apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

726 ADDENDA.
name of the saint is originally Roman, and that therefore its correct form is 'Avircius'
(IX. p. 268, 394 sq).
On p. 501 (the last line but one) I ought to have written 'wife'
for ' mother,' as Ramsay points out. Probably the husband and wife mentioned in
this inscription were related, and hence the provision extended rots ave^piols fiov which
is unusual in such cases (see ix. p. 396).
I have learnt recently from Prof. Rendel Harris that a MS of an earlier form of the
Acts of Abercius, before it was manipulated by the Metaphrast, has been discovered
in the East and that it will shortly be published in Greece. Unfortunately I could
not delay my new edition until its appearance. But its existence seemed to me to be
a sufficient reason why I should not enter into Ramsay's differences from myself and
where new
others as to the text and interpretation of the inscription (ix. p. 264 sq),
evidence may shortly be expected, which will decide some of the questions at issue.
p. 516. S. Cascilia is the subject of a long article entitled Die h. Ciicilia hi
Zusammcnhang mil dcr Papstoypta sotvie der dltestcn Kirchc Roins in the Zeitschr.f.
Kirchengesch. IX. p. i sq (1887) by Erbes, where De Rossi's views are discussed and
many of his conclusions questioned. Erbes considers that the Roman bishop Urbanus
himself is the person buried in the papal vault (p. 30 sq) that the Acts of
; S. Cecilia
were written after a.d. 486 (p. 10 sq); that she was probably martyred under Severus
A.D. 202— 211 (p. 42); that the earliest bishops buried in the papal vault were Pontianus
and Anteros a.d. 236 (p. 33), Fabianus the successor of Anteros having first
constructed this vault; and that the body of S. Coecilia was removed thither afterwards
(p. 41), having originally been deposited in the immediate neighbourhood. He seems
to me to have made out a very fair case for Fabianus as the constructor of this
papal vault, though it is ascribed by De Rossi to the age of Zephyrinus.
p. 511 1. 7. The reference to Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1884, 1885, p. 149 sq, is accidentally
inserted in the wrong place. It is an archceological account by De Rossi of
recent discoveries in the Cemetery of Maximus ad Sandam Felicitateni. which contained
the reputed graves of Felicitas and her son Silanus (or Silvanus), and has
nothing to do with the text of the Acts. The remains of a fresco of Felicitas and her
seven sons were found here, and are compared by De Rossi with the similar picture
near the Baths of Titus mentioned in my account (p. 513). The ruins of the newlydiscovered
basilica and sepulchre of S. Felicitas point to a date as early as the close
of the 4th century, but they throw no light on the origin of the story.
Some remarks on the parallel stories of Felicitas and Symphorosa will be found in
Egli Martyrien ti. Martyrologicn p. 91 sq, but they do not add anything to our
knowledge see also the same writer in Zcitschr. ;
f. IViss. Thcol. xxxi. p. 385 sq, where
he discusses the days assigned to Felicitas, as well as those assigned to Polycarp and
Ignatius, in the different calendars.
p. 642. Since my first edition appeared, Harnack (Texte u. Untersuchungen iv.
Hft. 3, 4. p. 435 sq) has edited and commented upon these original Acts of Carpus,
Papylus, and Agathonice (1888). As he does not appear to have read what I had
written, I am the more glad to find that we agree on the main points. He considers
these Acts to be genuine, as I had maintained them to be ;
and he points out, as I had
done, that they imply a divided sovereignty and therefore cannot be assigned to the
reign of Decius. Whereas I had offered the alternative of M. Aurelius or Severus,
though inclining to the former (see p. 715), he definitely ascribes them, as Zahn also
does, to the earlier of these two epochs.
p. 667, last line. In the 4th edition (posthumous) of Bp Wordsworth's work
(18S9) a change of view is expressed, and the earlier date adopted.