ON ST. ARISTION, BISHOP AND MARTYR AT ALEXANDRIA AD ISSUM, AT ALEXANDRIA AD ISSUM.
Under the gentile emperors.
CRITICAL SYLLOGE.
Aristion or Aristeus, bishop and M., at Alexandria ad Issum (St.)
BY J. S.
§ I. St. Aristion announced under the name of Aristaeus or Aristeus among the Latins together with St. Antoninus, with whom he does not seem to have suffered.
Baronius at the III of September inserted into the Roman Martyrology this announcement: At Capua, of the holy martyrs Aristaeus the bishop, Aristaeus with Antoninus assigned to Capua among the Latins; and Antoninus the boy. Then in his notes he speaks thus: Bede (nay rather Ado) and Usuard, who treat of these on this day, testify that their Acts are extant, but we think they have perished; since they are not found even in their own church; where, Aristaeus being omitted, we find that only Antoninus is treated of (and indeed on the preceding day, as of a martyr not of Capua but of Apamea) in its Breviary. Hence we are led to the conjecture that, because of the innumerable disasters of wars, the monuments of that most noble church have perished. Baronius here hints at some hesitation whether Aristaeus and Antoninus are rightly joined, and rightly assigned to the church of Capua. But no doubt the authority of Ado and Usuard moved the learned man: for both joined those two in almost the same way; Ado in these words: At Capua, the birthday of the holy martyrs, Antoninus a boy of twenty years; and of Aristaeus the bishop, whose deeds are had. And Usuard: In Capua, of the holy martyrs Antoninus a boy of twenty years, and of Aristeus the bishop, whose deeds are had. So great is the authority of these martyrologists that it would seem we must acquiesce in them, did not weighty reasons occur which cast a strong suspicion of error.
[2] The first reason is that no one before Ado ascribed these Martyrs to Capua, but there are weighty reasons, even though they are mentioned by many, as we shall see. The second reason is that the people of Capua never venerated them, as may be seen in their Calendars and ancient Breviary. Michael Monachus published five different Calendars in his Sanctuarium Capuanum: in none of them is Aristaeus found. Antoninus indeed occurs in various Calendars of the Capuans, as also in their ancient Breviary, but as a martyr of Apamea, of whom I have treated at the preceding day. Hence the aforesaid Monachus, on p. 71, after citing the words of the Roman Martyrology, subjoins this: The Breviary (the ancient Capuan one) has not a word of Aristaeus; it treats of Antoninus on the IV Nones of September, of whom the Martyrology (the Roman) also treats on the IV Nones. He is other than Antoninus the boy martyr of Capua. There is added to these reasons that Monachus, even though he strives to claim Aristaeus and Antoninus the boy for the church of Capua, could find nothing in all his investigation which would add any weight to the authority just given. He adduces indeed the words of Peter de Natalibus, who in bk. 8 ch. 33 has this: Antoninus the boy and Aristeus the martyrs suffered at Capua, a city of Campania. Which Antoninus, when he was ten years old, converted Aristeus to the faith: with whom afterward, being seized and tormented with various tortures, at last both by the smiting of the sword obtained the palm of martyrdom on the III Nones of September. But it can scarcely be doubted that that scarcely critical writer took these things from Ado or Usuard, and even disfigured them with his own conjectures. Nothing therefore does Peter de Natalibus, nothing do the three other Martyrologies, far later than Usuard, which Monachus cites on p. 72, add of weight to Ado and Usuard. Monachus also confesses on p. 214 that it is unknown at what time Aristaeus presided over the church of Capua; and that of his body or relics there is nowhere any mention among the Capuans; and finally that there is nowhere among them any indication of ancient veneration.
