ZENO OF VERONA: Bishop and patron saint of that city. As early as 1692 Jean Mabillon (Traiik des etudes nwrwstiques, pp. 503, 554, Brussels, 1692) raised the question whether there was toward the end of the third century a bishop of that name and title, and whether the works attribEvidence of uteri to him were his. The repeated his Reality. asking of this question since has gone to the returning of an affirmative answer and to the establishment of the ninety tractates attributed to Zeno as both genuine and worthful. Visitors to that city will recall the memorials to him in the shape of church, square, and portal (cf. K. Baedeker, Northern Italy, p. 235, Leipsic, 1906); the earliest part of the church was built in the sixth century, and from an early date Verona has honored this saint in these and other places. The oldest testimony to this fact is an address delivered at the invitation of the clergy of the city on the occasion of the celebration of a festival to him, which is to be dated about the year 412; it may have been by Bishop Petronius of Bologna (d. between 425 and 450). This address calls Zeno not a martyr but "moat holy confessor." A second testimony to the existence of Zeno is the story of a miracle said to have occurred at the time of a flooding of the city about the year 588 in which the saint saved his basilica (cf. Paul the Deacon, Historic Langobardarum, III., xxiii., Eng, transl., Philadelphia, 1907). Moreover, practically all the churches of Verona profess to possess relics of the patron saint of the city. His celebrity traveled over the Alps to Germany, to ]Mm, Reichenhall, and even into Belgium through Bishop Ratherius of Verona (q.v.). This bishop cited frequently the traetates of Zeno, and brought a manuscript to Lobbies containing a rhythmic description of Verona (De lattdibrs Verorue, dated about 790), which deals with the first eight bishops, of whom the eighth was Zeno. Older than this manuscript, however, is the chief codex of the tractates (Codex Remensis), which Hinemar of Reims (q.v.) presented to the Benedictine library at Reims. It contains the ninetythree tractates (or fragments of them), and is especially interesting because of the marginal glosses which relate to the use of collections of sermons in divine worship, and show further that this manuscript had been used in worship at Verona. To the short tract concerning the three men in the fiery furnace the remark is annexed that it. was to be used at the festivals of Firmus and Rusticus (who were honored at Verona about 765). The same tractates are preserved in numerous other manuscripts under the name of Zeno.

The question arises whether these tractates are a unity, or whether, as Tillemont said of the 105 first printed under the name of Zeno, they are a collection from various authors. In the older col-

lection there were pieces which are to Unity of the be credited to Ca?sarius of Arles, the

Tractates. letter of Bishop Vigilius of Trent to

Chrysostom, three tracts by Bishop Potamius of Olisipo (MPL, viii. 1411 sqq.), five expositions of psalms by Hilary of Poitiers, and four sermons of Basil of Cæsarea in the Latin translation of Rufinus. Since in the ninety-three tractates there are considerable parts which go back to Lactantius and Hilary of Poitiers, the appearance is presented of a collection; and this is enhanced by the fact that Zeno has been supposed to belong to the third century, not to the fourth. In spite of this, there are very decided indications of the unity of the collection. As in the works of Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, many citations are taken verbally from Seneca, apocryphal writings, and even from Apuleius, but these are worked into the texture. Hilary was very popular (Jerome, Epist., xxxiv. ad Marcellam, MPL, xxii. 448); but the style of Zeno betrays a far stronger influence of the Asian school and is richer in use of figures and in rhythm. The proof of unity has been well worked out by Weyman, Giuliari, and Bigelmair (see bibliography). Especially indicative of this is the employment of a pre-Hieronymian Bible-text, in which the agreement with the text of Cyprian is particularly noticeable. Even though the unity of the tractates be conceded, it still does not follow that Zeno is the author, for it is a possible supposition that they had been attributed to the patron saint of the place through veneration of him. This hypothesis is hardly tenable, however, if it be granted that Zeno lived in the time of the Emperor Gallienus (260-268); for it is a desperate rather than sane conclusion that the tractates were used by Lactantius and Hilary rather than the reverse. Equally beside the mark is the hypothesis of Baronius that there were in Verona two Zenos, one living in the third and another in the fourth century. And it is not good exegesis to explain polemics against Photiniana, Audiana, and Arians by a polemic against Origen and Origenista.

