16-CHAPTER 16. THE ACTA OF PAUL AND THEKLA.

CHAPTER 16. THE ACTA OF PAUL AND THEKLA.

I. THE ACTA IN THEIR EXTANT FORM. THE Acta Pauli et Theklæ is the only extant literary work which throws light on the character of popular Christianity in Asia Minor during the period that we have been studying. Thekla became the type of the female Christian teacher, preacher, and baptiser, and her story was quoted as early as the second century as a justification of the right of women to teach and to baptise; and Tertullian seeks to invalidate its authority [Tertullian,de Bapt, 17 (about 195 A.D.). It is generally held that Tertullian refers to the work which has been preserved to us; but in Acta Sanctorum, September 23rd, pp. 550 f., the extant Acta is treated as a forged compilation, made in the fourth century from the work known to Tertullian.] by pointing out that the presbyter who confessed having constructed the work from love of Paul, was deposed from his office. So late as the ninth century, Nicetas of Paphlagonia mentions that Thekla baptised in Isauria, but that this was a special privilege reserved to her alone among women. Respect for and worship of Thekla was then rather opposed to the practice of the Catholic Church in respect of women; but it was far too deep-seated in the popular mind to be disturbed. But the objectionable features of the tale could be explained away (as they were by Nicetas); and attention was directed more to features of the tale which were more in accordance with the spirit of later Catholicism. Finally, in process of time, the objectionable features were toned down and eliminated, so that in the extant MSS. not a single trace remains of Thekla’s administering the rite of baptism to others. To render this work useful as an authority for the feeling of the second century, we must then try to restore the character which it had when Tertullian read it. The extant Acta, of which numerous MSS. are known to exist, [Professor Rendel Harris told me that he had seen at Mount Sinai eight or nine MSS. None have been collated.] including versions in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Slavonic, represent on the whole one single document, though differences far beyond mere textual variety exist between the different versions and MSS. The general tendency of recent criticism (see, e.g., Lipsius, die apokryphen Apostelgesch., ii., p. 424, to which, and to his edition of the text, it is needless to say how much I am indebted; Lightfoot, Ignat. and Polyc., i., p. 623n.; Dr. Gwynn in Smith Dict. Christ. Biog., iv., pp. 882 ff., etc.), is to place this document in the latter part of the second century. To judge on such a point we may best begin by a brief analysis of the document.

Thekla belonged to one of the noblest families in Iconium. Her mother was called Theokleia, which seems to be only a Grecised form of the same name; neither father nor brother nor sister has any part in the extant tale. When Paul came to Iconium he lived in the house of Onesiphorus, [On his journey to Iconium and welcome by Onesiphorus, see above, p. 31. Titus intimated Paul’s intended visit.] and his preaching was audible to Thekla, who sat at a window in her mother’s house, and refused to stir from it or to take food No entreaties moved her. Her betrothed lover, Thamyris, after vainly trying to bring her back to her ordinary mode of life, went out to observe Paul. Two false friends of Paul, Demas and Hermogenes, advised him to accuse Paul of being a Christian, and next day he took Paul before the proconsul, Castelius, and accused him of dissuading women from marriage--i.e., of tampering with the customs of society. Castelius remanded Paul for further examination, and in the night he was visited secretly by Thekla. She was found at his feet next morning by Theokleia and Thamyris. Both culprits were taken before Castelius, who ordered Paul to be scourged and expelled from the city, and Thekla, as her mother suggested and urged, to be burned. Men and women vied in preparing the pyre to burn Thekla in the theatre. She, after having a vision of the Lord in the appearance of Paul, was put on the pyre; but the flames did not burn her, and a storm came on, quenched the fire, and killed many of the spectators. [The versions vary. Some read, "so that many died"; others, "so that many were in danger of death."]

Paul and the family of Onesiphorus spent many days fasting in a tomb on the road that leads to Daphne. When they were famishing Paul took off his coat, and sent a slave into the city to buy bread; the slave met Thekla in the street (her intermediate adventures are not mentioned), and brought her to Paul. She wished to cut her hair and follow Paul, but he refused to permit this. She then asked him to baptise her, which he refused to do.

