123. Ibtd., 76. 124. Ibid., 77.
125. Ibid., 112. ' 126. Cf. above, p. 131. '
127. Moreau, "Notes," 94.
128. Le., the rival imperial claimants.
129. Life of Pachomius, Codex sahtdicus, 7 (ed. Lefort, 293); Codex bohairicus, 7 (ed. Lefort, 83); Vita prima, 4 (ed. Halkin, 3).
130. Ibid., Codex bohairicus, 8 (ed. Lefort, 83); Vitaprtma, 5 (ed. Halkin, 3-4). 131. E. Misset, Pourquoi Saint Marttn refusa-t-il de combattre: Pugnare mihi non licet et le 74 a Canon'd'Hippolyte (Paris, 1907), 12. Apart from Misset, nobody to my knowledge has used or discussed this episode, even in cases in which it would have been most relevant. Menard ("Profil," 5) merely stated that the conversion of Pachomius occurred after he had been "released from military service."
132. E.g., by Louis Bouyer, La Sptrttualtt~ du Nouoeau Testament et des Pyres (Paris 1960), 389.
133. N. K. Chadwick, The Age of the Saints in the Early Celtic Church (London, 1961 ), 107 n.
134. A. de VogU~, La Communaut~ et I'abb~ Bans la ftt?gle de St. Basile (Paris, 1961 ), 23.
135. P.-T. Camelot, "Bulletin d'histoire des doctrines chrEtiennes," 751 n. [Jean-Marie Vianney, the "Curd d'Ars," was a famous nineteenth-century French saint who deserted rather than "serve" during the Napoleonic wars.]
136. See above, p. 252. ~ >
137. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Mart., 2 (SCH, CXXXIV, 254-257). 138. Ibtd., 3, 5,(SCH, CXXXV, 258).
139. In SCH, CXXXIII-CXXXV (Paris, 1967-1969), Jacques Fontaine has published a careful edition and French translation of the Vita and the Letters of Sulpicius Severus, in which he has also provided an illuminating introduction and detailed annotations. Although Fontaine was right in emphasizing the importance of Severus s use of literary "clich~s" which must not be taken at face value as historical accounts (a theme which he had already developed in " Verity et Fiction Bans la chronologie de la Vita Martini," Studia Anselmiana, 46 [ 1961], 189-236; "Une Cl~ litt~raire de la Vita Martini de Sulpice Swore: la typologie proph~tique," in Melanges Mohrmann [Utrecht, 1963], 84-95; and "Sulpice Swesre," 31-58), he has probably overstressed this necessary corrective. [All the Severian textual information concerning Martin has now been published in a handy popular edition of tlae latest French translations (by Fontaine and Monceaux) (Luce Pietri, ed., Saint~Martin, textes de Sulpice S~U~re, supplement to the Lettre de LigugE, nos. 172-178 [July-October, 1975]).]
140. Gregory of Tours, Htstoria ecclesiastics francorum, I, 34.
141. Sulpicius Severus, Vtta Mart., 2, 2, and 3, 6,(SCH, CXXXIII, 225, 259).
142. H. Delehaye, "Saint Martin et Sulpice S~v~re," AB, 38 (1920), 19-33, and esp. 26, 31; Lecoy de la Marche, Saint Martin, 3rd ed. (Tours, 1890), 109-110; A. Resgnier, Saint Martin, 36, 42). Gaubert (Ges Saints, 17), no doubt inadvertently, put it under Constantine II; M~nard ("Profit," 18 n.) dated it under Constantius, as also did J. Christophe (Saint Martin, le soldat paciftque [Lyon, 1966], 27).
143. H. C. Babut, St. Marttn de Tours (Paris, 1913), 168-170. On this promising historian (who was killed on February 28, 1916, at the early age of thirty-eight during the battle for Verdun) and his coqtrubution to our subject, see J.-R. Palanque, "Un anniversaire," Le Monde, March 3, 1966.
