apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 649
logy is obscure'. In the present instance, however, the sources of
information which Eusebius had before him in the two cases were
—
plainly the same the Letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the death of
Polycarp and the Letter of the Galilean Churches containing an account
of the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons
— for these two documents are
mentioned in both works. Nor is there any
evidence that he drew
different inferences from them in the two cases ; though in the History
he connects the persecution in Gaul with the accession of Eleutherus,
whereas in the Chronicle he is silent about this connexion. In this
respect only it seems probable that he had discovered a chronological
link meanwhile.
The inference from this investigation therefore is that Eusebius did
iiot profess any knowledge of the exact year of Polycarfs martyrdom,
but that he probably supposed it to have taken place under M. Aurelius.
There is no indication however that he had any historical grounds for
this supposition.
Subsequent writers derive their knowledge from Eusebius. Jerome
(see above, p. 557) in his edition of the Chronicon fixes the date, which
Eusebius had left uncertain, definitely to the 7th year of M. Aurelius.
It is his constant practice to treat these loose notices of Eusebius in
this way. In his Catalogus again he says that it happened 'regnante
Marco Antonino et Lucio Aurelio Commodo.' This ought to mean
during the joint reign of M. Aurelius and his son Commodus {i.e.
the second name
177— A.D. 180). But doubtless Jerome intended by
L. Aurelius Verus, who at an earlier date bore the name L. tEUus
Aurelius Commodus, but dropped some of his names when he became
emperor ".
The author of the Chronicon Paschale, in his account of Polycarp's
martyrdom, shows a knowledge, either direct or indirect, not
only of the History of Eusebius, but also of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans
itself;
for he gives information derived from the chronological postscript
^
On this subject see below, 11. p. 467.
^ If the Armenian Version of the
Chronicon (p. 1
70 Schone) be correct, the
error was derived from Eusebius, for
the reign is there designated 'M. Aurelianus
[sic) qui et Berus, Lucius Aurelius
Comodus', but Syncellus p. 664 has i^afflXevae
Map/cos AvprjXios 6 Kal OvTJpos
AovKios Tfi Avp-qXios Kal K6fxo5oi, which
is inaccurate in another way, for Commodus
was not associated in the empire
till after the death of Lucius Venis. Probably
(with the exception of the name
'Aurelianus') the Armenian truly represents
Eusebius, in which case he may
have written o Kal Ko/jloSos. Yet in his
History, though there is much confusion
between the two imperial brothers Marcus
and Lucius {H. E. iv. 13, v. 45), he
never gives the name Commodus to
either.