[3] why we believe this to have been done through an error, Since therefore every reason that favors the Capuans can be reduced to the authority of Ado, whom Usuard after his manner followed as his guide, and these in turn others later; and since the weightiest reasons fight to the contrary, it remains for us to examine whether it is not likely that some error crept upon Ado, or rather crept into his Martyrology through the negligence of copyists. This Sollerius has already begun to show in St. Antoninus of Piacenza, vol. 2 of July, p. 8, where he candidly speaks thus: Lest we linger longer in the light of midday, let it be permitted safely to assert that a manifest error is detected in Ado's Martyrology, whether that be the fault of Ado himself, or, as I should rather think, of the amanuenses, who turned Apamea, not rightly formed, into Capua. Indeed there seems no doubt that Ado drew his announcement from some Hieronymian codex, since he could not have taken it from the old Roman published by Rosweyde, which elsewhere gave him light: for in it there is no memorial of Antoninus the boy or of Aristaeus. Ado's own later words, whose deeds are had, clearly hint at this. That those deeds were never seen by Ado can be sufficiently established, says Sollerius rightly, from this, that he, who neglects no eulogies of the Saints, has here not reported a word from them. For all the learned who have been willing to examine Ado's Martyrology at all will easily perceive that he wove eulogies for those Saints whose Acts he had; but that he mentioned others briefly from more ancient Martyrologies.
[4] Why then did Ado say, whose deeds are had? For no other cause, assuredly, than that in those same Hieronymian codices, in which he read of Antoninus a boy of XX years, & that we should adjudge both Saints to Capua. and of Aristaeus the bishop, he also found added at the end, whose (singular) deeds are had: but since he supposed these two to be joined, he put for cujus quorum, as if those Acts treated of both. Take the texts of the Hieronymian codices which could have given Ado light, and others like them. The Hieronymian in Florentinius at the III of September: And in the region of Apamea, in the village Aprocavitus, under the emperor Constantius, in the province of Syria, the birthday of the holy Antoninus a boy of XX years, and of Arestus the bishop, whose deeds are had. The codex of the Queen of Sweden on the same day: In the province of Syria under Constantius the emperor, of St. Antonius a youth of XX years, and of Arestus the bishop, whose deeds are had. If we did not have reasons from elsewhere for disjoining Antoninus and Aristaeus, these texts would easily persuade us that they must be joined, and these or similar ones seem to have persuaded Ado, who for that cause changed cujus into quorum; as Florentinius also observed in his notes to have been done by Ado. The village Aprocavitus and the emperor Constantius Ado omitted, either because he did not find them in his codices — as indeed only in the ones cited is Constantius had, and in one only is the village mentioned — or, if perhaps he did find them, because he held them suspect, since they were lacking in several. Finally, for At Apamea there crept in at Capua: for from wherever this error arose, that there was an error we can scarcely doubt, and therefore we dare ascribe neither Antoninus nor Aristaeus to Capua.
[5] Further, another doubt now occurs, namely whether Antoninus and Aristaeus ought to be joined It is doubted whether Antoninus ought to be joined with Aristaeus; as companions in martyrdom; or rather disjoined, as having suffered at a different time and place. Then another will follow this, namely whether we ought to acknowledge one single Aristaeus or Aristion, or a bishop of a neighboring name, or rather several, inasmuch as several are announced in certain transcripts on the same day. To disentangle these difficulties, first of all the Hieronymian transcripts must be carefully considered, from whose faults and interpolations the difficulties themselves arise. And two things, even though they have been frequently repeated in this Work, I judge must here again be advised. The first is that from some diversity of name, or from its repetition on the same day, or even on the two following days under the same name, it cannot be inferred that that name, the same or somewhat altered, refers to two different Saints. The reason is that those transcripts have been enlarged by many hands. Hence from one copy Saints have been written into another, in which they were already read with the name a little changed, or on another neighboring day. Sometimes too they could have been added on the same day and under exactly the same name, because in the place of martyrdom, or in some other circumstance, some difference was found, from which it was easily believed that there were two different Saints. The second is, that in those transcripts Saints are frequently joined together as though belonging to one class, although there is no connection between them. This seems to have happened on account of excessive brevity, because many were recorded without place or time or any other circumstances, the name alone being expressed. These things having been observed beforehand, I subjoin what those ancient, but at the same time faulty and interpolated, Martyrologies have concerning Aristaeus, and, joined with him in various of them, Antoninus. since in various Transcripts they seem to be joined,
