Book VI — Historical footnotes

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

I read φ€βιον with the majority of the mss., and with Valesius, Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Crusè, preferring to adopt the same spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the same bishop is mentioned. A number of mss. read φαβιανόν, which is supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen. On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39, note 7. The time of his episcopate stated in that note fixes the date of this epistle within narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring of 253. The whole tone of the letter and the discussion of the readmission of the lapsed would lead us to think that the epistle was written after the close of the persecution, but in §20, Dioscorus is said to be still among them, waiting for “a longer and more severe conflict,” which seems to imply that the persecution, if not raging at the time, was at least expected to break out again soon. This would lead us to think of the closing months of Decius’ reign, i.e. late in the year 251, and this date finds confirmation in the consideration that the epistle (as we learn from chap. 44) was written after the breaking out of the Novatian schism, and apparently after the election of Novatian as opposition bishop, for Fabius can hardly have sided with him against his bishop, so long as he was only a presbyter. Doubtless Novatian’s official letter, announcing his election, had influenced Fabius. But Novation was elected bishop in 251, probably in the summer or early fall; at least, some months after Cornelius’ accession which took place in February, 251. It seems, from chap. 44, that Fabius was inclined to side with Novatian, and to favor his rigoristic principles. This epistle was written (as we learn from chap. 42, §6) with the express purpose of leading him to change his position and to adopt more lenient principles in his treatment of the lapsed. It is with this end in view that Dionysius details at such length in this chapter the sufferings of the martyrs. He wishes to impress upon Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in order to beget greater respect for their opinions. Having done this, he states that they who best understood the temptations to which the persecuted were exposed, had received the lapsed, when repentant, into fellowship as before (see chap. 42, note 6). Dionysius’ own position in the matter comes out very clearly in this epistle. He was in full sympathy with the milder treatment of the lapsed advocated in Rome and in Carthage by Cornelius and Cyprian.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-1 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius, began in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter showed the Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this local persecution should break out during his reign. The peace which the Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of the Church, and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens of the empire must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its constant increase, and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute would lead many such persons to desire to persecute when the opportunity offered itself; and the closing months of Philip’s reign were so troubled with rebellions and revolutions that he had little time, and perhaps less inclination, to interfere in such a minor matter as a local persecution of Christians. The common people of Alexandria were of an excitable and riotous disposition, and it was always easy there to stir up a tumult at short notice and upon slight pretexts.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-2 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

ὁ κακῶν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ μ€ντις καὶ ποιητής. The last word is rendered “poet” by most translators, and the rendering is quite possible; but it is difficult to understand why Dionysius should speak of this person’s being a poet, which could have no possible connection with the matter in hand. It seems better to take ποιητής in its common sense of “maker,” or “author,” and to suppose Dionysius to be thinking of this man, not simply as the prophet of evils to the city, but also as their author, in that he “moved and aroused against us the masses of the heathen.”

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-3 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this chapter, we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-4 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

We know that the closing months of Philip’s reign were troubled with seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only authority for this particular one, unless it be connected, as some think, with the revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the Orient by the bad government of Philip’s brother, who was governor there, and by excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 272).

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-6 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius. The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published until some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hostility to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it might have been understood that he would persecute as soon as he had attended to the other more important matters connected with his accession.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-7 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

οἱ δὲ δημοσιεύοντες ὑπὸ τῶν πρ€ξεων ἤγοντο. Every officer of the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to sacrifice to the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at stated times during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or in connection with the performance of important official duties. He might thus be called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer sacrifices, and a failure to perform this part of his duties was looked upon as sacrilege and punished as a crime against the state. Christian officials, therefore, were always in danger of suffering for their religion unless they were allowed as a special favor, to omit the sacrifices, as was often the case under those emperors who were more favorably inclined toward Christianity. A private citizen was never obliged to sacrifice except in times of persecution, when he might be ordered to do so as a test. But an official could not carry out fully all the duties of his position without sacrificing. This is one reason why many of the Christians avoided public office, and thus drew upon themselves the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf. Origen, Contra Cels. VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian’s Apol. c. 42); and it is also one reason why such Christians as happened to be in office were always the first to suffer under a hostile emperor.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-10 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

ξυστῆρας. “The instrument of torture here mentioned was an iron scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed over it” (Crusè).

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-14 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

Rufinus adds at this point the words et alia Ammonaria (“and another Ammonaria”). Valesius therefore conjectures that the words καὶ ᾽Αμμον€ριον ἕτερα must have stood in the original text, and he is followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The mss., however, are unanimous in their omission of the words, and the second sentence below, which speaks of only a single Ammonarium, as if there were no other, certainly argues against their insertion. It is possible that Rufinus, finding only three women mentioned after Dionysius had referred to four, ventured to insert the “other Ammonaria.”

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-16 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

It has been suggested (by Birks in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same name mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 11, §24. But this is quite impossible, for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but fifteen years old at the time of the Decian persecution, and Dionysius is still speaking of the same persecution when he mentions the presbyter Dioscorus in the chapter referred to (see note 31 on that chapter).

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-17 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

μαρτυρί& 139·. It is difficult to ascertain from Dionysius’ language whether these five soldiers suffered martyrdom or whether they were released. The language admits either interpretation, and some have supposed that the magistrate was so alarmed at what he feared might be a general defection among the troops that he dismissed these men without punishing them. At the same time it seems as if Dionysius would have stated this directly if it were a fact. There is nothing in the narrative to imply that their fate was different from that of the others; and moreover, it hardly seems probable that the defection of five soldiers should so terrify the judge as to cause him to cease executing the imperial decree, and of course if he did not execute it in the case of the soldiers, he could hardly do it in the case of others.

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-18 · Original source

1890 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain) | Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)

The Greek word μ€καρ means “blessed.”

Editorial footnote · Book VI, Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.; original source section: Chapter 41, editorial note cite_note-13 · Original source