144. For example, E. Griffe, in the first edition of La Caule chr~tienne (Paris
Toulouse, 1947), 203-204, suggested that one should read oicennium instead of the biennium which is universally evidenced, not only by the MSS, but also by Paulinus of Perigueux only a century after the events to which the passage was referring. In subsequent works ("La Chronologie des annees de jeunesse de Saint Martin," BGE, 63 , 114-118; and La l:aule chr~tienne, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1964], 277 n.), Griffe suggested an ingenious change of punctuation, whereby the reference to two years of waiting could be made to apply to something other than military service, and the reference to adolescence would apply to the date of his entering the service and not to its duration. J. Fontaine, for his part, was convinced that Sulpicius Severus, for apologetic reasons and at the cost of what must strictly be called a masking of historical truth, had intentionally attempted to give the reader the impression of as short a period of military service as possible (SCH, CXXXIII, 205; SCH, CXXXIV, 501; "Sulpice Severe," 38 and especially the entire paper "V~rite et fiction" ).
145. B. de Gaiffier, "Sub Juliano Apostata dans le martyrologe romain," AB, 74 (1956), 41; Fontaine, "Sulpice S~vt're," 36. Paulinus of PBrigueux (I, 139-177), who gave a detailed account of St. Martin's refusal, did not even mention Julian, although by that time his name had become a byword for the persecuting pagan emperor. Nor did Paulinus give the slightest hint that in Martin's attitude there might have been anything connected with the rejection of idolatry. These omissions are all the more conspicuous since Sulpicius Severus was no doubt influenced by the projection onto the still-Christian Julian of 356 in the West of the characteristics which he demonstrated in 362 in the East (e.g. the sad story of Juventinus and Maximinus, two Christian officers of his guard. See the thorough study of this incident in Fontaine, "Sulpice Swt're," 49).
146. Christi ego miles sum: pugnare mihi non licet (Sulpicius Severus, Vita Mart., 4, 3 [SCH, CXXXIII, 260]). After reciting this statement, Paulinius of PErigueux (I, 35 ff.) contrasted the chains of the miles Christi with those of the worldly soldier, and then continued with a long antithetical elaboration upon that classical theme.
147. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Mart., 4, 5, and 7,(SCH, CXXXIII, 260).
148. M~nard, "Profit," 18. Note 58 on the next page suggests, however, that M~nard was scarcely convinced by his own explanation.
149. It is astonishing, for example, to find Courcelle (Histoire, 214 n.) wondering, with reference to passages in Severus and Paulinus dealing respectively with Martin and Victricius, "whether such formulations were really an apology for conscientious objection, or whether they were not simply customary circumlocutions to say that an officer had embraced the religious life." As we shall see, the "circumlocution" of Victricius entailed the execution squad. For reasons of charity I shall refrain from quoting the amazing passage in VSB, 11 (1954), 338, which is devoted to St. Martin. The only prior reference to his desertion was in this delectable summary on p. 337: "He received baptism and finally he was freed." The most recent popular biographies of St. Martin (G. Hiinermann, L'ApBtre des Gaules, transl. E. Saillard [Paris, 1964], 90-93; and Marguerite Jardel, Le soldat du Christ, Saint Martin de Tours [Paris, 1967], 54-57) have both respected historical truth on this point. The former, however, did not give any explanation for the saint's behavior. The latter was convinced that up to the time of his leaving the army St. Martin, although already an old soldier, had never had any occasion to take part in a battle. Then, at the decisive moment, "Martin sensed that he must obey; he knew that a Christian must bear arms to defend the soil which is his. But he wanted to become a monk, and the Church forbade monks to make war. If he were to fight, the Church would perhaps refuse to ordain him. And yet he must fight . . . since he was an officer." Two pages later (p. 59)
Jardel also invoked an argument of "providential convenience" which, to say the least, is unexpected. The foes of the moment were Franks. But now, "many centuries later . . . Gaul was to become France. It would have been most improper for the saint who was to be its protector to have triumphed over it in the first place by arms."