Reasons for putting the work back into the third century are: that Christian women appear frequently as marrying heathen husbands; that sacrifices to heathen deities are yet in evidence, which were for-

bidden after Constantine and ConThe stantius; that coins are mentioned

Evidence bearing the heads of the emperors and Concerning not the cross; that the Christian the Date. churches are small and simple in con-

struction in comparison with the heathen temples; and that the influence of the Jews is one of the objects of attack. In addition to this it is to be remarked that the dogmatic conceptions are those of the third century. It has been brought to notice that in Zeno neither the Greek homootcsios nor the Latin consubstantitzlis is found, and in their

Plwe are older formulas that have their origin in Tertullianistic expressions. This distinguishes the author from Phoebadius (q.v.), who, though as a dogmatician he was inclined to archaisms, yet wrote of the "divinity and conaubstantiality of the Son."

506

It is natural to refer to Hilary and other conservative westerners; but it does not appear from the tractates of Zeno that the West without dogmatic controversies felt itself to be in possession of Catholic verity. In fact Zeno appears to be even more naive than Hilary himself before his contact with the East. The expression "Catholic verity" is not found, and the word "Catholic" seldom appears in Zeno. The tractates know nothing of a hierarchically governed Church guaranteeing the truth. The highly interesting first tractate does not countenance the suggestion that the faith has come under subjection to a legal formulary; it indeed says that we are not under the law but under grace. The faith is the form of religious possession and is under private control (" the law is something in common, faith is a private matter "). The teaching concerning the Church savors of Novatianism. This institution is indeed founded upon Peter, who has, however, no precedence over the other apostles, but appears as the representative of the rest though in a sense the first of them. There is no discussion as to the position of Rome. While it is noticeable how considerable is the dependence upon Cyprian, it is curious that the bishops receive little attention. If, as the common idea has it, Zeno was African in origin, it is very remarkable that there is not a trace in the tractates of the violent Donatiatic controversy. The great question which troubled men there was concerned with the consecration of bishops, but in the tractates the matter of ordination is dealt with entirely without passion. Similarly in the doctrine of the Trinity, as in the doctrine of the Church, the treatises might have been written not only before there was an Arian, but before there was a Donatiatic strife, while Novatian ideas seem to be in the air.

These suggestions are so indicative that the disposition is to attribute the unity to a single editor who is responsible for the contact with FIilary by way of interpolations and a working over or else

through a common source. Before the The Work middle of the fourth century the candiof the dates for baptism were never, called Editor. competentes, but in traetate ii. 27, 46,

50 the expression is found. There are indications of change from the original text. In this category there come up for consideration the suggestions involved in the marginal glosses, which show that in the eighth century the tractates were employed liturgically. But liturgical use involves considerable change. Tractate ii. 50 sqq. was used later in the monastery at Verona, " being recited in the presence of the priest before the station," and this suggests a procession. Still stranger is the marginal note on the Reims codex at ii. 42, which directs the tractate to be read by the deacon at the chief monastery when on Easter Sunday the bishop takes his place there and at the kiss of peace " according to custom " distributes apples to the brethren. The original Easter sermon on the four seasons is aptly chosen for this use, but the usage can hardly have been original. Whoever reads the later, formladen, and repetitious tractates (cf. ii. 39-40 with 41 and ii. 47 with the preceding) receives the impression of a liturgical piece which has been lopped

