page 1 note 1 Eusebius, H.E., iii. 22, 1–3; 23, 1–2.

page 1 note 2 H.E., iv. 8, 6–8; 9, 1–3; Justin, 1 Apol, 68, 3–6.

page 1 note 3 For a good summary of the problems see Wolff, R. L., ‘The Apology of Aristides—A Re-Examination’, Harvard Theological Review (1937), 233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Vona, C., ‘L'Apologia di Aristide’, Lateranum, N.S. xvi (1950), 19–23Google Scholar.

page 2 note 1 See e.g., Sulp. Sev., Hist. Sacra ii. 46 : Antonio imperante pax ecclesiis fuit; similarly, Orosius, Hist., vii. 14.

page 3 note 1 Aubé, B., Histoire des perskutions de l'Église jusqu'à la fin des Antonins, Paris 1875, 298Google Scholar; Hüttl, W., Antoninus Pius, Prague 1933, 204Google Scholar; Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, New York 1967, 174Google Scholar; et al.

page 3 note 2 See e.g., ‘Capitolinus’, Antoninus Pius, 2; 13; (Dio Cassius), ‘Epitome’ 70; et al.

page 3 note 3 Eusebius, H.E., iv. 10.

page 3 note 4 Th. Mommsen, ‘Der Religionsfrevel nach romischem Recht’, Historische Zntschrift, 64 (1890), 420; d'Orgeval, B., L'Empereur Hadrien, Paris 1950, 302–7Google Scholar; Grégoire, H., Les Persécutions dans l'Empire Romain, Brussels 1964, 155Google Scholar; Regibus, L. De, ‘Storia e Diritto Romano negli “Acta Martyrum”’, Didask. (1926), 147–8Google Scholar; et al.

page 3 note 5 Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, part 11: St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, London 1885, i. 442Google Scholar; Callewaert, C., ‘Le Resent d'Hadrien à Minucius Fundanus’, Rev. d'Hist. et de Litt. Rél., viii (1903), 152–89Google Scholar; Moreau, J., La Persécution du Christianisme dans l'Empire Romain, Paris 1956, 48Google Scholar; Schmid, W., ‘The Christian Re-interpretation of the Rescript of Hadrian’, Maia, vii (1955), 5–13Google Scholar.

page 4 note 1 Keresztes, Paul, ‘The Emperor Hadrian's Rescript to Minucius Fundanus’, Phoenix, xxi (1967), 120–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 5 note 1 Concerning the date of Polycarp's martyrdom, see Frend, W. H. C., ‘A Note on the Chronology of the Martyrdom ofPolycarp and the Outbreak of Montanism’, Oikoumene: Studi Paleocristiani Pubblicati in Onore del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, Università di Catania 1964, 499–506Google Scholar; Keresztes, P., ‘Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?’, H.T.R., lxi (1968), 321Google Scholar–41; concerning literature placing this controversial date in 155 A.D., ibid.

page 6 note 1 Frend, W. H. C., ‘The Persecutions: some Links between Judaism and the Early Church’, in this JOURNAL, ix (1958), 141–8Google Scholar.

page 6 note 2 Cf. Sordi, M., II Cristianesimo e Roma, Bologna 1965, 160Google Scholar ff., who suggested that Hadrian wished to give Christians complete freedom but, not having the courage to do this, he made the text so ambiguous that his ‘idea of freedom’ might be read into it, and that, as a result, the governors under his rule ensured considerable peace for the Christians.

page 6 note 8 Justin, 1 Apology, 68, 10.

page 7 note 1 W. Schmid (op. cit.) and Rudolf Freudenberger (Das Verhalten der römischen Behörden gegen die Christen im s. Jahrhunderl, Munich 1967, 216–34) have failed to place Hadrian's rescript and its interpretation by Justin in their strict historical context. It is for this reason that Schmid accuses the apologist of a deliberately misleading Christian ‘re-interpretation’ of the rescript, and Freudenberger, following him in some details, assumes that the rescript (εἳ τις οȕν κατηγορεî καì δεíκνυσν τι παρ τoὺς νoμoὺς πρττoντας) envisages only the charge of Christianity. (The presence or absence of the τι makes no essential difference.) In his very short note on the rescript, T. D. Barnes (‘Legislation against the Christians’, J.R.S., lviii (1968), 37) appears to follow Schmid and Freuden-berger. The historical contexts of the rescript and its interpretation by Justin make it quite evident that Hadrian and Justin, to correct the very real procedural abuses, prescribe the strict examination of the acceptability of the variety of popular charges and demand that judgment be made strictly according to proof of the commission or non-commission of the charges against the accused; see above and Paul Keresztes, ‘The Emperor Hadrian's Rescript’, op. cit. It is, therefore, suggested that Hadrian does not, as Trajan does, prescribe capital punishment, but that instead he leaves the punishment to the sole discretion of the trial judge, because the variety of the charges made specification ofpunishments impracticable.