150. Christophe, Saint Martin, 27; Jardel, Soldat du Christ, 57; Lecoy de la Marche, Saint Martin, 112. The essential argument in the last of these works is that the expression miles Christi was a technical term used only for monks. As we have seen earlier (p. 76), the term did apply to monks; but it had also been used prior to the advent of monasticism and thus it bore a much broader meaning. Sulpicius Severus (Vita Mart., 2, 2) indeed spoke of the attraction which Martin had felt since his infancy for monachism; but this was an obvious anachronism on the part of his biographer (Delehaye, "Saint Martin," 88; Fontaine, SCH, CXXXIV, 441-446, who followed his usual pattern of interpretation in seeing in this passage a projection of hagiographic stereotypes). Gaubert (Les Saints, 18) observed that the modern historians' resort to a monastic explanation is a clumsy and futile attempt to escape from an embarrassing situation. But his own escape route is even worse. He begar~. by observing (p. 17) that so-called Christian conscientious objection made its first~ppearance in recent times, "amidst American and Anglo-Saxon sects which, for want of sufficient theological culture, divert certain biblical texts from their precise meaning." But then on pp. 19 and 22 he was forced to acknowledge that St. Martin must have allowed himself to be carried away by the same "somewhat hazardous personal interpretation." He was quick, however, to rehabilitate the saint by recalling that a sin committed through imprudence is a venial sin. One is tempted to rejoice upon finding that a Catholic author considered it only a venial sin to share a theological point of view with "American and Anglo-Saxon sects;" but one is prevented from doing so by the recollection that the venial sin consisted in diverting biblical texts from their precise meaning. The only way that one can escape from perplexity in harmonizing these different statements is by attributing to St. Martin the ideas of a nineteenth- or twentieth-century American theologian)
151. ASS, October, XII (1867), 53, stated that the three saints-Martin, Victricius, and Paulinus-persuasum fuerit licitum non esse sanguinem humanum fundere etaim in justo hello, imperantibus christianis prtncibus. But it went on: term adhuc erant laid, in doctrina christiana parum eruditi. In the In Sulpicium Severum observationes which G. da Prato added to his Verona edition (1741) of the works of Severus, he likewise stressed (p. 325) the identity i0 the situations of the three "chained enlisted men"-Maximilian, Pachomius, and Martin. Vanderpol (Doctrine scolastique, 185) grouped together Maximilian, Martin, Victricius, and Paulinus, and judged them in the same expeditious way as did the ASS. This enabled him to dispose of the testimony of three bishops and a martyr in exactly eight lines-no mean achievement in a book of 534 large pages, all of them devoted to the Christians' attitude to war.
If Sulpicius Severus, Vita Mart., 10, 6 (SCH, CXXXIII, 274) actually said that St. Martin was unlettered, it was only in comparison to himself and Paulinus, who were extremely well educated. Nor should we forget that St. Martin was "the founder of a training center at Marmoutier, out of which emerged the elite of the Gallic episcopate ' (M~nard, "Profil," 6). Fontaine (SCH, CXXXIV, 676 n. ) went even further in refuting the argument of ASS and Vanderpol when he showed that in Severus's vocabulary the word ars, far from denoting intellectual activity, was always used for manual work.
152. E. Griffe, "Saint Martin et le monachisme gaulois," Studia Anselmiana, 46 (1961), 3. One may suppose, but only on a conjectural basis, that Martin had met
monasticism in the East and was therefore himself a kind of "bridge" between the two parts of the Christian world of his day. This would indeed fit with the place of his birth. See Willy Schatz, "Studien zur Geschichte and Vorstellungswelt des frUhen abendl0ndischen Monchtums" (unpub. thesis, University of Freiburg/Breisgau, 1957), to which M. Fontaine has called my attention.
153. For example, Bouyer (Spirituality, 384), commenting upon St. Anthony and his time, wrote that "the primitive monk did not appear at all as a kind of specialist he was simply a Christian, and more precisely a pious layman who merely took
the most radical means to make his Christianity all-embracing."