Paul and Thekla then went to Antioch. The high-priest of Syria, Alexander, saw them as they entered, and, struck with passion for Thekla, proposed to purchase her from Paul, who replied, "I do not know the woman of whom thou speakest, nor is she mine." Paul at this point disappears from the action; Thekla was left alone. Alexander put his arm round her and kissed her; and she tore his garment and the crown which he wore on his head. Alexander took her before the proconsul, who condemned her to be thrown to wild beasts. General pity was felt among the people, and the women loudly exclaimed, "Evil judgment! impious judgment!" Thekla asked to be safe from personal violence till her death; and a rich lady, Queen Tryphæna, took her in charge, and became much attached to her, as come to replace her lost daughter. On the day of the preliminary procession Thekla was fastened on the back of a lioness, which licked her feet. On the following day took place the exhibition of beasts (venatio). Tryphæna long refused to give up Thekla, but was at last obliged to let the soldiers take her away. In the arena, where she was exposed nude, except for a cincture, the lioness crouched at her feet, and fought for her, killing a bear and a lion, and dying in her defence. A leopard which attacked her burst asunder. [The leopard occurs only in the Syriac version.]Then other beasts came against her, and she saw a trench full of water, and jumped in, saying, "I baptise myself." [I retain purposely the inconsequence of the incidents.] The people were afraid that the seals would eat her, and the proconsul wept. But a cloud of fire encompassed her, and veiled her nakedness from the gaze of the crowd, and lightnings killed the seals. The other animals fell into a stupor. Then she was fastened to fierce bulls, who were goaded to madness by red-hot irons; but the fire consumed the fastenings. Here Tryphæna fainted, and Thekla was released, for the officials were afraid of the anger of the Emperor, who was a relative of Tryphæna. Thekla went home with the Queen, refused, in spite of her entreaties, to remain more than eight days with her, converted the whole household, and then, modifying her dress to look like a man’s, she went to Myra to meet Paul. Thereafter she returned to Iconium, offered to give her mother the wealth she had received from Tryphæna, and then went to Seleuceia. The rest of her life is variously related. Some authorities merely say that she converted many and died at Seleuceia; others give a long narrative containing some very feeble miracles; others make her undertake a journey to Rome; the Syriac and Latin versions add nothing. When I am told that this production belongs to the same age, the same country, the same period of thought as the Acta of Carpus and Papylus, and the pathetic letter of the Lugdunensians to the churches of Asia; that it is only a few years later than the simple and noble letter of the Smyrnæans, which so moved Scaliger "that he seemed to be no longer master of himself," [I take the quotation from Lightfoot,Ignat. and Polyc, i., 589 (604).] I confess that I can only wonder. That the tale contains much that is fine is true; but it also contains much rubbish, much that is glaringly incongruous with the finest parts. Still more must one marvel that Zahn should be willing to accept it, with a few omissions, as a work of the first century. In examining this work we shall not look at its doctrinal aspect. Obviously a work which has been exposed to modifications such as have been alluded to is peculiarly liable to alteration in doctrinal points; and dogma therefore will be a dangerous guide in attempting to analyse it. The most remarkable disagreement exists between those who have tried to estimate precisely its dogmatic position. Schlau considers that the Acta is a polemic by a Catholic writer against Gnostic libertinism: works such as I Timothy, falsely attributed to Paul, had discredited him in Church circles, and the writer’s object was to present a picture of Paul according to the Catholic taste. Lipsius considers that the Acta was originally a Gnostic composition, designed to inculcate the doctrine of absolute virginity and abstinence even from marriage, and abstinence from the use of flesh and wine; and that this original work was re-edited in the third century with its doctrines toned down to avoid offending the Catholic taste; he refuses to believe that there were at the time in question any Catholics in whose eyes St. Paul was discredited (a scepticism in which he will find supporters), or that the Catholic taste desired that an apostle should be of the type attributed in the Acta to Paul. Dr. Gwynn [InDict. Christ. Biogr., iv., 891: he quotes Dr. Salmon,Introduction to New Testament, ed. ii., p. 420, as in agreement.] maintains that the work is written by an orthodox and well-meaning, but not clear-headed, author, who was unable to understand Paul’s doctrine.

It will be allowed that examination of the Acta from the side of dogma has not led to such consensus of opinion as to preclude a different theory moving on a different plane of thought, and founded mainly on archaeological argu- ments. It may conduce to clearness to begin by stating the view [Several points in it have been maintained by others; the novelty lies in some of the arguments on which it is founded.] which will be supported in the ensuing pages.

1. In treating this subject the following questions must be clearly held apart from each other: I. Is the work, as we have it, explicable as the production of a single author? No difficulty will be felt in answering this in the negative.

2. If it is not a single work by a single author, what are the parts, and to what dates are they to be assigned?

3. Do the earliest parts form, or appear to have originally belonged to, a complete literary work, or can they be explained as traditional survivals of a popular legend living on in the popular memory, and worked up into literary form at a later time?

4. If the earliest parts once belonged to a work of literature, what historical value did the work possess? The existence of such a work, and its truth as history, are distinct points.

We shall, as the best method of answering the last three questions, and of corroborating the answer given to the first, examine the work minutely to discover indications of the date to which each must be assigned.

2. QUEEN TRYPHAENA. In the action of the romance the dénoûment turns on the protection granted to Thekla by Queen Tryphæna, who became a second mother to the Christian virgin, and saved her honour and her life. It is impossible to imagine a form of the romance in which the figure of the queen is wanting; she must have been a character in the tale from the beginning.

Von Gutschmid was the first to point out that Queen Tryphæna was probably a historical character. He appealed to certain rare coins of the kingdom of Pontus, which show on the obverse the bust of a king with the title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΩΝΟΣ, on the reverse the bust of a queen with the title "Β㤝ΣΙΛΙΣΣ ΗΣ ΤΡΜΦΑΙΝΗΣ"; [Rhein. Mus., 1864, p. 178: the types imply that the Queen reigned by her own hereditary right, and not simply as Queen-Consort. Lipsius, p. 464, speaks of Cilicia, not Pontus; but Gutschmid is right, and the coins are Pontic.] and he argued that this queen, whose bust appears on Pontic coins, was the Queen Tryphæna of the Acta.