page 8 note 1 Ulpian, De off. proc., vii; Mos. et Rom. leg. coll., xv. ii, 4.

page 9 note 1 M. Sordi, II Cristianesimo e Roma, 160.

page 9 note 2 Sent., v. 31, 2.

page 9 note 3 ‘I “nuovi decreti” di Marco Aurelio contro i cristiani’, Studi Romani, ix (1961), 365–78Google Scholar.

page 9 note 4 Keresztes, Paul, ‘Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor’, in H.T.R., lxi (1968), 321–41Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1 ‘Capitolinus’, Antoninus Pius 9; Aristides, Orat., 25, op. 1. 497; (Dio Cassius) ‘Epit.’; lxx. 4; concerning the dates of some of these disasters, see Waddington, W. H., Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aelius Aristides, Paris 1867, 40–4Google Scholar, and Fastes Asiatiques, Paris 1872, 214–15Google Scholar.

page 10 note 2 Hüttl, Antoninus Pius, 206.

page 10 note 3 Waddington, op. cit.

page 10 note 4 Eus., H.E., iv. 26, 10.

page 10 note 5 Paul Keresztes, art. cit., in H.T.R., lxi, 333.

page 10 note 6 Eus., H.E. iv. 26, 5–11.

page 11 note 1 Paul Keresztes, op. cit., 355–6.

page 11 note 2 Oliver, J. H. and Palmer, R. E. A., ‘Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate’, Hesperia, (1955), 320–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Barnes (‘Legislation etc.’, op. cit., 44) seems to extend the possible date for the senatus consultum to 178 A.D. and for this extension he, rather surpris ingly, quotes Oliver and Palmer (loc. cit.) as his authority. The article by Oliver and Palmer clearly shows, however (especially, 324–6), that the senatus consultum has to be dated to early 177 A.D. Furthermore, it is clear from this same article, and, of course, from the minutes of the senatus consultum, that the decision given effect by this senatus consultum had been made during the emperor's tour of the Greek East and that it was doubtless as early as 176. A.D. that Marcus Aurelius agreed to notify the senate of the concession to be granted soon afterwards by the senatus consultum. Further, it is quite evident from the minutes of the senatus consultum itself that the news of this imperial grant reached Gaul before the August festival of 176 A.D. The fact that Marcus Aurelius left Rome for the last time in August 178 A.D. cannot justify the assumption that this senatus consultum was made later than early 177 A.D. Further, Barnes (‘Legislation etc.’, op. cit., 44, and ‘Pre-Decian Ada Martyrum’, J.T.S., N.S. xix (1968), 518) finds it very difficult to see any connexion between the senatus consultum and the Lugdunum martyrdoms. Apart from his doubt concerning 177 A.D. as the date of the martyrdoms, his main difficulty seems to be that the senatus consultum cannot, as he believes, ‘explain how Christians came to be treated as criminals in the first place’. To establish a connexion between this senatus consultum and Lugdunum, it is not necessary to explain the strict legal basis for the condemnation of these Christians: once sentenced to death, the Christians—as obviously condemned criminals, the use of whom in the arena was sanctioned by the senatus consultum—were excellent candidates for trinqui at Lugdunum. A further objection ofBarnes (ibid., 518 f.) seems to be that ‘the letter ofthe Gallic churches does not so much as mention the priests of the imperial cult’. The letter may well be silent on this point, but this has no significance whatsoever. A close examination of the letter, however, shows (see Oliver-Palmer, op. cit., 325) that the Christian martyrs of Lugdunum were sacrificed at the festival of the Three Gauls like the trinqui of the minutes of the senatus consultum (see H.E., v. 1, 40; 1, 47; 1, 53; 1, 56).

page 11 note 3 Paul Keresztes, ‘Marcus Aurelius etc’ op. cit., 337–8. Barnes (‘Legislation etc.’, op. cit., 44) objects to the identification of the senatus consultum with the new decrees of Melito because these, according to his reading of Eusebius, H.E., iv. 26, 5, ‘seem to have mentioned the Christians in particular, not just criminals in general’. A closer examination of H.E., iv. 26, 5 and 6, however, strongly suggests that the ‘new decree’ or ‘decrees’, without mentioning the Christians, were used only as a pretext against the Christians. See P. Keresztes, op. cit., 338 f.