154. "St. Martin's life as a soldier . . . seems traced-exactly traced-on the 14th canon of Hippolytus" (Misset, Pourquoi Saint Martin, 12). Leclereq ("Militarisme," cols. 1150-1152), who developed the same view at length, concluded, "This prohibition of shedding blood was certainly, in the eyes of Sulpicius Severus, the explanation for St. Martin's behavior."
155. Sulpicius Severus, Dialogue, III, 15. In accordance with the Christian "strategy" of human relationships, St. Martin confronted this verbal violence, like all violence, with a patience which bore evil but did not accept it. The result was that this "bad monk" later became St. Brictio, St. Martin's successor as bishop of Tours.
156. Concerning Fontaine's method of interpretation in his SCH (CXXXIII-CXXXV) edition of the Vita Martini, see my review in RHPR, 50 (1970), 77-79.
157. Fontaine, "Su1pice Swere," 36.
158. Idem, "V~rit~ et fiction," 213; "Sulpice Swiire," 38.
159. In "V~rite et fiction," 213, Fontaine observed that the body of antimilitarist church laws, which we shall be studying later (pp. 161-168), had a precise application to St. Martin's case. Paradoxically, it was because Siricius was an "adversary of the new ascetic spirit"'' (Erich Caspar, Ceschichte des Papstiums [Tiibingen, 1930], I, 259) that he viewed his harking back to an earlier tradition as a weakness in the Western monastic movement; for he could neither approve of its founder nor reject him.
160. Fontaine,"SulpiceSevisre,"39.SeealsoSCH,CXXXIV,423,428,andesp.441. 161. Fontaine, "V~rit~ et fiction," 208; SCH, CXXXIV, 441, 454-459.
162. Fontaine, "Sulpice Swesre," 43-46. 163. IMd., 51, 57; SCH, CXXXIV, 463 n.
164. DTC, XV (1950), cols. 2954-2956. See also R. Herval, "La Province ecclesiastique de Rouen aux IVe et Ve siccles," MSR, 16 (1959), 53-57, which portrayed St. Victricius as "the outstanding bishop [who] brought the Christian group in Rouen out of the darkness, and who was the first to organize upon solid foundations the religious life of the entire Second Province of Lyon."
165. DTC, XII (1935), cols. 68-71; DAL, XII (1936), cols. 1437-1455. The latter study-especially its first part-examines the entire Romano-Gallic circle with which we are concerned here. Martin, Paulinus, and Victricius First met at Vienne (Isrsre) in 386 (Herval, "La Province," 51). In a letter (Ep., 18), Paulinus also reminded Victricius that they had formerly met at the home of St. Martin, "to whom the Lord had done the same as for you, even though you are younger." On the relationships between these personalities, see A. Baudrillart, Saint Paulin, 4th ed. (Paris, 1928), 33-34.
166. Paulinus, Ep., 18., It is from this letter, especially para. 7, that I have derived the account of the events which followed. See also J. Mulders, "Victricius van Rouan, Leven en leer," Bijdragen, 17 (1956), 7-9.
167. Paulinus, Ep., 25. 168. Ibid., 37.
169. B. de Gaiffier, "Sub Juliano Apostata," passim. 170. Griffe, La Caule chr~tienne, 1st ed., 227.
171. Martin, who was the son of a superior officer, was placed by virtue of his name under the patronage of Mars, the god of war (ME'nard, "Profit," 4). The name Victricius similarly had a military resonance, and it is virtually certain that he was the son of a veteran who had settled on the imperial frontier (Vacandard, Victrtce, 3-4; Herval, "La Province," 54). The power of the gospel was thus stronger than the attraction of conformity to their background.
172. Vacandard (Victrlce 14 n., 15) demonstrated, as Paulinu~. had already done (Ep., 18), that Victricius faithfully imitated the conduct of Martin/and even of Maximilian. See also Griffe, La Caule chr~ttenne, 1st ed., 226.
173. Sulpicius Severus, Dialogue, III, 11-13; idem, Vita Mart., 20; idem, Chronicle, II, 49-5l;,Fontaine, SCH, CXXXV, 913-946. [See also H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Aoila (Oxford, 1976), 138-148.]
174. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Mart., 20, 2;,SCH, CXXXIII, 296.
