclude that he was but one of a number of such finance ministers, and had the administration of the funds only of a particular district in his hands.

80. 2551

    The barbarous mutilation of the Christians which is spoken of here and farther on in the chapter, began, as we learn from the Martyrs of Palestine, in the sixth year of the persecution (a.d. 308). The tyrant Maximin seems to have become alarmed at the number of deaths which the persecution was causing, and to have hit upon this atrocious expedient as a no less effectual means of punishment. It was practiced apparently throughout Maximin's dominions; we are told of numbers who were treated in this way, both in Egypt and Palestine (see Mart. Pal. chap. 8 sq.).

81. 2552

    This abominable treatment of female Christians formed a feature of the persecutions both of Maximian and Maximin, who were alike monsters of licentiousness. It was entirely foreign to all the principles of Diocletian's government, and could never have been allowed by him. It began apparently in Italy under Maximian, after the publication by him of the Fourth Edict (see Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2), and was continued in the East by Maximin, when he came into power. We have a great many instances given of this kind of treatment, and in many cases, as in the present, suicide relieved the victims of the proposed indignity.

82. 2553

    Eusebius evidently approved of these women's suicide, and it must be confessed that they had great provocation. The views of the early Church on the subject of suicide were in ordinary cases very decided. They condemned it unhesitatingly as a crime, and thus made a decided advance upon the position held by many eminent Pagans of that age, especially among the Stoics. In two cases, however, their opinion of suicide was somewhat uncertain. There existed in many quarters a feeling of admiration for those who voluntarily rushed to martyrdom and needlessly sacrificed their lives. The wiser and steadier minds, however, condemned this practice unhesitatingly (cf. p. 8, above). The second case in connection with which the opinions of the Fathers were divided, was that which meets us in the present passage. The majority of them evidently not only justified but commended suicide in such an extremity. The first Father distinctly to condemn the practice was Augustine (De civ. Dei. I. 22-27). He takes strong ground on the subject, and while admiring the bravery and chastity of the many famous women that had rescued themselves by taking their own lives, he denounces their act as sinful under all circumstances, maintaining that suicide is never anything else than a crime against the law of God. The view of Augustine has very generally prevailed since his time. Cf. Leckey's History of European Morals, 3d edition (Appleton, New York), Vol. II. p. 43 sq.

83. 2554

    On Anthimus, see above, chap. 6, note 5.

84. 2555

    On Lucian of Antioch, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, note 4.

85. 2556

    Of Tyrannion and Zenobius, we know only what is told us here and in the next paragraph. All of the martyrs of whom Eusebius tells us in this and the following books are commemorated in the Martyrologies, and accounts of the passions of many of them are given in various Acts, usually of doubtful authority. I shall not attempt to mention such documents in my notes, nor to give references to the Martyrologies, unless there be some special reason for it in connection with a case of particular interest. Wherever we have farther information in regard to any of these martyrs, in Eusebius himself or other early Fathers, I shall endeavor to give the needed references, passing other names by unnoticed. Tillemont (H. E. V.) contains accounts of all these men, and all the necessary references to the Martyrologies, the Bollandist Acts, etc. To his work the curious reader is referred.

86. 2557

    Silvanus is mentioned again in Bk. IX. chap. 6, and from that passage we learn that he was a very old man at the time of his death, and that he had been bishop forty years. It is, moreover, directly stated in that passage that Silvanus suffered martyrdom at the same period with Peter of Alexandria, namely, in the year 312 or thereabouts. This being the date also of Lucian's martyrdom, mentioned just above, we may assume it as probable that all mentioned in this chapter suffered about the same time.

87. 2558

    i.e. Tyrannion.