out of sermons, probably Zeno's. Again, Traetate L, v. 4 gives the time of the inditing of the Pauline epistles as "nearly 400 years ago or a little more." The number 200 which appears in the second edi tion of Verona in 1586 has no support in any of the manuscripts, where the number 400 is written out. The Ballerini have taken much pains to prove that the Church Fathers reckon at times very inexactly. But Bigehnair shows that 400 is used as a round number, and sees in the expression the hand of a redactor who was active about 450. That would explain how Jerome in his De viris illustribus passes by Zeno; for at that time no publications of Zeno were in circulation. Bigelmair concludes that Zeno was dead in 370, the year in which the commentary of Hilary on the Psalms was issued. Hilary is used often in the tractates. Bigelmair supposes that the commentary as a whole was issued then, though in its parts it had earlier seen the light; but this is merely a possibility. So that a working in of the Hilary passages is within the bounds of possibility. But all these difficulties come seriously into con sideration if that Zeno, to whom were attributed according to a very early tradition the tractates which are essentially unitary in composition and were used at a very early date at Traditions Verona, lived in the third and not in Concerning the fourth century. The church of Zeno's Verona had a double interest in carry Period. ing back as far as possible Zeno's dates. Its earliest bishops had Greek names, and tradition made the first bishop one of the seven ty disciples. If Zeno was the eighth in sequence, he could not have lived in the fourth century. Greg ory the Great (Dialogue, iii. 19) several times calls Zeno a martyr; to be sure it was Bishop Lippomanus in the sixteenth century who first changed the form of veneration offered from that of a confessor to that of a martyr, which then became popular. That Zeno suffered martyrdom in the fourth century through the Emperor Julian or the Arians is improb able; the report of martyrdom would fit better in the third century. The Reims codex contains a life of Zeno by the notary Coronatus, which must have been written before 807 (when the relics of Zeno were transferred). This tells how the bishop healed Galls the daughter of Emperor Gallienus (260-268) and with the help of the grateful father Christianized Verona. While the fact of such a daughter is not assailable, the "Life" abounds so in impossibilities that it has been pronounced unhistorical; yet to the martyrdom it gives no support, indeed (chap. viii.) it reports: " not much later he passed away in peace." The miracle of healing passed into the later reports, as in the poem De laudibus Yerorcw, where it takes the form of saving from an evil spirit. In spite of the improbabilities this account of the life has been influential, and has made its mark on hymns, ritual, and hagiologies. It is not strange that Gallienus is brought into connection with the legend when it is remembered that the city was a colony under Pompey, endowed with citizenship rights by Ciesar, was the birthplace of Catullus, and finally was refortified by Gallienus and called itself Gallieneia after him (F. Ughelli, Italia sacra, v. 655, 10 vols., Venice, 171? 22). Bigelmair derives

507

the first bishop from the East, though the Greek name does not necessitate this. In the time of Gregory the Great (c. 600) Aquileia was the metropolis, earlier the city was under Milan. The correspondence of Ambrose (Epist., v.-vi.) with Bishop Syagrius is that of a metropolitan with his suffragan. The latter had proceeded illegally and injuriously against the consecrated virgin Indjcia, to whom Ambrose refers as approved by "Zeno of sacred memory." This is the earliest and surest testimony to the life of Zeno. It has been objected that the reference does not affirm either the episcopal standing of Zeno or his residence at Verona; but this follows from the whole situation. Syagrius had threatened his metropolitan with the results of outraged public opinion. Ambrose replied that such was not the character of the Veronese, and he would moreover make the matter clear through a commission and pacify them; for Syagrius had passed a misjudgment on a virgin consecrated by Zeno of blessed memory, to whom he had thus by implication set himself in opposition. That Zeno belonged in Verona follows from the fact that Indicia lived there, and from the implication that Syagrius knew that fact; of what other Bishop Zeno could this be true? An additional circumstance is alleged, the consecration of a sister Marcellina. Bishops, not presbyters, were obligated to perform such ceremonies according to the rules in force before 390 (L. Duchesne, Origines du cults chretien, p. 408, Paris, 1889, Eng. transl., Christian Worship, its Origin and Evolution, p. 423, London, 1904). That is to say, some years before Ambrose wrote the letter, Zeno had officiated at the veiling of a virgin whose testimony was still obtainable.

Still, the exact date is not ascertainable. It does not follow from the words "of blessed memory" that Ambrose was personally unacquainted with Zeno; all that is necessarily involved is that Zeno was an older contemporary of Ambrose. It is known from Athanasius (MPG, xxv. 599 B)