175. Priscillian and six of his companions were finally executed. See Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle, II, 51.
176. This charge had already been made by Ithacus, the accuser of Priscillian (Sulpicius Severus, Chrontcle, II, 50). It has been revived in several of H. C. Babut's works ("Paulin de Nole et Priscillien," RHL, 1 , 97-130; Saint Martin, passim), in which he reiterated the themes of his Sorbonne thesis, Priscillien.
177. A. d'Al~s, Priscillien et l'Espagne chr~tienne d la fin du IVe SiPcle (Paris, 1936); J. A. Davids, De Orosio et Sancto Augustino Priscillianistarum Adversarti (Nijmegen, 1930); E. Dalaruelle, A. Latreille, and J.-R. Palanque, Histoire du Catholicisme en France, I (Paris, 1957), 53, Delehaye, "Saint Martin," esp. 108 ff.: P. Monceaux, "La Question du Priscillianisme," JS, n.s., 9 (1911), 70-75, 104-113; A. Puech, "Les Origines du Priscillianisme et 1'Orthodoxie de Priscillien," BALAC, 2 (1912), 8195, 161-213. St. Ambrose of Milan came to Trier at the same time as Martin, and the two men took precisely the same position on the controversy.
178. Delehaye, "Saint Martin," 88.
179. F.-L. Ganshof, "Saint Martin et le Comte Avitianus," AB, 67 (1949), 203223.
180. Griffe, La Caule chr~tienne, 1st ed., 228. 181. Paulinus, Ep., 19, 4.
182. Pariter spectantes Jussa tyranni. The elliptical style peculiar to inscriptions makes this text almost impossible to translate. One could easily lapse into a paraphrase in an attempt to make the meaning explicit. To my mind it means that the two martyrs at first believed falsely that one could serve God and Caesar on equal terms. Then they realized that a choice between the two was necessary; this is the meaning of the phrase"they turned" (were converted).
183. Diehl, no. 1981.
184. Ambrose, Hymn XI,.in PL, Supplementum I (Paris, 1958), cots. 584-585. 185. Prudentius, Pertatephanon, I, 34, 39.
186. Ibid., 58-59, 61.
187. The inscription gives suscendit, for which an alternative reading surrexit has been suggested. Is it not more likely to have been ascendit, or possibly a falsely conjugated perfect of succedere?
188. On Ferrutius, see ASS, October, XII (1867), 530-543 (the inscription is on p. 530). The passion which follows is certainly quite unhistorical.
189. Monceaux, La Vraie Gdgende, 280.
190. Van Berchem (Le Martyre, 25-33) concluded, "The elements of the legend
which we have determined to be irreducible are mutually contradictory . . . and the tradition falls apart." For reviews of Le Martyre, see H. G. Pflaum, RELA, 34 (1956), 410-413; H. I. Marrow, RHR, 152 (1957), 236-240; and C. Roth, Revue Suisse d' Histoire, 1957, 511-514.
191. L. Dupraz, Ges Passions de S. Maurice d'Agaune: Essai sur I'historicitE de la tradition et contribution d 1'etude de l'armke pry-dtocl~tienne (260-286) et des canonisations tardives de la fin du IVe siPcle, Studia Friburgensia, n.s., 27 (Fribourg, 1961). [For a recent re-examination of this question, see O'Reilly, "The Theban Legion of St. Maurice " 195-207. ]
192. In his book (Les Passions, 294-295), Dupraz clearly set forth the chronological sequence of the events of the martyrdom as he understood them. He was convinced that the occasion was probably not a persecution of the Christians, but was rather an expedition to suppress a revolt of uprooted farmers called the Bagaudes. The only reason for the martyrdom of Maurice and his fellow soldiers, whom Dupraz reduced from a legion to a mere company (i.e., from 6,000 to 600 men), was their refusal to take idolatrous oaths.
