Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/797

 MARTYRS

744

MARTYRS

chii, "Origines et Antiquitates Christianaj" (Rome, 1749). The critical study of the Acta Martyrum has been vigorously prosecuted within the last few years, and the standpoint of the critics considerably changed since the attempt of Ruinart to make bis selection of Acta. Many of his Acta Sincera will no longer rank as sincera; and if they be arranged in different classes according to their historicity very few can claim a place in our first or second class. But on the other hand the discovery of texts and the arch»- ological researches of De Rossi and others have con- firmed individual stories of martyrdom. And a general result of criticism has been to substantiate such main facts as the causes of persecution, the num- ber and heroism of the martyrs, the popularity of their cultus, and the historicity of the popular heroes.

The chief problem, therefore, for modern critics is to discover the literary history of the Acta which have come down to us. It cannot l^ denied that some attempt was made at the very first to keep the history of the Church's martyrs inviolate. The public reading of the Acta in the chutches would naturally afford a guarantee of their authenticity; and this custom certainly obtained in Africa, for the Third Council of Carthage (c. 47) permittee! the reading of the " Passiones Martyrum cum anniversarii dies eorum oelebrentur". There was also an interchange of Acta between different Churches, as we see from the "Martyrium S. Polycarpi'* and the "Epistola Ecclesise Viennensis et Lugdunensis". But it is not known to what extent those customs were practised. And during the persecutions of Diocletian there must have been a wholesale destruction of documents, with ^e result that the Church would lose the accounts of its Martyr's history. This seems to be especially true of Rome, which possesses so few authentic Acta in spite of the numtJer and fame of its martyrs; for the Romans had apparently lost the thread of these tradi- tions as early as the second half of the fourth century. The poems of Prudentius, the Calendaria, and even the writings of Pope Damasus show that the story of the persecutions had fallen into obscurity. Christian Rome had her martyre beneath her feet, and celebrated their memory with intense devotion, and yet she knew but little of their history.

Under these circumstances it is not improbable that the desire of the faithful for fuller information would easily be satisfied by raconteurs who, having only scanty material at tneir disposal, would amplify and multiply the few facts preser\^ed in tradition and at- tach what they considered suitable stories to historical names and localities. And in the course of time it is argued these legends were committed to writing, and have come down to us as the Roman legendarium. In support of this severe criticism it is urged that the Roman Acta are for the most part not earlier than the sixth centurv (Dufourcq), and that spurious Acta were certainly not unknown during the period. The Roman Council of 494 actually condemned the public reading of the Acta (P. L., LIX, 171-2). And this Roman protest had been already anticipated by the Sixth Council of Carthage (401) which protested against the cult of martyrs whose martyrdom was not certain (canon 17). St. Augustine (354-340) also had written: "Though for other martyrs we can hardly find accounts which we can read on their festivals, the Passion of St. Stephen is in a canonical book " (Senno, 315, P. L., XXXVIII, 1426). Subsequently in (>02 the TruUan Council at Constantinople cxcommiinicatcd those who were responsible for the reading of spurious Acta. The supposition, therefore^ of such an ori- gin for the Roman legends is not improbable. And unfortunatelv the Roman martyrs arc not the only ones whose Acta are unreliable." Of the seventy-four separate Passions included by Ruinart in his Acta Sin- cera, the Bollandist Delehaye places only thirtcKin in the first or second class, as original documents. Fur-

ther study of particular Acta may, of course, raise this number; and other original Acta inay be dis- covered. The labours of such critics as Uebhardt, Aub^, Franchi de Cavalieri, Le Blant, Conybeare, Har- nack^ the Bollandists, and many others, have in fact, not mfrequently issued in this direction, while at the same time they have gathered an ext^n^ive bibliography around the several Acta. These must therefore be valued on their respective merits. It may, however, be noticed here that the higher criti- cism is as dangerous when applied to the Acts of the Martyrs as it is for the Holy Scriptures. Arguments may of course, be drawn from the formal setting of the document, its accuracy in dates, names, and topo- graphv, and still stronger arguments from w^hat may becalfed the informal setting given to it unconsciously by its author. But in the first case the formal setting can surely be imitated^ and it is unsafe therefore to seek to establish historicity by such an argument. It is equally unsafe to presume that the probability of a narrative, or its simplicity is a proof that it is genuine. Even the improbable may contain more facts of his- tory than many a narrative which bears the appear- ance of sobriety and restraint. Nor is conciseness a sure proof that a document is of an early date; St. Mark s Gospel is not thus proved to be the earliest of the Svnoptics. The informal setting is more reliable; philology and psychology are better tests than dates and geography, for it needs a clever romancer indeed to identify nimself so fully with his heroes as to share their thoughts and emotions. And yet even with this concession to higher criticism, it still remains true that the critic is on safer ground when he has succeeded in establishing the pedigree of his document by external evidence.

AeU^ 8S.\ AndUdta Bollandiana; Bibliographica haoioara' phtca gnuKca (Bruflscb, 1895); Bt6/. hao. latina (Brussels, 1^8); Le Blant, Les Pera^iUeura et lea Martyrs (Paris, 1H9.3); Lea Aetea (Ua Martyra^ SupplemerU aux Ada Sinctra de D. RuinaHm Mimoirea de VAccuUmxe dea Inacripticma et BcUea Lettrca, XXX. (Paris, 1882); Neumann, Der RUmiache Stoat imd die allge- meine Kirche bia auf Diokletian, I (Leipxig, 1890); HARNACXt Geachichte der alichrxaUichen LiUeratur bia Euaebiua (I^eipsig, 1897-1904); Dufourcq, Etude aur lea Geaia Martyrum Ramavna (Paris, l90Cy-07); Actielis. Die Martyrologirn. \hre GeachichAe und ihr Wert (Beriin, 1900); Quentxn, Lea mariyrologea kiatO' riquea du moyen ^(/r (Paris, 1907): Gebhardt, Acta Marturum Selecta (Berlin, 1902;; Leclercq. Lea Martyra (Paris, 1902); LlETKHANN, Dte drci fillesten Martyrolofnen (Bonn, 1903); Delx- HATE, Legenda of the SairUa (Eng. tr., London, 1907).

James Bridge.

Martgnrs, Coptic. See Persecutions.

Mart3rrs, Enqush. See English Confessors and Martyrs.

Maitsrrs. Japanese. — There is not in the whole history of the Church a single people who can offer to the aamiration of the Chnstian world annals as glo- rious, and a martyrolog>' as lengthy, as those of the people of Japan. In January', 1552, St. Francis Aavicr had remarked the proselytizing spirit of the early neophytes. " I saw them ", he wrote, " rejoicing in our successes, manifesting an ardent zeal to spread the faith and to win over to baptism the pagans they conquered." He foresaw the obstacles that would block the progress of the faith in certain prov- inces, the absolutism of this or that daimifo, a class at that time ver>' independent of the Mikaoo and in re- volt against his supreme authority. As a matter of fact, in the pro\nnoe of Ilirado, where he made a hun- dred converts, and where nix years after him, 600 pagans were baptized in three days, a Christian wo- man (the profo-martyr) was beheaded for prajing Ixjfore a cross. In 1561 the daimyo forced the Chris- tians to abjure their faith, **but they preferred to abandon all their possessions and live in the Bungo, poor with Christ, rather than rich without Him", wrote a missionary, 11 ctol)er, 1502. When, under the Shogunate of Yoshiaki, Ota Nobiuiaga, supported