[6] In Florentinius at the III of September: In Alexandria the birthday of Aristoippus the bishop, and in the region of Apamea, as above at num. 4… of Antoninus the boy and of Arestus the bishop. You see here on the same day Aristoippus and Arestus, both bishops: and Antoninus joined with Arestus in the same way as he is joined in the Codex of the Queen of Sweden, likewise cited at num. 4, in which no other Aristonippus the bishop is mentioned on that day. The Ms. which Florentinius calls most ancient in his notes has thus: In Alexandria, of Arippus, and in Syria of Antonius the boy, and of Aristo the bishop, and finally, other things being interposed, and of Arito. We have here in the same text Arippus, Aristo, and Arito. The Corbie in the same place: In Alexandria the birthday of St. Aristonippus the bishop. And in the region of Apamea in the province of Syria the birthday of St. Antonius the boy, of Arestus the bishop. And after others, of Aristo. In those published by us after volume VII of June the variety is no less: The Rheinau: In Syria, of Antoninus, and of Aristenis the bishop. And in Alexandria of Arestenippus the bishop. The Reichenau: In Syria of Antoninus and of Aristo the bishop. And in Alexandria, of Arestempus the bishop … of Arestis. The Augsburg, without any place: Of Aristonippus, of Antoninus, … of Arestus. I observe here that Aristius or Aristaeus is not immediately placed after Antoninus, as is done in the preceding. The Labbean likewise disjoins them all, without place, in this manner: Of Aristonippus … of Antoninus … of Arestus. The abridged Corbie: In Alexandria, the birthday of St. Aristonippus the bishop. In the province of Syria, the birthday of the holy Antoninus the boy, of Arestus the bishop. Thus far our own.
[7] but in others they are separated: Others were published by Edmond Martène in vol. 3 of the Anecdota, column [ ] and following, whose words I shall likewise report. The first, which he judges to be about a thousand years old, has thus on the same day: Of Aristonippus, of Antoninus etc. Here there is only one Antoninus, one Aristonippus. The Murbach, which he pronounces to be of nearly nine hundred years, separates the Saints still more: for at day 2 it has: Of Antonius, at the III: Of Aristonippus. This agrees with the preceding in that it records only one of each, but disagrees in the days. In the rest published there Aristaeus is not read, except in the Corbie, which I have already given. The aforesaid Martène also published various ancient Martyrologies or Calendars in vol. 6 of the Collectio amplissima, from col. 633. The first there, marked with the name of Bede, at the III of September, without any place added, has among others, Of Aristus, without any Antoninus at that or the preceding day. After certain others, in which neither is read, the Stavelot Calendar on the same day has Antoninus alone in these words: Of St. Antoninus the martyr. The Verdun that follows agrees almost with the preceding, the Saint's name being slightly changed in this way: Of St. Antonius the martyr. Finally the Auxerre, which is there the last and less ancient, plainly agrees with Usuard. The Hieronymian of d'Achery in vol. 2 of the reprinted Spicilegium at day 2 records in the parts of Apamea Antonius and Antoninus, but at the III has thus: In Alexandria the birthday of St. Aristonippus the bishop. And in the region of Apamea, in the province of Syria, the birthday of St. Antonius the boy, of Arestus the bishop .. and with others of Arito with companions, without place. The Gellone in the same place at day 2, Of Antonius, on the following, Of Aristonippus, of Antoninus, … of Arestus, all without place. I add Rabanus, who on day III announces these: In Alexandria of Aristippus the bishop, and in Syria of Antoninus a boy of XX years, and of Aristo the bishop. Thus far the Martyrologies.
[8] we believe they are by no means to be joined, The reader will perhaps wonder that so many texts of Martyrologies have here been heaped up by me, and will ask what at last ought to be gathered from all these. I shall indicate my opinion in a few words, before I set about confirming it by a longer disputation. I am wholly persuaded that Antoninus and Aristaeus were not companions in martyrdom, nor suffered in the same place, which was the first doubt. Then I also judge that by those names of Aristonippus, Arestus, Arippus, Aristo or Aristonis, Aristippus, and others near them which have been reviewed, only a single Saint is designated, namely St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria ad Issum, just as I believe that only a single Antoninus of Apamea is signified on days 11 and III, even though in certain transcripts three are reckoned under the name of Antonius or Antoninus. That the studious reader might more easily understand these things by a probable disputation, I judged that so great a heap of Martyrologies must be gathered here. Of the same opinion, I think, was Wandelbert the deacon, who in his Martyrology at the III of September records one Antoninus, and likewise one Aristeus, and not as companions in martyrdom, but as crowned on the same day, so far as can be gathered from his words, which I subjoin:
On the third, Antoninus, boy and martyr, thou dost triumph: Then too Aristeus the prelate is blessed by death.