There were obvious difficulties in the identification. The Tryphæna of the coins was queen of the independent kingdom of Pontus; and the Tryphæna of the romance was apparently a Roman subject, resident in the city of Antioch. The former was a powerful sovereign, for Polemon is known to have reigned in Pontus until A.D. 63, whereas the latter complains of her friendlessness and helplessness. The former was apparently a Greek; the latter was a near relation of the reigning Emperor. Polemon’s wife could not on any reasonable hypothesis be an elderly woman in A.D. 50, as Tryphæa in the tale is represented.

Von Gutschmid advanced an hypothesis to get rid of some of these difficulties, and to establish a relationship between the Pontic queen and the Emperor Claudius; and all subsequent scholars, when writing on the Acta of Paul and Thekla, have confined themselves to reproducing his hypothesis. [Zahn, inGötting. Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1877, p. 1307, argues on the supposition that it has been demonstrated as certain.] We shall not here repeat it, as subsequent investigations have completely disproved it. Nor shall we recapitulate the gradual progress of discovery, in which the chief parts have been played by Von Sallet, Waddington, and Mommsen; though it would be a matter of interest to observe how evidence slowly accumulated, and one fact after another was gradually established; and it would also be important to show the nature of the evidence, for the facts are not all equally firmly established, and some may yet require some modification from further discovery. We may accept and briefly repeat the account given by Mommsen [Ephemeris Epigrapica, i., pp. 270 ff.; ii., pp. 259 ff. Lipsius refers, p. 465n., to the Tryphæna whom Mommsen describes, as a person bearing the same name as the Tryphæna of the Acta and of Gutschmid. He did not discover that she is the true Pontic queen, of whom Gutschmid gave such a boldly hypothetical history, in which the only true points were her name and her identity with the queen of the Acta. On a few small points I tacitly differ from Mommsen.] of this queen, as being in all essential points well established; and we may do so with more confidence because none of the facts on which his account is founded are derived from the Christian Acta, nor have any of the
successive investigators observed that the facts which they have discovered bear on this document.

Queen Tryphæna belonged to a family which played an important part in the history of Asia Minor in the two centuries immediately before and after Christ; and it will be a really important step in our knowledge of the diffusion of Christianity in Asia Minor, if we succeed in establishing its relations with this dynasty. Our knowledge of the dynasty rests almost wholly on the evidence of inscriptions and coins; in literature there occurs hardly any reference to it. It left no mark on the history of the world, and had no place in the memory of posterity. It is in the last degree improbable that any person so late as A.D. 150 remembered the existence of this queen, [One exception probably was the Sophist of Smyrna, M. Antonius Polemon, whose magnificent progresses in almost royal state between Laodiceia (the original seat of the family) and Smyrna are described in very interesting terms by Philostratus. He, no doubt, thought a good deal about his royal relatives; and it is possible that Tryphæna was his great-grandmother.] or that a tale in which she was a prominent character first received literary form so late as the latter part of the second century. [Zahn, l.c., has put this point well.] It is a striking instance of the historical value of the early Christian documents, that the only deep mark this dynasty has left on literature is in a Christian work; and I hope to succeed in showing that several facts with regard to Tryphæna’s fate, which are stated in the Acta and are nowhere else attested, are so suitable to the well-established facts of her life, that they deserve to be accepted as historical. In the first place, we must observe how well certain traits in the Acta agree with the historical position of this dynasty. This family owed its importance to the Imperial policy in Asia Minor. As we have seen (p. 34), the romanisation of the central parts of Asia Minor was in progress actively between A.D. 30 and 70; and the attention of the Emperors was closely directed on it. It was part of their policy to interpose what are in modern slang called "buffer-states" between the Roman boundaries and their great enemy in the East, the Parthians. It was important that these States should be governed by sovereigns closely united by feeling, interest, and family ties with the Empire. The influence exercised by this lonely widow among the Roman officers, the deference paid her, and the fear of the Emperor’s anger if anything should happen to her, are in perfect agreement with the historical situation. In the second place, it would be an effective argument to show how the difficulties of reconciling the Tryphæna of the Acta with the historical Tryphæna have disappeared one by one in the gradual progress of discovery; but it would require too minute discussion of the facts. One example, however, is too striking to be omitted. This Polemon, who appears along with Tryphæna on Pontic coins, was a mere boy in the year 37, and must have been a comparatively young man at the time at which the action of the Christian tale is laid. But Tryphæna in the tale is an elderly woman. How could so young a king have an elderly wife? This difficulty was cleared away by M. Waddington’s observation that the queen on the coins is a mature woman, while the king is represented as a mere boy; and that the pair are not wife and husband, but mother and son.

