Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/780

 In iv. 250 the discoveries of Cadmus are traced to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference to his native country. The whole tone of the Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken immoralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to believe the poem written by a Christian. Probably it was written early in life, and Nonnus converted to Christianity after it, and the paraphrase of St. John written after his conversion, possibly, as has been suggested, as a contrast to the Dionysiaca, portraying the life and apotheosis of one more worthy than Dionysus of the name of God. Possibly too, as has also been suggested, Nonnus may have been one of the Greek philosophers who accepted Christianity when the heathen temples were destroyed by decree of Theodosius (Socr. H. E. v. 16).

Works.— Of his literary position it is possible to speak with more certainty. He was the centre, if not the founder, of the literary Egyptian school, which gave to Greek epic poetry a new though short-lived brilliancy, and to which belonged Quintus of Smyrna, John of Gaza, Coluthus, Tryphiodorus, and Musaeus. This school revived the historical and mythological epic, treating it in a peculiar style of which Nonnus is the best representative. While frequently proclaiming himself an imitator of Homer, and shewing traces of the influence of Callimachus and later writers, he yet created new metrical rules, which gave an entirely new effect to the general rhythm of the poem—that of an easy but rather monotonous flow, always pleasant, but never rising or falling with the tone of the narrative. The style is very florid, marked by a luxuriance of epithets and original compounds (often of very arbitrary formation), elaborate periphrasis, and metaphors often piled together in hopeless confusion; and many unusual forms are invented.

The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by Agathias (u.s.) is a history of the birth, conquests and apotheosis of Dionysus, spun out at great length. The poem has been regarded "as an allegory of the march of civilization across the ancient world"; but it would be simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as "the gradual establishment of the cultivation of the vine and the power of the Wine-god."

The chief modern editions of the Dionysiaca are Graefe (1819–1826); Passow (1834); Le Comte de Marcellus, with interesting introduction, French. trans. and notes, in Didot's ''Bibl. Graeca (1856); Köchly with apparatus criticus'' (1857), cf. Ouwarow (1817); Köhler, ''Ueber die Dion. des Nonnus'' (1853).

The Paraphrase (Μεταβολή) of St. John's Gospel, attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 311), is a fairly faithful paraphrase of the whole of the Gospel. The text of the Gospel that lies behind the paraphrase has been reproduced by R. Jannsen (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. viii. 4, 1903). The text is faithfully treated. The omissions, except when he has MSS. authority (e.g. v. 1, 4, vii. 53 sqq.), are rare (v. 1, 29, iv. 27, 41, 42, vi. 41, 53, viii. 38, xviii 16, 18). The additions are chiefly those of poetical expansion. Homeric epithets form a strange medley with the Palestinian surroundings, and in many cases the illustrations are drawn out into insipid details (cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At other times we have interpretations suggested, in most of which he agrees with the Alexandrine tradition as represented by Cyril and Origen cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name); vi. 71 (the motive of Judas); vii. 19 (the reference to the sixth commandment); viii. 40 (the hospitality of Abraham); xii. 6, 10; xviii. 15 (ἰχθυβόλου παρὰ τέχνης); xix. 7. In some he seems obviously wrong, e.g. ii. 12 (δυωδεκάριθμος); ii. 20, x. 12 (the reference to Solomon); vii. 28 (ὐψῶν); xi. 44, σουδάριον explained as a Syrian word; while in ii. 4, τί μοι γύναι ἠὲ καὶ αὐτῇ looks like an attempt to avoid a slight to her who is constantly called Θεοτόκος. He shews, too, a looseness in using theological terms (cf. i. 3, μύθος; 1, 50, xi. 27, λόγος) which, with the luxuriance of periphrasis, forms a striking contrast to the simplicity and accuracy of St. John. The chief modern editions are Passow (1834); Le Comte de Marcellus, with French trans. and notes (1860); A. Scheindler (1881), with text of the Gospel and criticus apparatus; Migne, vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of Le Comte de Marcellus); Mansi, ''Bibl. Patr.'' vi. (ed. 1618), ix. (ed. 1677). See also a series of arts. in Wiener Studien for 1880–1881 and ''Theolog. Literaturzeitung'', 1891, where the authorship is attributed to Apollinaris.

[W.L.]

Novatianus and Novatianism (Novatianus; Cyprian, Ep. xliv.; Νοουάτος, Eus. H. E. vi. 43; Ναυάτος, Socr. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner (Credibility, c. 47, note) seeks to prove that Eusebius and the Greeks in general were correct in calling the Roman presbyter Novatus, not Novatianus. He attributes the origin of the latter name to Cyprian, who called the Roman presbyter Novatianus, as being a follower of his own rebellious priest, Novatus of Carthage. Novatian, the founder of Novatianism, is said by Philostorgius to have been a Phrygian by birth, a notion which may have originated in the popularity of his system in Phrygia and its neighbourhood (Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 98). He was, before his conversion, a philosopher, but of what sect we cannot certainly determine, though from a comparison of the language of Cyprian in Ep. lv. § 13, ad Antonian., with the Novatianist system itself, we should be inclined to say the Stoic. The circumstances of his conversion and baptism are stated by pope Cornelius in his letter to Fabius of Antioch (Eus. l.c.), but we must accept his statements with much caution. His narration is evidently coloured by his feelings. The facts of the case appear to be these. He was converted after he had come to manhood, and received clinical baptism, but was never confirmed, which furnishes Cornelius with one of his principal accusations. He was, nevertheless, admitted to the clerical order. His talents, especially his eloquence, to which even Cyprian witnesses (Ep. lx. 3), rapidly brought him to the front, and he became the most influential presbyter of the Roman church. In this character, the see being vacant, he wrote Ep. xxx. to the Carthaginan church, touching the treatment of the lapsed, while the anonymous author of the treatise against Novatian, written 155 and included by Erasmus among Cyprian's