ON THE HOLY MARTYRS OF ANTIOCH: QUIRICUS, JULITTA, AND THEIR 404 COMPANIONS.
From the Hieronymian Martyrology and others.
CommentaryQuiricus Martyr at Antioch (S.)
Julitta Martyr at Antioch (S.)
The 404 Martyrs at Antioch (SS.)
D. P.
The four ancient transcripts of the Hieronymian Martyrology, often cited and often to be cited, Great agreement of the Latin Feasts, concerning the Four Hundred the Epternach, the Corbie, the Lucca, and the Blume, with great agreement concerning the aforesaid Martyrs read thus: "At Antioch, the feast of Quiricus, and of Julitta his mother, and of the other 404 Martyrs"; except that the Lucca copy says more expressly, "And with them 404 Martyrs," but the Corbie, content with the round number, omits the four added on top; and finally the Blume writes the names "of Cyricus and of Julita." and as to the place; That copy which Ado found there, transmitted from Rome to Aquileia, comes closest to the former; and only omits the word "Martyrs"; for which the Augsburg copy of St. Udalric and the Gallican of Labbe and the Gellone copy have "Soldiers": but between the names of Cyricus and Julitta they place Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentia, no doubt taken over from the preceding day. The Monte Cassino and the Roman copies of St. Cyriaca, after Saints Ferreolus and Ferrutio are reported, some diversity as to the companions, and the name of Antioch omitted, only place "And elsewhere." The companion Martyrs the old Vallicellan copy at Rome omits. In a double Florentine Ms., of which one belonged to the Laurentian, the other to the Strozzi library; and in a copy consonant with them, printed there at Florence at the press of Francis de Bonacursiis, it is read thus: "At Antioch, the feast of the Holy Martyrs Domestus, Crescentius, and Julius with four hundred soldiers": from which not far departing our Ms. Florarium has thus: "Likewise the feast of Domestus the Martyr, with four hundred other soldiers." In all these it can deservedly be seen, that, by the negligence of the copyists, out of Modestus was made Domestus; out of Crescentia was formed Crescentius (as we noted to have happened also in certain Hieronymian copies on the preceding day) and finally Julitta (between whose name and the name of Cyricus, elsewhere also I said three names are interposed) could have passed into Julius; and this addition of names to the other 400 unnamed having been made, the fourth Julitta would have seemed to be omitted, whom moreover the Hieronymian transcripts have.
[2] Now since the Passion of Quiricus and Julitta is reckoned Apocryphal by Pope Gelasius, in the list of apocryphal books which are not received; Baronius seems to reckon, in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology, Therefore the name of the place does not seem to need correcting; that from these most of the Latins took occasion to ascribe to Antioch those who from more certain Acts are proven to have suffered at Tarsus in Cilicia, in which there was also a certain Antioch on the river Pyramus not far from Tarsus, according to Stephanus of the Cities. But that this may be sustained, he asserts that without doubt those Acts perished, which St. Gelasius the Pope, as a fabrication of heretics, cast far away, lest occasion be given to them of scoffing. But when I compare with a certain Bodeck Ms. those published by Hucbald, Prior of Elnon, and Philip, Abbot of Bonne-Espérance, who attempted to introduce a more plausible appearance into their paraphrase of the old Acts; I can scarcely doubt that I have those very apocryphal Acts, which Baronius reckoned had utterly perished. And since no mention is made in them of Antioch, but rather the "of his Mother" should be expunged, so constantly named by all the Martyrologies (of which however the original first seems taken from the collections of Eusebius, whom it is not credible to have had those or other Apocrypha) I am more inclined to believe that this is the genuine reading; and that the words "his Mother" should rather be expunged: as added wrongly by an interpolating hand, beyond the mind of the first author, namely, because in the Latin churches, especially the Gallican, Quiricus and Julitta were most celebrated, of whom were held Apocryphal Acts, referring their death to the month of June, the Interpolator undoubtedly thought them to be those, whose names were read in the first of all the Martyrology, and so to be son and mother; nor would he have thought he need labor over the place or day, which were named by some in Acts of whatever sort, by others in the Martyrology.
[3] But it is well, that there are held of these more genuine Acts among the Greeks: from which it not only is established that the son suffered with his mother at Tarsus, as added by someone, that they suffered at Antioch on 16 June but that he suffered on the 15th of July; which two points the Author of the Apocrypha being ignorant of, (for the Greek writings were not yet written, after the matter carefully examined) deemed it enough to have found a month marked with such names, to which he might apply what he had received by report concerning Martyrs of the same name, and he wished to take it as the subject of a tale to be composed by him. confounding [them with the synonymous Saints crowned at Tarsus on 15 July.] But the Four Hundred and Forty-four Companions of martyrdom whom he added, I would think he rather took them from the Martyrology to be fabulously embellished, than utterly invented from his own brain. For although it could have happened, that he who intruded the "of his Mother" also stuffed in those companions; yet there is nothing that compels [us] to this, since they could from the beginning have been so written, and have had as leaders of the contest at Antioch placed in the title Quiricus and Julitta. So also did Peter de Natalibus do, book 5, although in book 6 chapter 101 he treats of Saints Quiricus and Julitta from their genuine Acts; he adds however, that there 44 Gentiles were found there, who as if converted to Christ by their example, and detained by Alexander, after ten months were crowned with martyrdom; of whom above it has been said, he says, on the day before the Nones of June, namely in book 5 chapter 86, where he says they suffered at Iconium, and were buried in the same city, both of which he himself determined by his own judgment.
[4] Further, if what I said be accepted concerning the two Synonymous pairs of Martyrs, to be divided through two places and two feasts of the month of June, so that in the manner as most conveniently can be done the authority both of the truer Acts and of the more ancient Martyrology may be saved; I shall not go on further to divine which here of the many Antiochs is to be understood; although presumption may stand for the more famous [one] in Syria: nor shall I define whether the Julitta of Antioch, properly pertaining to this day, is a man or a woman. For why could it not equally be the name of a man, as is Jovita, who is venerated as having suffered with Faustinus on the 15th of February; and Mauritta, to be commemorated on the 13th of July with the Archdeacon Salutaris, and others similar? Finally I shall not ask at what time, or under what Emperor they suffered; since the ancient martyrologies do not lead to that; But I shall pass to those who, thus distinguished from those of Antioch, can in no other way be referred to this month than through a certain epieikeia (equity); lest by deferring them to the month of July, I should seem to wish the day of cult changed, which now everywhere in the Latin churches the Son and Mother have, crowned at Tarsus.