2"<i S. VII. April 16. '59.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



309 



LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 16. 1859. 



No 172. — CONTENTS. 



Notes:- Page 



Interpolation in Ruinart's Quotation from iEneas of Gaza - 309 



"Juniu8'8 Letters :" their Authorship, by E. Lombard Kift - 310 



Some A'otiees of the Early Colonial Church - - - 31 1 



Portrait of the Countess of Pembroke, by Dr. Rimbault - 311 



Foi,K Lobe:— Paul's Pitcher— Superstitions reprarding the Blossom- 

 ing of Plants—" Ilab can nab " — Satan's Marks in the Swine- 

 Fairy Superstition of the present Age— Rustic Rhymes, &c. - 312 

 The old Countess of Desmond - - - - - - 313 



On Musaic Pictures, by James Elmes - - - - 313 



Minor Notes :— Bishop Burnet — Ancient Inheritances— Mid- 

 Lent at Seville — Ancient Epigram—" Mother Carey's Chickens " 313 



QUERIES : — 



The Ballad of Sir Andrew Barton - - - - - 316 



Minor Queries : — Ballad Catalozues — " Blodius " in Heraldry 



— Sir John Fenwick — Fleetwood, Recorder of London — Genea- 

 logical : John Cousens— Pot-galley— Sir Ralph Freeman, Ac. - 316 



Minor Qdeuies with Answers : — Railways in Great Britain and 

 Ireland — "Fontibus ex Grsecis" — St. Barbara, So. - - - 318 



Bepltes : — 

 St. Paul's Visit to Britain, by Alfred T. Lee, &c. - - . .■jio 



Ceremony for the Souls of the Slain in Battle, by S. Redmond - 322 



BErLiEs TO Minor Queries: — Sir Harris Nicolas — " My part lyes 

 therein-a ' ' — Orde the Caricaturist — Hymn — The Turl, Oxford 



— Molluscous Animal _ Editions of the Prayer-Book prior to 

 1662 — Dedications in Cliichester Diocese, &o. - - - 322 



Monthly Feuilleton on French Books 



327 



ON THE INTERPOLATION IN BUINASt's QUOTATION 

 FROM ^NEAS OF GAZA. 



Since I last wrote on this subject (see "N. & 

 Q.," 2"'* S. vii. 210.), I have discovered whence 

 the interpolated sentence came. It is from the 

 account of the martyrdom of St. Romanus, in the 

 2nd Sermon on the Resurrection, in the volume 

 of XIIII. Opuscula, first published at Paris by 

 Father Sirmond, a Jesuit, in 164.3, as Latin trans- 

 lations from the supposed Greek of Eusebius. 

 How the sentence came to be printed by Ruinart 

 in 1694, as part of a quotation from ^neas of 

 Gaza, I am still unable to explain. Ruinart him- 

 self must have intended to advert to this sentence 

 as the source from which JEneas of Gaza, in the 

 interpolated passage, derived his knowledge of the 

 opinion of the physicians. 



In whatever manner the interpolation may be 

 explained, its obvious tendency was to suggest a 

 double miracle, instead of one only, viz. that the 

 African Confessors not only spoke miraculously 

 without tongues, butalso had miraculously survived 

 an operation fatal to life. And in the sermon this 

 double miracle is directly asserted in the case of 

 St. Romanus, who was put to death at Antioch, 

 in the persecution of Diocletian. 



I will take this opportunity of stating that 

 the second Sermon on the Resurrection in the 

 XIIII. Opuscula, was probably not written by 

 Eusebius, Bishop of Ca3sareia. The grounds for 

 this conclusion are the following, taken collec- 

 tively. First, there are striking differences in the 

 narrative of the martyrdom between the Sermon 

 and the Greek History of Eusebius, de Marttjrihus 

 Palcestince, c. 2. In the History there is no mira- 

 cle at all ; in the Sermon there are no less than 



three. In the History, Romanus, from excess of 

 zeal, is guilty of what in all countries would be 

 regarded as a gross outrage on the established 

 religion ; in the Sermon his conduct is repre- 

 sented in a light calculated to engage in his favour 

 the sympathy and respect of sincere Christians, even 

 though some might think that he was imprudent, 

 and sacrificed his life needlessly. It is not abso- 

 lutely impossible that Eusebius should have stated 

 the facts so differently in a history and in a ser- 

 mon : but in the absence of the Greek text of the 

 sermon, and of conclusive external or internal 

 evidence for its genuineness, the difference will be 

 allowed to have some positive weight. Secondly, 

 in the two Homilies* on St. Romanus, attributed to 

 Chrysostom, only one miracle is mentioned in con- 

 nexion with his sufferings, viz. his speaking after 

 his tongue, as was imagined, had been cut out. 

 Chrysostom was born about seven or eight years 

 after the death of Eusebius; and the Homilies were 

 preached at Antioch, the bishopric of which had 

 been refused by Eusebius, and which must have 

 been in frequent ecclesiastical communication 

 with a city of such importance as Csesareia. Now, 

 if the sermon were genuine, it seems unlikely that 

 Chrysostom should either have been ignorant of 

 its existence, or should have omitted to notice 

 two miracles mentioned in it, although recorded 

 by' an ecclesiastical writer of such distinction ■ 

 as Eusebius, who was a contemporary witness. 

 Thirdly, similar remarks apply, although with 

 less force, to the mention of the one miracle only 

 in the Menologiurn Grcecorum, a work supposed 

 to have been published for the first time in its 

 present form about the end of the tenth century 

 or in the beginning of the eleventh, by order of 

 Basilius II. It is not likely that in the notice 

 which it contains of the martyrdom of St. Roma- 

 nus, two miracles would have been omitted which 

 rested on what would have been deemed such a 

 high authority as a sermon of Eusebius. ... As 

 bearing upon these points, it may be farther ob- 

 served that the only argument used by Father Sir- 

 mond to show that Eusebius was the author of the 

 XIIII. Opuscula, would apply merely to the first 

 of the fourteen minor works, and even in refer- 

 ence to that one is by no means conclusive. 



It is remarkable that, with the aid of the Greek 

 History of Eusebius, who makes us understand 

 the mode of operation on St. Romanus, we are 

 able distinctly to disprove even the double miracle 



* See vol. ii. pp. 610-622. of Montfaueon's edition of 

 Chrysostom's Works, 13 vols, folio, Parisiis, 1718. Mont- 

 faucon regards the tirst only of the two Homilies as 

 genuine. He is disposed to attribute the second to some 

 Presbyter of Antioch who preached alternately with 

 Chrysostom. If this were so it would, to a certain ex- 

 tent, strengthen the argument against the supposed ser- 

 mon of Eusebius The XIIII. Opuscula have been 



reprinted in Galland's Bibliotheca Fatrum, vol. iv. pp. 

 469—537. 