193. Cf. my review of this book in RHPR, 48 (1968), 285-288.
194. Van Berchem, Le Martyre, 27, 53. In the Catholic journal of the Bernese Jura L'Echo (October 21, 1961) G. Bavaud-although a professor in the Higher Seminary of Fribourg-really exceeded all bounds. Under the title "Pourquoi Saint Maurice et ses compagnons ont-its est~ martyris~s?" he claimed that both Dupraz's historical restoration and my own interpretation of the primitive Christian discipline are equally valid. He therefore came to the impossible conclusion that Maurice and his six hundred companions were executed en masse for conscientious objection. Another article by Bavaud in the preceding (October 14, 1961) issue of the same newspaper (" Les premiers Chr~tiens ~taient-its objecteurs de conscience?" ) argued that the attitude of conscientious objection, which was salutary for all Christians as long as they were only a minority in the empire, at a later date naturally and necessarily became the sole privilege of the clergy. On this point, see above, p. 93. 195. Passio Acaunensium, 3.
196. Hostis. Ferreolus, whose case might at first glance seem similar to that of Maurice, spoke not of enemies but of the guilty. It is this which indicates the difference between the soldier and the policeman. The relevant portion of his answer is: "I served the emperors as long as religion allowed me. I promised obedience to just laws, never to sacrilegious laws. I enlisted to serve against the guilty, not against Christians."
198. Pugnavimus pro fide (i.e., the faith which they owe to the emperor as well as their faith toward God).
199. Juravimus primum in sacraments diving, Juravimus deinde in sacraments regia.
200. Passio Acaunenstum, 9. 201. Ibid., 10.
202. In these paragraphs, stylistic convenience has led me to personify the members of the Theban Legion. Quite clearly, however, what I am setting forth and criticizing here is the viewpoint of St. Eucher, who speaks through his heroes. The soldiers themselves come from the realm of pure myth.
1. It was precisely at the moment at which Church policy opened its doors to
compromise that it became necessary to establish boundaries and to legislate on the subject.
2. Tatian, Oratio, 28.
3. Arnobius, Adv. Nat., 2, 38. 4. Tertullian, De Idol., 19.
5. Idem, De Pallto, 5.
6. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, I, 12, 99 and II, 4, 42. 7. Idem, Stromata, IV, 8, 61.
VII, 11, 62. 9. Ibid.,
VII, 14, 84. 10. Cyprian, Ep., 73, 4.
11. Idem, De Bono Patientiae, 14. 12. Idem, Ad Donatum, 6-10.
13. Origen, Contra Celsum, VIII, 68, 73.
14. It is particularly important to remember this date in light of explanations such as Seston's, which I set forth in Chapter 4.
15. Kaufmann, Handbuch, 114.
16. E.g., Jacques Zeiller (Lebreton & Zeiller, History, IV, 1031).
17. The basic contributions were those of Dom R. H. Connolly and Dom Gregory Dix, which in more recent years have been incorporated in and superseded by the masterly works of Dom Bernard Botte. The article in which. he most clearly expresses his general conclusions on the relationships between the various texts is "L'Authenticit~ de la Tradition apostolique de saint Hippolyte," RTAM, 16 (1949), 177-154. See also pp. xvii-xxviii of Botte's second edition of the Apostolic Tradition (La Tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte, Essai de reconstitution, 39`' Cahier des Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen and ForschungentMiinster in Westphalia, 1963]). J.-M. Hanssens has advanced an opposing position. In a polemical assessment of the reviews-which were admittedly often scathing-aroused by his book La Liturgie d'Hippolyte, ses documents, son titulaire, ses origines, et son charactere, Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, 1959), he has insisted ("La Liturgie d'Hippolyte, assentiments et dissentiments," Gregortanum, 42 , 290-302) upon the great difficulty which scholars still face in establishing an exact line of derivation between the various Hippolytus texts.