Queen Tryphæna was daughter of Polemon, King of part of Lycaonia and Cilicia, and also of Pontus. She married Cotys, King of Thrace, and became the mother of three kings, Thracian, Pontic, and Armenian. She was in her own right queen of Pontus, but only queen-consort in Thrace, hence her name does not appear on Thracian coins. She was probably about forty-six years of age when her son Polemon was made king of Pontus in A.D. 37; [I have placed in anexcursusa brief outline of Mommsen’s history of the family, to avoid encumbering the text with facts not strictly belonging to my subject, yet having a bearing on it.] and the latter was then perhaps about nineteen years old. In A.D. 50 she was therefore nearly sixty. This suits the Acta perfectly. A young king who comes of age after his mother has exercised for some years the sovereign power during his minority, does not always find it easy to get on amicably with her. Tryphæna, whose mother Pythodoris had reined for many years as sole sovereign after her husband’s death, was not unlikely to be rather too exacting in her demands on her son’s obedience. It is certain that, though we hear a little about Polemon, we never hear in history of the Pontic queen. It therefore appears that Tryphæna did not continue to exercise in Pontus the commanding influence which her mother had possessed, while it is quite natural that she may have desired to exert a similar influence. The queen in the Acta complains of her friendlessness There is then every probability that this is historically true; and that she had quarrelled with her son, who found that she insisted too much on her rights, and retired to a life of seclusion on her own private estates in one of her father’s kingdoms.

Tryphæna was cousin, once removed, of the Emperor Claudius, her mother Pythodoris being his full cousin. The relationship was through the Antonian family, for the mothers of Pythodoris and of Claudius were sisters, both being daughters of Marcus Antonius the Triumvir, and bearing the name Antonia. The connection with the great enemy of Augustus was no great advantage to
Tryphæna in her earlier years, when Augustus and Tiberius ruled the empire. The very name of the Triumvir was long proscribed and forbidden to be mentioned on monuments or uttered by loyal citizens. [See Mommsen,Res Gestæ D. Aug., ed. II., p. 180.] Memory of Antonius was indeed permitted at least as early as A.D. 20, possibly even before the death of Augustus; but still he was not mentioned by Augustus in the monumentum Ancyranum. [Tacitus,Annals, iii., 18; Mommsen,l. c., p. vi. and p. 181.] It was not till the accession of Caligula, his great-grandson, in A.D. 37, that it became a really great advantage to belong to the Antonian family, whose members were honoured and promoted by the young Emperor. His successor, Claudius, continued the same policy; and during this reign it is quite in accordance with the scanty evidence that the picture given in the Acta should be strictly true: the widowed queen, though aged and living in retirement, retained the prestige due to her relationship to the reigning Emperor, to her former power as a reigning queen, and probably also to her personal ability and energy. [Her family undoubtedly showed high ability both before and after her time. Her mother was certainly a remarkable woman; and the inscriptions which attest Tryphæna’s relations with Cyzicos make it probable that she had something of her mother’s character. The respect shown to her at Cyzicos illustrates the dignity ascribed to her in theActa.]

Further, there is every probability that within a few years the situation changed. In 54 A.D. Claudius died, and Nero succeeded him; and the new Emperor rather made a point of throwing contempt and ridicule on his predecessor. After a few years he even stripped Polemon of his kingdom of Pontus, leaving him, however, a principality among the mountain districts of western Cilicia. The picture given in the Acta of Tryphæna’s situation, while true to the time in which the scene is laid, ceased to be so after a very few years had passed; after 54 she was no longer a relative of the Emperor, and in all probability she lost much of her personal influence with the Roman officials.

It is not possible to account for this accuracy in details [Her name is correctly given. As a Roman lady, she was Antonia Tryphæna, but as a queen she dropped the Antonia. So M. Antonius Polemon, as her son was certainly called, became King Polemon.] by the supposition that it is a skilful archæological forgery. Such an accurate restoration of a past epoch would be utterly different in type from other ancient forgeries, and beyond the limits of ancient thought and knowledge. The tale must be founded on fact, and committed to writing by some person not far removed from the events, able to compose a history, or at least a poetical idealisation of history. No other hypothesis seems consistent with the fidelity to a transitory and soon- forgotten epoch of history. We must hold that the tale is, at least in part, historical, that Thekla was a real person, and that she was brought into relations with the greatest figures of the Galatic province about A.D. 50--viz., Paul, Queen Tryphæna, and the Roman governor.

Two points occur to the critic in regard to which the Tryphæna of the Acta differs from the historical Tryphæna.

1. In the Acta, § 30, the Queen says, "There is no one to aid me, neither child, for my child has died, [The Greek also permits the rendering, "for my children have died."] nor relative, for I am a widow." The real queen had at this period three sons living as kings, and powerful relatives. But these words must be taken as the exaggerated expression of grief uttered by a lonely old woman, who feels that her sons have not remained true to her, and are as good as dead to her; and they are, if pressed, actually inconsistent with the tale itself, for in § 36 she is said to be the Emperor’s relative. Moreover, in the long process of alteration through which the work has passed, a little additional colouring was liable to be added to the cry of the widow. The explanatory phrases read like literary additions. The original words then were, probably, "There is no one to help me, neither child nor relative."

