Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/691

 HAKCELLIXUS

638

BfiABOELLUnni

confiseatod, like the other public meeting-places of the Roman community, be Rossi assumes that the Christians blocked up the principal galleries of the catacomb at this time, to protect from ofesecration the tombs of the numerous martyrs buried there. The Diocletian persecution, whose severe edicts against the Christians were executed by Maximianus Hercu- leus, caused tiie greatest confusion in the Roman Church after 303. Marcellinus died in the second year of the persecution and, in all probability, a nat- ural death. No trustworthy sources of the fourth or fifth century mention him as a martyr. His name does not occur either in the list of martyrs or the bishops in the Roman "Chronograph " of the year 364. Neither is he mentioned in the " Martjrrologium Hie- ronymianum". The "Marcellinus episcopus" on 4 Oct. in "Codex Bemensis" (ed. De Rossi-Duchesne, 129) is probably not identical w^ith the pope. In men- tioning Marcellinus, Eusebius uses an obscure expres- sion; he merely says: "the persecution also affected him" (dp Kcd ainhv KaT€CKii<^v6duiyfibs "Hist. Eccl.", VII, 32). From this one must obviously conclude that the pope did not suffer martyrdom, other- wise Eusebius would have distinctly stated ?.t. There were even later reports in circulation that accused him of having given up the sacred books after the first edict, or even of having offered incense to the gi>d8; to protect himself from the persecution. But vhe sources in which this reproach is clearly stated are very questionable.

The Donatist Bishop Petilianus of Constantine m Africa asserted, in the letter he wrote in 400 and 410, that Marcellinus and the Roman priests Melchiades. Marcellus, and Sylvester (his three successors) had

S'ven up the sacred books, and had offere<l incons.?. ut he could not adduce any proof. In the Acts of confiscation of the church buildings at Rome, which at the great Carthaginian conference between Cath- olics and Donatists, were brought forward by the lat- ter, only two Roman deacons, Straton and Cassius, were named as traitors. St. Augustine, in his re- plies to Petilianus. disputes the truth of the latter's report ("Contra litteras Petiliani", II, 202: "De (]uibus et nos solum respondemus: aut non probatis et ad neminem pertinet, aut probatis et ad nos non perti- nct"; "De imico baptismo contra Petilianum", cap. xvi: " Ipse scelestos et sacrilegos fuisse dicit; ego inno- centes fuisse resj)ondco"). One can only conclude from Petilianus's accusation that such rumours against Marcellinus and Roman priests were circulated m Af- rica; but that they could not be proved, otherwise St Augustine would not have been able to assert the innocence of the accused so decidedly, or safely to have referred to the matter at the Carthii^nian conference. But even in Rome similar stories were told of Marcel- linus in certain circles, so that in two later legendary rej)ort8 a formal apostasy was attributed to this poixj, of course followccf by reixiiitance and penance. 1 he biography of Marcellinus in the "Liber Pontificalis ", which probably alludes to a lost "passio*' of his, re- lates that he was led to the sacrifice that he might scatter incense, which he did. But after a few davs he was seized with remorse, and was condemned to death by Diocletian with three other Christians, and Ixj- headed. It is clear that this report- attempts to com- bine a rumour that the pope had offered incense to the gods, with the fact that, in other circles he was re- gardoii as a martyr and his tomb venerated.

At the beginning of the sixth century, rather later than this "passio Marccllini", a collection of forged documents appeareTiod of 300 bishops, wnich took place in 303 at ^inuessa (between Rome and Capua), in order to inquire into the accusation against Marcellinus that he had sacrificed at I)io(?letian'3 order. On the first two

days Marcellinus had denied everything, but on tht third day he admitted his lapse and repented; how- ever the synod passed no sentence on him * ' Quia prima sedes non judlcatur a quoquam''. When Diocietiazi learnt of the occurrence, he had the pope and several bishops of this synod executed (Hefele, "Konsilien- geschichte", I, 2 Aufl. 143-45). The spuiiousness of these acts is almost certain. Tlie foraer has made the most of the rumour of Mareellinus's Eipse for his own purposes in a different way from the author of the ^'passio", which crept into the "Liber Pontificalia ". These apocryphal fragments cannot by themselves be considered as historical proofs, any more than the rumours in Donatist circles in Africa. It is accepted as certain that the pope did not comply with the im- perial edict by any overt act, such as the surrender of the sacred writings, or even the offering of incense be- fore the statue of a god. Such an apostasy of a Ro- man bishop would without a doubt nave been fiven the greatest prominence by contemporary auUiors. Euseoius has not made use of the aoeve mentioned idea. And later, Theodoret was still less in a position to state in his "Church History", that Marcellinus had been prominent in the persecution row iw rf 8itayfi$ iiairphl/arra (Hist. Eccl., I, 2). And Augustine also would not have been able to assert so curtly in answer to Petilian, that Marcellinus. and the pnests accused with him as traitors and "lapei " were inno- cent.

On the other hand it is remarkable, that in the Roman "Chronograph " whose first edition was in 336, the name of this pope alone is missing, while all other popes from Lucius I onwards are forthcoming. In the MS. there is indeed under 16 Jan. (XVI n kaL I'v*b.) the name Marcellinus, but this is clearly a slip of the pen for "Marcellus"; for the feast of this pope is found rx)th in the " Marty rologium HieronjTnianum" and in the old liturgical Roman books under this date, while in the "Liber Pontificalis" and, in connection therewith, in the historical martyrologies of the ninth century, the feast of Marcclliniis is transferred to 26 April (ActaSS., June, VII, 185). By certain investiga- tors (Mommsen, de Smedt) the lack of Marc^linus's name was traced to the omission of a copyist, owing to the similaritv of the names, and in the " Deposit io £pis- coporum" they claimed to supplement the "Chiono-

Eiph": XVII kal. Febr. Marcelli in Priscillie; VI 1. Mali Marcellini in Priscillse (de Smedt, " Introdue- tio in hist. eccl. critice tractandam'' 612-13). But this hypothesis is not accepted. The dates of the death ot the poises, as far as Svl vester in the list of suo- cessions, are identical with the days of the month on which their feasts are celebrated. Thus Marcellinuf must come first after Gains, whose name is quoted imder the date X kal. Maii. Tlien Marcellinus is lack' ing not only in the Chronograph, but also in the ''Martyrologium Hieronymianum", and in all fifth and sixth century lists of popes. This omission if therefore not accidental, but intentional.

In connection with the above mentioned rumoun and the narratives of apocryphal fragments, it must indeed be admitted that in certain circles at Rome the conduct of the pope during the Diocletian persecution was not approved. In this persecution we know of only two Roman clerics who were mart)rred: the priest Marcellinus and the exorcist Petrus. The Roman bishop and the other memliers of the higher clexgy, except the al>ove clerics, were able to elude the per- secutors. How tliis happened we do not know. It is passible that Pope Marcellinus was able to hide himself in a safe place of concealment in due time, as many other bishops did. But it is also possible that at the publication of the edict he sccurecf his own im- munity; in Roman circles this would have been im- puted to him as weakness, so that his memory suf- fered thereunder, and he was on that account omitted by the author of the "Depositio Episcoporum" from