apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

522 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
puniantur, qui autem negaverint dimittanlur', with the account of the rescript of
M. Aurelius in the GalHcan persecution (Eusebius H. E. v. i),
which in Rufinus'
translation runs 'Cum a Caesare rescriptum fuisset, ut persistentes quidem punirentur,
negantes autem dimitterentur'; because it
might have been borrowed directly from
this source. Nor indeed was this principle peculiar to the reign of M. Aurelius, but
it
guided the persecutions throughout the second century.
Aube (p. 416) throws out another suggestion. A certain Urbanus is mentioned in
Cyprian's correspondence {Epist. xlix, li, liii, liv, ed. Hartel) as a priest and confessor
at Rome. He at first took a strong line against the lapsed, but afterwards, towards
the end of a.d. 251, he gave way and was reconciled to the Roman bishop Cornelius.
Why, he asks, may this person not have been afterwards elected bishop, not at
Rome, but in the neighbourhood have converted Cecilia — and her companions and
; ;
have perished after them, somewhere about a.d. 257 260, in a persecution which
their imprudence had stirred up
This has no advantage over De Rossi's view, while it is entirely destitute of the
external support which the latter can claim. The representations in the Acts are not
indeed consistent with De Rossi's date, but neither are they with Aube's. The names
of the Prefect, Turcius Almachius, are borrowed from a later epoch than either. A
complete list of the City Prefects from A.D. 254 to A.D. 354 is extant, and neither name
is found during the third century. The Turcii came into prominence in the age of
Constantine ;
one Turcius Apronianus was City Prefect in a.d. 359 and another in
A.D. 363 (Bosio in Laderchi S. Caec. Virg. et Mart. I. p. 65 sq; Tillemont Emperezirs
IV. pp. 325, 526, Paris 1697). The latter served under Julian. The fact that the
family was known to have remained pagan long after the great change under Constantine,
and to have more than once held the City Prefecture, might suggest the use
of the name to the writer of these Acts. The surname Almachius is not known to
have been borne by the Turcii. De
Rossi indeed proposes to substitute Amachius (ii.
pp. xxxvii, 149), but he seems to have overlooked passages in which Almachius (or
Almacius) occurs. Besides the passages quoted in De-Vit {Lexic. Eoirelliii. Onotnast.
s. v.) it is found also in a Numidian inscription (C. I. L. VIII. 4469) belonging to
the age of Constantine or his successor. So far as we can see, it appears for the first
time about the middle of the fourth century. We may say generally of the setting
of the stoiy of S. Cascilia, that it
belongs neither to the second centuiy nor to the
third, but to the fourth or fifth. Whether the plurality of emperors formed part of
the later setting, or was a survival of the original tradition, we have no means of
determining. In itself it
might be either. But the fact that evidence (such as it is)
exists for placing the martyrdom under the divided sovereignty of M. Aurelius and
Commodus inclines us to the latter alternative.
Reasons are given by De Rossi (11. p. 153 sq) for the belief that the true day of
the martyrdom was Sept. 16 (as given in the Hicronymiaii Martyrology), and that
Nov. 22, the day commonly assigned to her, is the anniversary of her translation to
the Transtiberine Church. For a similar transference, see below, il.
p. 432.
(^)
The Madaurian Mat'tyrs [a.d. iSo].
These sufferers bore Punic names ; Namphamo (commonly, but incorrectly,
written Namphanio), Miggin, Lucitas, and a woman Samae. Our knowledge of
them is entirely derived from the correspondence,of the heathen grammarian Maximus