2. Tryphæna in the legend seems to reside at Antioch of Pisidia. The family to which she belonged is not known to have had any connection with Antioch; and we have seen that the natural place of retirement for the historical Queen would be some of the hereditary possessions of her family. We could understand her retiring to estates beside Laodiceia on the Lycus, where immense property was owned by M. Antonius Polemon as late as the second century, or to estates near Iconium; but that she should be residing at Antioch is not in keeping with what is known of the family. This difficulty will disappear in the course of the investigation into the original form of the tale.

3. LOCALITIES OF THE TALE OF THEKLA. The action of the tale was originally placed at Paul’s first visit to Iconium. The general impression is that he is a stranger in the city, and yet various details point to a later visit. This contradiction points to additions or alterations made in an older tale through misunderstanding. With this is connected the doubt whether the Antioch of the tale is the Syrian or the Pisidian. If the scene is laid in the first journey the Pisidian Antioch must be meant, and indubitably the general impression is to that effect. But, if the scene is laid in any other journey, the Antioch of § 1 must be the Syrian; and the other references are naturally interpreted accordingly. The doubt was felt at a very early time, and Basil of Seleuceia says that the Syrian Antioch was really the city alluded to, though Pisidian Antioch claimed to be the scene of Thekla’s trial. His opinion was evidently founded on some definite argument; and this argument was probably as follows. We have seen, p. 31ff., that the meeting of Paul and Onesiphorus was originally described in terms true to the road-system of the first century, but unintelligible afterwards, and that the original text was afterwards changed considerably. The idea taken from the passage in later time was that Onesiphorus went out from Iconium along the road to Lystra, and therefore met Paul on his way from Lystra. This implies that he was coming from the Syrian Antioch, and therefore that the journey was either the second or third. Basil was familiar with the topography of a country so near his own Isaurian home, and naturally argued in this way. The fact that Isauria was subject to the See of Antioch, and not, like Lycaonia, to Constantinople, may also have prejudiced him in favour of the Syrian Antioch. The reference to Daphne, and the title Syriarch, applied to the president of the games at Antioch, belong to a remodelling of the tale, executed by a person who believed that the Syrian city was meant. In the first century no Roman governor resided either at Antioch or at Iconium; and, if a governor played any part in the action at either city, a document of historical character would give, either expressly [So, in the opening ofActa Carpi, the proconsul’s presence at Pergamos is noticed, and the notice is an explanation. ] or incidentally, some explanation of the unusual fact that he was present. The course of the tale explains why a governor was at Antioch; but there is nothing to show why he should be at Iconium. This circumstance alone would be enough to prove that the trial at Iconium before the governor is quite unhistorical; and this conclusion is confirmed by numerous details in the scene.

We infer from these facts that a tale, originally belonging to Paul’s first journey, and occurring in Galatic Phrygia ( Iconium and Pisidian Antioch), was afterwards remodelled so as to relate to the second or third journey, and to have its scene in part at Syrian Antioch.

4. THE TRIALS AT ICONIUM. The double trial and attempted execution of Thekla before two Roman governors in two cities stamp the tale as unhistorical, and also suggests a double origin, for a single inventor would be content with one governor and one trial. Now we have seen that the governor of Iconium must be unhistorical; and, when we eliminate him, the trial and punishment there must also disappear, for only a Roman governor had authority to pass a capital sentence (p. 281n.). Moreover, the salvation of Thekla is not rightly worked into the tale. No explanation is given as to what happened to her when the fire was quenched; and in the following paragraph we find her walking in the streets of Iconium, just as if she were an ordinary inhabitant, and not a convicted criminal under sentence of death. We conclude, then, that the trial at Antioch and the trial at Iconium spring from different origins, and that the latter was unskilfully inserted in a tale where the former previously had a place.

We now turn to the trial and punishment of Paul in Iconium. The charges against him are double and self-contradictory. First, Demas and Hermogenes advise Thamyris to accuse Paul of being a Christian, as this will prove fatal to him. Such a detail could not originate until a much later date than A.D. 50; for the charge was an impossible one at that period. The other charge--of being a magician and of unlawfully interfering with the conduct and feelings of women and the established habits of society--is characteristic of that early period (pp. 236, 282, 410), and points to an origin not later than A.D. 80. The implication that the charge of magic, § 15, is the same as that of interfering with the feeling and action of others, § 16, is true of the period 50-70 A.D.