[9] The first reason why I do not judge St. Antoninus and St. Aristion (this name seems the one to use in preference to the others) to be companions in martyrdom [both because in no transcripts are they clearly joined as companions in martyrdom,] is this, that in no Hieronymian transcripts are they clearly joined as companions. Certainly nowhere does a greater conjunction appear than in those published by Florentinius from the Lucca and Blumian codex, and in the codex of the queen of Sweden, whose words I gave at num. 4: for after Antoninus has been reckoned there is at once subjoined, and of Arestus the bishop, as is also done in certain others; but in others the conjunction and is omitted. Nevertheless from those very codices cited it is clearly enough gathered that they are not announced as companions: since after the words and of Arestus the bishop, there is subjoined, whose (singular) Deeds are had. Assuredly no one is ignorant that of companion Martyrs Acts are composed common to them all; if therefore they were companions in martyrdom, it would have been written, whose (plural) Deeds are had. Then that apparent conjunction which is found in certain Martyrologies becomes on this account also less likely, that in all those in which they seem to be joined, Antoninus is reckoned in the first place, but Aristion, who was a bishop, only in the second. But it is not likely that a Bishop should have been placed after a Boy, as Antoninus is called in those texts, by all of them, if they had believed them companions in martyrdom. These things suffice against that apparent conjunction, which in the Hieronymian Transcripts is of no great weight. Yet from these alone, so far as can be gathered, Ado joined those Martyrs, as Rabanus also seems to have done, but less clearly, and keeping almost the words of the Hieronymian texts.
[10] The second reason for disjoining the aforesaid Martyrs is drawn from other Hieronymian transcripts, [and because in others they are clearly separated, and suffered in different places.] in which they are clearly dissociated. In various of those cited they are so disjoined that others are set between in the middle who certainly are not their companions. In the Murbach they are placed on different days, namely Antoninus on day 2, Aristonippus on the following. In another Aristion alone is reckoned under the name of Arestus, in others Antoninus alone. There could be added all the Acts of St. Antoninus, of which we disputed at the preceding day: for in them there is no mention of Aristaeus or Aristion the bishop. The third and last reason why we separate Aristion from Antoninus is that by those different names only one Aristion is indicated, as we shall presently prove. Now this Aristion suffered at Alexandria on the Issic gulf, but Antoninus at Apamea, or in its neighborhood. These reasons ought to outweigh the authority of Ado and of the others, whose opinion rests on no suitable monument, and seems to have arisen from the Hieronymian transcripts less accurately considered. It now remains to be proved that one single Aristion, bishop of Alexandria, is announced under different names, and this I shall do in the following §.
§ II. There is one Aristion, who is multiplied under neighboring names in various Martyrologies: he was bishop of Alexandria ad [ ] Issum on the border of Cilicia and Syria: various eulogies of him from the Menologies.
Only one Aristion is to be admitted on this day, I have already said at num. 8 that only one Aristion is indicated on the III day of September, even though under three different names he is reported in certain transcripts, whether interpolated or patched together out of various Martyrologies by unskilled men, who believed that different Saints were indicated as often as in different Martyrologies they found a slight difference of name or of circumstances. My opinion seems to have been followed long ago by Wandelbert, Ado, and Usuard, since they announce only one; although the two latter did not rightly designate the place of martyrdom. The author of the old Roman, and Notker, omitted Aristion altogether. But Rabanus divided into two the Aristion who seems to us one, as was easy on account of the interpolation of the Hieronymian texts. Baronius in the Roman Martyrology of today followed Ado and Usuard, as we have already seen. Receive briefly, studious reader, the reasons on account of which I acknowledge only one Aristion on this day.