page 12 note 1 One can wholeheartedly agree with Barnes (‘Legislation etc.’, op. cit., 44, and ‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, op. cit., 519) that if there is a connexion between the senatus consultum and the Lugdunum tragedy it was only of politico-social significance, in that the pogrom was, of course, partly precipitated by the dearth of gladiators. Furthermore, one must not forget that, while making this hypothetical concession, Barnes challenges the almost universally agreed date of the Lugdunum martyrdoms. A date other than 177 A.D. belongs to the realm of possibility, and I suggest that 177 be retained as an operational basis until a more acceptable date can be established.

page 13 note 1 Keresztes, Paul, ‘The “So-Called” Second Apology of Justin’, Latomus, xxiv (1965), 868–9Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 Das Edict des Antoninus Pius (Texte und Untersuchungen, xiii. 4), Leipzig 1895Google Scholar.

page 13 note 3 Harnack, op. cit., 8–13.

page 13 note 4 Ibid., 20; Saltet, L., ‘L'édit d'Antonin’, Rev. d'hist. et de litter, rélig. (1896), 385Google Scholar; cf. Hüttl, op. cit., 208–9; Schultze, V., ‘Der Rescript des Antoninus Pius an den Landtag von Asien’, Neue Jahrbücherf. deutsche Thelogie (1893), 143Google Scholar.

page 13 note 5 Saltet, op. cit., 385.

page 14 note 1 See this ‘authentic’ text with German translation in Harnack, op. cit., 35–7.

page 14 note 2 Harnack, op. cit., 38.

page 15 note 1 Eusebius, H.E., iv. 13; cf. Rufinus H.E., iv. 13. Rufinus in the case of this rescript does not have any claim to provide a more original text than the text of Eusebius, H.E. It is, in fact, a highly Christianised interpretation. The Rufinus text has been used by Frend, Martyrdom, etc.; Saltet, op. cit.; Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alien Kirche, Schloss-Chemnitz 1875, i. especially 146 ff.; Lightfoot, op. cit., who therefore, naturally concluded that our ‘rescript’ would have forbidden accusations of Christianity.

page 15 note 2 Dio Cassius, 67, 14.

page 15 note 3 Dio Cassius, 68, 1.

page 15 note 4 As also implied in Mommsen, op. cit., 407.

page 15 note 5 As suggested by Saltet, op. cit., 389 ff.; Lightfoot, op. cit., 468; P. Allard, Histoire des persécutions pendent Us deux premiers siècles, Paris 1885, i. 293; Aubé, op. cit., 305. (‘Legislation etc.’, op. cit., 38 and n.73) suggests that the ‘rescript’ to the κοινóν would give the Christians immunity against punishment ‘simply for being Christians’, because he interprets ὣς δ τoιoυτoν as pointing to Christianity as being the charge. The facts of the second century, of course, clearly show that Christians had no such freedom. The historical context of this ‘rescript’, whether genuine or not, suggests that τοιοûτονTIOOTOV should be interpreted simply as ‘atheist’; see above.

page 15 note 6 Deorum iniurias diis curae esse; υπερ του οικειου Θεου. Christian ostentation and glorification of martyrdom; τω θειοτατω πατρι, etc.: see Saltet, op. cit. 385–6; Harnack, op. cit., e.g. 27 and passim.

page 16 note 1 H.E., iv. 26, 5–11.

page 16 note 2 Schultze, op. cit., 133; Harnack, op. cit., 53; Saltet, op. cit., 388; Hüttl, op. cit., 210–11; Lightfoot, op. cit., 468.

page 16 note 3 H.E., iv. 13, 8.

page 16 note 4 H.E., iv. 12.

page 16 note 5 Eusebius, H.E., iv. 13, 6; cf. iv. 26, 10.

page 16 note 6 Eusebius, H.E., iv. 13, 3.

page 16 note 7 II Apol., ii. 15–19.

page 17 note 1 II Apol., iii. (MS.)

page 17 note 2 Paul Keresztes, ‘The “So-called” Second Apology of Justin’, op. cit., 858–69.

page 17 note 3 H.E., iv. 14, 10–15, 1.

page 17 note 4 H.E., iv. 15, 1–48.

page 17 note 5 H.E., v. introd.

page 17 note 6 H.E., v. 1, 1–4, 3.

page 18 note 1 See Paul Keresztes, ‘Marcus Aurelius etc.’, op. cit.

page 18 note 2 Eusebius, H.E., iv. 26.