Expulsion from the city is a ridiculously small penalty for a provincial governor to inflict, if he considered the charge proved. But in A.D. 50, in Iconium, the charge could only be made before the city magistrates; and they could not inflict a severer penalty. They might send him for trial by the governor, or they might expel him from the city. We conclude, then, that the Roman governor has been unskilfully put into an older tale, in which the judges were the city magistrates, [Basil uses sometimes the termdikastes, sometimesproconsul. InActa Pionii, dikastaitried the case at Smyrna, and sent it for trial before the proconsul.] and which was more in keeping with Acts 14:3-5 (especially as given in Codex Bezœ) ; also that the accusation suggested by Demas is a later addition. The trial of Thekla in Iconium is an anachronism from beginning to end. The punishment pre-supposes the presence of a Roman governor; and there was no governor in Iconium. The bitter spirit of the mother, who urges the governor to burn her daughter as an example to other women in future, is quite unnatural. The natural course of events is that Thekla should be dealt with in private by her own family (p. 348n.). There was really no charge against her to come before a court, much less before a Roman governor. Now, when we turn to one of the earliest independent accounts of the legend of Thekla, contained in a Homily attributed to Chrysostom, [Opera, Montfaucon, vol. ii., pp. 896-9, ed. II., pp. 749-51, ed. 1. Opinion seems universal that the Homily is not in his style; and we are thus deprived of a date, which would have been welcome. It is quite probable that the Homily may be as old as A.D. 300.]we find that the account there given is very different from that contained in the Acta, and agrees perfectly with what we must consider the natural course in the time of Claudius. Far more stress is in the Homily laid on private action in the family. Her parents, her lover, her relatives, and her domestics, all urged and entreated her. Finally, she was taken before the dikastai,who attempted to terrify her with threats of punishment, and then dismissed her. She then wandered away, trying to find Paul, and guiding herself by rumours as to his probable destination. Her lover pursued her, and overtook her. When she was on the point of becoming a victim to his violence she prayed to Heaven; and here, unfortunately, the fragment ends. We cannot hesitate to accept this as the original tale. The author must have had access to an older form of the tale of Thekla in which there was no Roman governor, no condemnation and punishment, and no miraculous rescue from the flames. Apparently the family tried all means of persuasion and home influence, and even the terror of a law court. At this trial it would be natural that the mother, provoked by Thekla’s long-continued obstinacy, should be desirous that such punishment as was in the power of the dikastai should be inflicted on her; but this trait, retained in the extant Acta, becomes unnatural when the punishment is death by fire. Finally, it is probable that her wandering forth was permitted in pursuance of a plan of cure, which was founded on the belief that, if Thamyris once succeeded, even by violence, in forcing her to submit to his embraces, the influence gained over her by the enchanter and magician Paul would be destroyed. In this version all is natural, simple, and suitable to the time and place. We accept the visit to Paul by night, and the bribing of the porter and gaoler; and we observe that the bracelets and the silver mirror are objects that would be ready at hand to a maiden of rich family. We also notice the characteristic trait that the domestics entreat her with tears. The inscriptions of the country, with their common reservation of a place in the family tomb for domestic slaves, prove that close and intimate ties connected the household slaves with the master’s family. On the other hand, the details of the attempt to burn Thekla are poor, and either unnatural or borrowed. [One detail seems borrowed from the case of Polycarp. See Lightfoot, i., p. 623n.] The vision is a stock incident, not very successfully introduced, and rather like an invention of the second century (founded on the Acta of Carpos and Agathonike). The meeting of Paul with Thekla in the grave at Iconium disappears, when the old form of the tale is restored; and, with the meeting, their journey to Antioch in company is eliminated, as well as the detestable incident of Paul’s denial and desertion of Thekla, when she was exposed to the insults of Alexander. These last details have perhaps arisen from a misunderstanding. Thekla, when seized by Alexander’s attendants, called in her distress on Paul; and the dull wit of a later time thought that this implied his bodily presence.

5. THE TRIAL OF THEKLA AT ANTIOCH. In the Antiochian part of the tale we are struck at once with the fact that Thekla does not suffer for any act of a religious character, and throughout the scene of the trial no reference is made to her religion (except in some later points: Gwynn, p. 889). An inventor of a legend about a Christian heroine would never have imagined a scene in which religion played no part. We feel here at once the touch of reality and life. The trial at Antioch is on a very different plane of thought and feeling from that at Iconium. The central difficulty is the presence of a Roman governor. We cannot get rid of him as we did of the Iconian governor; for the crime--which was sacrilege--and the sentence alike imperatively demand his presence. But the action fully explains why he was in Antioch. The occasion was a great festival containing an exhibition of wild beasts (venatio), which, in a provincial city not the capital of the province, was a remarkable event. The festival, with its Roman venatio, had evidently a political character, being part of the government scheme for the romanisation of Southern Galatia. The governor had visited Antioch to make the event more imposing; and all the chief persons in Galatic Phrygia had come to pay their respects to him and to the Imperial authority which he represented. Among the rest, Queen Tryphæna had come from her estates near Iconium for this great occasion. Thus the solution of one difficulty solves another (p. 389).

Alexander, the agonothetes or president at this festival, must have been a person of great importance, and a leading figure in the State religion, which was the bond of loyalty and union in the Empire. In the Greek MSS. he is styled Syriarch, which belongs to the later modification. It is quite possible that, in the original text, he was the Galatarch, or high-priest of the Galatic province. Two of the Latin MSS. mention that he was the giver of the venatio; [Probably the text of D. also did so; but it has been corrupted.Alexandro prœns sedenteshould be corrected toAlexandro prœsens (munu)s edente.] and this detail is true to common practice. The president frequently added at his own expense to the magnificence of the festival at which he presided.