[12] [because he who is announced under various names as bishop of Alexandria is the same as Aristion,] First, in various Hieronymian texts only one is announced, and indeed in different ones with the name not a little dislocated. In the first two Martyrologies published by Martène, as I said at num. 7, only one is recorded under the name of Aristonippus. In another there likewise one under the name of Aristus. So in the codex of the Queen of Sweden mention is made of one Arestus, whose deeds are had. Various codices record no Aristaeus or Aristion at all; but others several. Now since this Saint is ancient, I do not see why in the more ancient Martyrologies others of almost the same name should have been omitted, who also ought to be quite as old. Certainly I more easily perceive how it could have come about that one should be repeated on the same day under three different names. For the collectors of those Martyrologies, who were eager to take something from various sources, and used greater diligence than critical judgment, could take from one Aristonippus, from another Arestius, from another Aristo, and insert those names into their Martyrologies as of so many Saints. Ground for suspecting that this really happened is furnished not only by the similarity of the names, but also by this, that the Saint who under the name of Aristoippus, Arippus, Arestempus, but more frequently Aristonippus, and in Rabanus Aristippus, is attributed to Alexandria, must necessarily be St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria, who is known in the Greek Menologies on the same day. For thus I reason with myself: Since the day and place of martyrdom, as also the episcopal dignity of Aristonippus and of Aristion agree, on account of a slight change of name, which in the Hieronymian texts is most frequent, it does not become credible that there are two different Saints.
[13] Further, just as it is in no way likely that these are distinct, so it appears no more credible concerning St. Aristion and that holy Bishop [likewise the same with him is that Bishop who is everywhere placed after Antoninus;] who in most transcripts follows after Antoninus under the name of Arestus, Aristo, Aristenis, Aristonis, as he is also called in Rabanus. For here too there is the same episcopal dignity, the same day of veneration, and so great a similarity of name, that we cannot believe them distinct without a weighty reason, which does not occur; since only the repetition of the names can be brought forward for the distinction. But that repetition of names is most frequent in the Hieronymian transcripts for the reasons already stated. Besides, in two transcripts it is said of Arestius, whose deeds are had. And these words seem to be understood of Aristion alone, a summary of whose Acts still survives in the Menology of the Greeks. Assuredly they cannot probably be understood of any other bishop, since of another Arestius no memorial exists among the Greeks on this day, and no trace of Acts among the Latins. Wherefore, if neither Aristonippus nor Aristo is distinguished from Aristion of Alexandria, neither are they distinguished from each other.
[14] The second reason for not acknowledging a twofold Saint here & because only one place is assigned in the Hieronymian texts: is the place, which is so assigned as single that it is added to one and then omitted. Aristonippus is said to have suffered at Alexandria, and he was bishop of that city. But that Alexandria ad Issum is to be understood, which by some is assigned to Syria, by others to Cilicia, I shall show below. But to Aristo or Aristeus no place is anywhere added, for just as he is to be separated from Antoninus, after whom in most he is announced, so also he ought not to be referred to the same place with him. But if anyone should wish to contend that Aristeus or Aristo is referred to the same place in which Antoninus is announced, he would have to answer the reasons by which I have proved that those two martyrs did not suffer together. Further, this omission of the place, which is found in all the Hieronymian texts in the case of Aristo or Arestius, proves from another quarter also that that name does not belong to the original text of the Hieronymian Martyrology. This is gathered from the words of St. Gregory in his Epistle to Eulogius of Alexandria, which are everywhere understood of the Martyrology bearing the name of Jerome: But we, says Gregory in bk. 8, epistle 29, have the names of nearly all the Martyrs, with their passions distinguished through the several days, collected in one codex, and on the several days we perform the solemnities of Masses in their veneration. Yet in the same volume it is not indicated how each suffered, but only the name, the PLACE, and the day of the passion is set down. Whence it comes about that many from different lands and provinces are known to have been crowned with martyrdom through the several days, as I said before. Gregory testifies that the place was set beside each one. Ought they not therefore to be reckoned interpolations, where the bare names of Saints occur without the place added? — especially since other reasons too hint that those same names had already been recorded before.
