apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS 523
of Madaura willi S. Augustine (Augustin. Epist. xv, xvi, Op. il. p. ly sq). Maxiinus
writes; 'Quis enim ferat Jovi fulmina vibranti praeferri Migginem ; Junoni, Minervae,
Veneri, Yestaeque, Samaen; et cunctis, proh nefas, diis immortalibus archimartyrem
Namphamonem ; inter quos Lucitas etiam haud minore cultu suscipitur, atque alii
interminato numero, etc' ;
and Augustine rebukes him for ridiculing Punic names,
'cum simus utrique in Africa constituti ', adding 'Namphamo quid aliud significat
quam boni pedis hominem'' The principal name in this group occurs frequently in
the African inscriptions (C /. L. viii. p. 1030, index) variously spelt, Namphamo,
Nampamo, Namfamo, Namefamo, Namephamo, with the allied names Namphame,
Namphamilla, Namphamina. De Rossi {Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1873, p. 68 sq)
compares it with Agathopus, Calepodius, both occurring not uncommonly in Christian
nomenclature. Of the others, we find Miggin, ib. no. 10686, where it occurs twice in
a Christian inscription (comp. Migginnia, ib. no. 2186; see also Ephem. Epigr. v.
p. 476) ;
but the nearest approaches to Samae are Samate (no. 7789) and Sammia (no.
'^ii
cannot find anything at all resembling Lucitas in the African collection.
In a Norican inscription however (C /. L. III. 5289) we meet with Loucita (see
Ephcm. Epigr. iv. p. 522).
From the language of Maximus this Namphamo seems to have been the protomartyr
of Africa ; and, if so, he would have suflered when Saturninus was proconsul
(Tertull. Scap. 3 'Vigellius Saturninus qui primus hie gladium in nos egit lumina
amisit ').
But this is the same proconsul who condemned the Scillitan Martyrs, of
whom I shall have to speak presently. So long therefore as the Scillitan Martyrdoms
were assigned to the reign of Severus, the Madaurian were dated accordingly, a.d. 198
or 200 or 202, by different critics. It may now however be regarded as certain
that the Scillitans suffered July 17, a.d. 180. And, as the proconsuls entered upon
their duties about May, Namphamo and his companions must have been martyred
almost immediately before them. Gorres indeed contemplates the possibility of their
having suffered 'already in 179 still under M. Aiirelius'; but this could not be, unless
indeed Saturninus was continued in office more than the normal year of the proconsulate.
Baronius in his Martyrologium assigns the martyrdom of Namphamo and his
companions definitely to July 4, and Gorres regards this as an arbitrary date of the
Cardinal's invention. But I suspect he had some authority for it. Otherwise it was
an eminently felicitous guess. In the old Carthaginian Calendar (Ruinart Act. Mart.
Sine. p. 633) these Madaurian martyrs are not mentioned; but, if I mistake not, there
is a lacuna at the place where they would come, if their day was July 4.
I add, by way of caution, that if the correspondence of Maximus and Augustine
be our sole authority for these martyrdoms, then there is no solid ground for supposing
the others to have been martyred at the same time with Namphamo, though this
is not improbable in itself. The language of Maximus would be satisfied if they
suffered separately and in different reigns. It should be added also that the inferences
drawn as to the date depend entirely on the interpretation of archimartyr as equivalent
to protonmrtyr. This seems highly probable, but it is not certain.
On these martyrdoms see Aube Les Chretiens dans T Empire Romain —
a.d. 180
249, p. 199 sq, and especially Gorres Das Christenthum etc. zur Zeit des Kaisers
Commodiis p. 261 sq, in yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884. The former has the disadvantage
of having been written before the true date of the Scillitan martyrdoms was
ascertained.