18. Bernard Botte, "Le Texte de la Tradition Apostolique," ftTAM, 22 (1955), 161. See also Botte's "Les plus anciennes collections can0niques," Orient Syrien, 5 (1960), 331-350, and R.-G. Coquin, Les Canons d'Hippolyte, PO, 31, ii (1966), 308340. J. Quasten (Patrology, 3 vols. [Utrecht-Brussels, 1950-1960], II, 180-181 ) wrote of the Apostolic Tradition, "It is, with the exception of the Didache, the earliest and the most important of the ancient Christian Church Orders. . . . [It] has given us the richest source of information that we possess in any form for our knowledge of the constitution and life of the Church in the first three centuries." I am astonished that J. Fontaine ("Christians and Military Service in the Earl Church," Concilium, 7 , 116 n.) can still question whether"the Canons of Hippolytus, the rigorist antipope, can be taken in the form in which they have reached us as reflecting the Church's discipline without any further qualification? And how can one speak of one discipline of the Church at such an early date and particularly on such very controversial questions...?" These are the only points at which I sense that Fontaine's criticisms of my work went beyond healthy questioning and became somewhat arbitrary.
19. J. and A. Prier, eds., "Les ' 127 Canons des Ap6tres: Texte Arabe," PO, 8 (1912), 553. See also Botte, "Les plus anciennes collections," passim.
20. C. C. Richardson, "The Date and Setting of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus," Anglican Theological Review, 30 (1948), 38-44.
21. Pierre Nautin (Hippolyte et Josipe: Contribution d l'histoire de la litt~rature chr~tienne du 3e siPcle [Paris 1947], attempting a reconstruction of the historical Hippolytus, found that one had to distinguish between two persons. According to his findings, one Hippolytus was an antipope, whose statue has been discovered at Rome and whose real name was Josippus; the other Hippolytus was an author, who wrote the works which bear his name but who was certainly not a Roman (p. 92). The latter Hippolytus was a mid-third-century Easterner from some area other than Syria (p. 93). It is not even certain that he was a bishop. Nautin maintained that the surviving text of the Apostolic Tradition was indeed written by the latter Hippolytus, and thus is distinct from the identically entitled treatise that is mentioned on the base of the Roman statue. Nautin (p. Sl) thought it possible, however, that the Eastern Hippolytus used the Apostolic Tradition as one of his sources, which-if there were two such different people-seems to me not merely possible but virtually certain. In that case the primitive text (which reflected the Roman Church's discipline at the beginning of the third century and which, according to Nautin's hypothesis should be attributed to Josippus) would still be beyond our reach. The first document in our possession would thus be a revised version of the treatise emanating from the East toward the end of the first half of that century.
22. P. de Lanversin, "Une belle dispute: Hippolyte est-il d'Occident ou d'Orient?" Proche-Orient Chr~tien, 6 (1956), 118-122; R. Salles, "La Tradition apost0lique est-elle un t~moin de la liturgie romaine?" RHR, 148 (1955), 181-213. Salles' interpretation is even more radical than that of Nautin, since it attempts to prove that the Traditton is evidence of an Eastern-type liturgy very different from that of Rome. But it would not basically threaten the validity of my argument; for the existence of an ancient Latin version of the Tradition proves in any case that this text was disseminated in the West as well as the East.
23. Cf. Quasten, Patrology, II, 166-169, who gave an exhaustive bibliography of the controversy, in which Marcel Richard ("Comput et chronographie chez S. Hippolyte," MSR, 7 , 237-268; 8 , 19-50) opposed Nautin's reconstruction with especial vigor. See also Richard's "Bibliographie de la Controverse: HippolyteJosipe," PO, 27, ii (1954), 271-272.
24. We should then simply have to say: "The state of the Roman discipline at the beginning of the third century was described in an Apostolic Tradition, the work of the antipope Josippus. Unfortunately this has been lost. But we can get quite an accurate idea of it from the identically titled work produced shortly thereafter by the writer Hippolytus, who use Josippus's work as his primary source. The relationship between Hippolytus's text and the Roman discipline is confirmed by the fact that the earliest and best evidence for this text is the Latin translation, which we' will discuss
25. See, for example, Bernard Botte, ed., Ga Tradition apostolique, SCH, XI (Paris, 1946), 8.
26. H. Tattam, ed., The Apostolical Constitutions of the Apostles in Coptic with an English Translatton (London, 1848).
27. W. Till and