[15] From what has been said I conclude that by different names one St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria, is designated, likewise one Aristion is known among the Greeks, of whom a eulogy is given: even though he is a third time repeated in some under the name of Arestus, Arestis, or Aristo. The name has been dislocated in different ways, but everywhere it is the same Saint. This is confirmed from the Menologies of the Greeks, in which only one St. Aristion is announced on this day, not several. Receive a short eulogy of him from the Menology of Sirletus: On the same day the birthday of the blessed Aristion, bishop of Alexandria, who, tried in fire, passed over into heaven. At the same day, in the Menology composed at the command of the emperor Basil, St. Aristion, under this title, The contest of the most sacred martyr Aristion, is adorned with such a eulogy: The holy martyr Aristion was bishop of Alexandria. He taught with the greatest freedom, and preached the coming in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his eternal kingdom; and besides these the felicity and joy of the kingdom of heaven; and that this glory of men, and dignities and riches, are subject to corruption and vanish away; but that those goods are incorruptible, and that life immortal. Teaching these things, when he persuaded many of the Greeks, and converted them to God and baptized them, he was seized and set before the prefect of Alexandria: and having confessed Christ, he is handed over to the fire: and so in the furnace, like those three holy children, praising and magnifying God, he received a blessed and longed-for end, having obtained the crown of incorruptible life. And his precious relics were committed to the earth; but his holy soul, ascending to the heavens, rejoices together with the Saints. These things, rendered into Latin from the Greek, are thus read in the Urbino edition of the year 1727. The same are read a little more briefly in the Clermont Synaxary, communicated to us long ago by Sirmond.
[16] he was bishop of Alexandria ad Issum on the border of Syria and Cilicia; That St. Aristion was not bishop of Alexandria in Egypt has already been observed by Michael le Quien in his Oriens Christianus, vol. 2, col. 903, where he reviews the bishops of Alexandria ad Issum, and describes that city in these words: Alexandria of Cilicia beside Issus, or ad Issum, κατὰ Ισσὸν as it is called by Ptolemy, who assigned it to Syria; but Pliny assigns to Cilicia the town Issos, then Alexandria. Stephanus of Byzantium also says that this is situated in Cilicia, and in the Notitiae of Hierocles, and in the other Greek one, it is reckoned to the second Cilicia. It lies near the Issic gulf, and today too it is named Alexandretta, as it were the lesser Alexandria, Alessandrona and Scandareta. As the second bishop of this city he reckons Aristion, of whom he reasons thus: The Greeks in their Menology on the III day of September keep the memorial of St. Aristion, bishop of Alexandria … And yet Aristion was in no way prelate of the great Alexandria of Egypt, and therefore of no other than the Alexandria of Cilicia. By the same argument he attributes Helenus as the first and Theodore as the third bishop to this Alexandria. But I do not inquire whether that succession is sufficiently certain in every part. Yet it is certainly established that Hesychius, whom he sets as the fourth bishop of Alexandria ad Issum, presided over that see at the time of the councils of Nicaea and Antioch, since he subscribed to both among the bishops of Cilicia as Hesychius of the lesser Alexandria. Further, from the Menology itself it is sufficiently gathered that St. Aristion is not announced as bishop of the Greater Alexandria, since he is not called Patriarch, as in that Menology others are called who presided over a patriarchal see.
[17] [and he is other than Aristion the disciple of Christ, and than others of the same name.] It is not expressed at what time the Saint suffered; but from the fact that he was seized by the city's prefect, or governor, it is sufficiently gathered that he was crowned in some persecution of the gentile emperors. There was a certain Aristion among the ancient disciples of Christ, of whom we treated in vol. III of February, p. 283. Another Aristion, bishop and martyr, is placed with Lucinius, bishop and martyr, at the IV of March, that is, in vol. 1 of that month, p. 308. Likewise in the Apostolic Constitutions, bk. 7 ch. 46, the first bishop of Smyrna is called Aristo, and again the third, so that a twofold Aristo is attributed to the church of Smyrna. But no reason occurs why I should believe one of these to be the same as St. Aristion of Alexandria ad Issum. Tillemont in vol. 2, on St. Papias, disputed of these also; and he hinted that our Alexandrian, whom he doubtfully and not rightly seeks in the Troad or in Caria, is perhaps the same as Aristion the disciple of Christ; but he brings no reasons that ought to detain me.
Annotatai.e. gentilium (of the gentiles). i.e. corpus (the body).