Alexander, accompanied of course by a great train of attendants, saw Thekla entering Iconium, and was struck with her beauty. A young woman alone in the street of an eastern town was obviously a dancing-girl of no respectable character; and as such Alexander accosted her and kissed her. The act was originally a piece of gallantry, a kindness and an honour to a person of her class; and we notice that the accounts given of it make it more heinous and offensive in the later texts than in the earlier. Considering the person and the occasion, we must not attribute any ugly character to it; for Alexander was apparently on his way to the festival. Thekla loudly invoked the right of a stranger and guest--a touch true to ancient feeling. She explained her position, as belonging to a noble Iconian family, and engaged in the service of "the God." Finally, when Alexander persisted in his attentions, she tore his dress, and pulled off the crown which marked his sacred office. [M. Le Blant wrongly considers him astephanephoros(Actes des Martyrs, p. 320). That official was a municipal magistrate, whereas the president of such a festival belonged to the provincial organisation of the Imperial religion.] The reason given by Thekla was the only one that could, in this Oriental land, explain the appearance unattended in the streets of a lady of good character and birth. She was one of the inspired servants (ιεο¦όρητοι), who were a recognised and wide-spread accompaniment of the Asian religion. In accordance with the service imposed on her by "the God," she was observing a rule of chastity. In this religion the observance of absolute and perfect purity was a recognised rite, though, as a rule, such inspired female servants of the God were bound to precisely the opposite way of life during their period of service, and were not considered dishonoured thereby. [An inscription of Tralles shows the general type. A woman of good birth (proved by her Latin name) erects a dedicatory offering to Zeus, as having, like her ancestors, παλλακενσασα καὶ κατὰχρησμόν. SeeBull. de Corresp. Hellénique, 1882, p. 276. ]This trait takes us into the midst of popular life, and makes the original part of the Acta a unique document for illustrating the spirit prevalent in Galatic Phrygia in A.D. 50. If one compares it with the tale of the sacrifice at Lystra and the legend of Baucis and Philemon, and then reads the Attis of Catullus, one appreciates better the character of Phrygian thought, its difference from Greek, and the fascination which it possesses.

Alexander’s attendants arrested Thekla, and carried her before the governor. The case was susceptible of a serious interpretation. She had assaulted a representative of the Imperial authority, wearing his official priestly dress, on the morning of a great ceremony at which he was about to preside. The offence was sacrilege, and, as such, was in the category of dangerous crimes commended to the special care of all governors (p. 208). The governor was satisfied as to the facts by the confession of the accused (pp. 214, 238); a severe example would bring home to all minds the terror of Roman authority; and the penalty of exposing Thekla at the venatio given by Alexander seemed peculiarly appropriate to the offence. Such a sentence was probably new to the country, where Roman customs were only coming into use; and it is interesting to observe the effect produced. The whole city was astonished; and the women were specially active in protesting against the sentence as iniquitous. [The Syriac and Latin versions keep this detail; the Greek has lost it. From the recurrence of their protest in §§ 28, 32, we gather their view, that Thekla represented them, what she had done they might be ordered by "the God" to do, and her action was covered by the Divine command which all who received it must obey (see p. 403). Harnack has seen the analogy between the sympathy of the women here, and the sympathy of the crowd for Agathonike inActa Carpi, and rightly inclines to think the latter an imitation. He remarks on the motivelessness of the pity for Agathonike, who was voluntarily rushing on death.] The question suggests itself, how the women could be present at the trial. The trial was evidently held in public at the actual festival before the whole assembled multitude; the case had been carried straight before the governor, and decided by him sitting in his official place at the festival, [Similarly Polycarp was heard and condemned in the Stadium at Smyrna. M. Le Blant quotes many examples, l.c. p. 116.] being one of an administrative, and not of a strictly judicial, character (p. 207). The general sympathy had some effect. The governor granted Thekla the privilege, ordinarily reserved for criminals of higher rank, of being confined in a private house instead of a prison. It was only too evident what reason a condemned female prisoner had to dread the gaoler’s brutality; [Moreover, the ingenuity of Roman practice had in A.D. 31 perverted a humane scruple (triumvirali supplicio adfici virginem inauditum habebatur) into a reason for detestable brutality to the young daughter of Sejanus ( Tacitus,Ann., v., 9) ; and this act constituted a precedent, which might defend numerous cases of similar brutality to Christian virgins in later time. There is no reason to disbelieve these cases, as Neumann does, p. 142n. They are attested by too weighty evidence, though of course the fantastic developments given to them in later hagiography are inane. If such things were done to the innocent daughter of a Roman noble, why not to a Christian criminal?] and, to enable her to fulfil her service of purity, the noblest lady in the assembly, Queen Tryphæna, offered to be security for her appearance at the proper moment. This kind of confinement (custodia libera, privata) was common. A guarantee (fide-jussor) was required; and ordinarily it would be difficult to find one in the case of a person condemned to death. [Roman law was very severe in the case of a prisoner’s escape, and the guard in charge was, strictly, liable to the fate of the escaped prisoner. Hadrian distinguished (expressly in the case of military guards, and by implication in the case of others) between fault, carelessness, and accident, on the part of the guards, and discriminated penalties accordingly (Digest., 48, 3, 12).] Only exceptional circumstances could have saved Thekla from the public prison; but the details here, though unusual, bear the stamp of reality and truth. The opening ceremony of the games in the Stadium [Stadiumin the Greek,amphitheatrein the Latin. No remains of either were seen by Hamilton or by Laborde; nor did I, in a very short visit, see any. But such a city must have had some place for public exhibitions. Probably it was a σμ¦ιάδιον ὰμ¦ιθέατρον, a species of building, about which I hope in 1893 to write inBulletin de Corresp Hellénique.] consisted in a procession, in which were displayed the ornaments of the show and the officials who directed it. This is true to Roman custom. Tertullian speaks of "the ostentatious preliminary display of the games to which the name procession specially belongs," Spect. 7; and Juvenal describes it x. 35. In one point the Acta goes beyond our other authorities. These do not mention that the animals were ever shown in the procession, and it is unnatural that wild beasts should be taken through the streets, whether in cages or otherwise. Here, as in many other details, the Latin version retains a far more accurate account than the Greek. The latter represents Thekla as forming part of the procession, bound to a lioness; whereas the Latin says that Thekla was placed on the top of the cage where the lioness was confined in the amphitheatre, and that, when she was in that position, the procession entered the arena. The lioness protruded its tongue between the bars of the cage, and licked Thekla’s feet. The extent to which the ignorant creative fancy of later hagiography has distorted the original document into unnatural form is well exemplified in this case. Lipsius does not quote the complete Syriac version; but we cannot doubt that the Latin approximates far more closely than the Greek to the original text. I see no reason to treat the incident as one that may not have actually occurred. The lioness had been brought from a distance, and it must have been kept in a portable cage during the journey. This cage was put in the arena during the procession. When Thekla was thus exhibited in the arena, a tablet was placed beside her with the inscription "SACRILEGA." Similarly at Lugdunum in 177, it is mentioned that in front of Attalus was placed the inscription "CHRISTIANUS." [Cp. alsoMark 15:26. M. Le Blant quotes the gloss:elogium, titulus cujuslibet rei(Actes, p. 172: the wordelogium, eulogium, is used in D). He also compares the Greek text withMatthew 27:37, forgetting, however, that he is quoting the valueless words of the Metaphrast.] The Greek rendering ίερόσυλος recalls the language of Acts 19:37 (see p.260n.).