Zeno of that in 356 Bishop Lucillua (Lucius) of

the Fourth Verona was still alive; according to Century. the catalogues Zeno was his second successor in the see. Much effort has been expended to determine from this the years of beginning and end of Zeno's episcopate, employing the datum that Zeno was consecrated Dec. 3, and from that determining the year on which that day fell on a Sunday. But that datum is insecure. It is indeed one of the days on which Zeno is commemorated; but Rabanus first names Apr. 12 as the date of martyrdom, elsewhere Dec. 8 is named. ASB, April, ii. 69 E derives this date from the Mis sals Ambrosianum, but there Zeno appears as confessor (a good indication of the early date of the tradition). It seems as though Petrus Galesini, apostolic prothonotary, was the first to be so definite as to name'Dec. 8 as the day of consecration and Apr. 12 as the natal day. The basis of this entire system of reckoning is so doubtful that it seems unnecessary to note the objections that have been ad vanced against it. Both the assumed year of beginning and the assumed year of the end (362 and 330) are uncertain. Even the duration of his epis copate (eight or nine years) does not depend upon

the liturgical indications of the sermon fragments. The best that can be done is to affirm that some time about 356 Zeno became bishop, and on internal grounds it is improbable that he was active as an author after 381, since there are no traces in his writings of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

It is usual to trace Zeno's origin to Africa. Ordinarily one does not speak of African Latin; but an exception is made when the peculiarities of the "Apuleian style" so abound as they do in Zeno. It follows that he used much other African writers.

Tractate 18 of book ii. has as title " On Conclusions. the natal day of S. Arcadius, which

occurs on the day before the Ides of January in the city of Cæsarea Mauretania." Duchesne thinks that this tract is only by chance among Zeno's works, but Bigelmair points to its literary relationship with the rest. It purports to be a historical writing, but is so lacking in concrete detail that no local coloring is left to speak for an origin in Madaura. The most of the tractates are fragments of sermons; i. 1 is a letter and may have been written when Fortunatianus was bishop of Aquileia. Until recently it was held that Zeno's writings were the earliest examples of sermons in the Latin language, but that has become questionable. Their literary value consists in the fact that they are high-water mark in the application of the rules of art to the Latin sermon. The author had read widely, observed closely, thought matters out, polished, built up, and reconstructed until he had finished his task. But he was always desirous of having something to say, and back of the discourses was an unusual, worthful, pious, and delightful personality. The sermons have their own peculiarity. II. 44, for example, is perhaps the beat description extant from early times of the process of baking bread, and every detail is treated symbolically; similarly ii. 27 deals with viticulture, and ii. 43 with horoscopes. Dogmatically they are important as revealing Western theology before the stress of the Apollinarian controversy. . Pauline thoughts predominate (James is never cited), Mary is to the fore, with considerable use of apocryphal material.

(F. Arnold.)

Bibliography: The Sermonea, ed. P. and H. Ballerini, were issued at Verona, 1739, this edition being repeated in A. Gallandius, Bdbliotheca veterum patrum, v. 109 sqq., 1.4 vols., Venice, 1785-81, and in MPL, xi. 10 sqq.; a new ea. of Ballerini was issued at Augsburg, 1758, enlarged by two essays by Bonacchi (also included in MPL). Note further: Tillemont, Mémoires, iv. 1, pp. 24 sqq.; P. Ughelli, Italia sacra, v. 879 sqq., Venice, 1720; G. B. C. Giuliari, S. Zenones sermonea, Verona, 1883, new impression, 1900, cf. the editor's Vita di S. Zenone, ib. 1877 (this edition contains on pp, lxxxix.-cviii., exiii.-cxxaix. a painstaking index to the literature on Zeno up to the year 1881); cf. on Giuliari C. Weyman in AMA, 1893, ii. 359 sqq., and note the same author in AMA, 1893, ii. 350-381. In addition to the foregoing, consult: I. A. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 754-759, 4 vols., Stuttgart, 1846-58, Eng. transl.. Hist. of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1861-63; F. A. Schiitz, S. Zenonia doctrina Christiana, Leipsic, 1854; L. Jazdzewski, Zeno . . . c ommentatio patrologica, Regensburg, 1882; L. Duchesne, is Bulletin critique, iv (1883), 138-141; Hurter, in Zeitschrift für ka=holische Theologie, viii (1884), 233 sqq.; J. Fessler, Institutiones patrolagim, ad. B. Jungmann, i. 712-715, Innsbruck, 1890; A. Harnack, Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1895-(shows the influence of Tertullian); especially important is A. Bigel-

508

mair. Zeno von Verona, Münster, 1904: H. Brewer, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, viii. 1 (1904), 92-115; idem, in Revue b�n�dictine, zxii (1905), 470; H. Januel, Commentationea phiZoZogicos in Zenonem Veronenaem, program of the gymnasium at Regensburg, 1905-08; DCB, iv. 1213.