6. PUNISHMENT AND ESCAPE OF THEKLA. On the day of the procession Tryphæna produced Thekla to take part in it, and received her back to her house to spend the final night. We cannot accept as original the statement that Tryphæna accompanied her during the procession. This is the exaggeration of a later enlarger, who did not comprehend the situation; it is an improbability of the most glaring kind that this noble lady should go into the arena. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the tale, for Tryphæna’s great affection began during the next night, [The Latin version D is very much superior to the Greek text. This could not be gathered from Lipsius’ notes. I regret that I am obliged to write without having any of the Latin texts except D before me.] when her lost daughter appeared and bade her take Thekla as a new-found daughter. At dawn of the following day Alexander appeared to require Thekla’s presence in the arena. The fact that so high an official came in person can be explained only as a special mark of respect to the queen; it was not thought courteous to send the officers of the law. But Tryphæna now refused to give up her prisoner, and did not yield until the governor sent soldiers. [The Latin versions havestratorem(two corruptly). I believe that this is due to the influence of such a document asActa Procos. Cypriani, and marks these versions as being later than the middle of the third century. A strator would be an anachronism in the first century. Ulpian says that no proconsul is allowed to have stratores, but soldiers must perform their duties in the provinces ( Digest, i., 16, 4, 1); and probably this rule applied also to Imperial provinces like Galatia. The prohibition seems to have been relaxed between 228 and 258 A.D.]Tryphæna then led her by the hand to the stadium. She, of course, was accompanied by a numerous retinue of her attendants, who are alluded to at a later stage. When Thekla was exposed in the arena she was stripped, and a cincture was given her. When she was released her clothes were given back to her. This account, as M. Le Blant remarks, is true to Roman custom; and he quotes the case of an executioner who was burned to death, because he had not given a cincture to a noble Roman woman when she was led to execution, but had compelled her to go absolutely nude. [Le Blant,Actes, p. 247;Ammianus, 28, 1, 28: to refuse the cincture (subligaculum) wasnefas admisisse.] The simple and pathetic prayer of Thekla, standing exposed in the arena (it is given in the Syriac version alone; see p. 413) is not in the later hagiographical style, and is probably genuine, in whole or in great part. Thekla in it speaks unconsciously as repre- senting her whole sex; in her exposure the nature and rights of womanhood are outraged. A similar view is taken by the women who defended her cause; and this ethical idea, of a non-religious type, which runs through the action, is one of the strongest proofs that the tale is no artificial creation of unhistorical hagiography. It is the only existing document that gives us any insight into popular feeling in central Asia Minor during this century; and it is also the only evidence we possess of the ideas and action of women at this period in the country where their position was so high and their influence so great. The scene in the arena gives excellent opening to later additions. Marvels of the common type are related of the strange escape of Thekla from death; and the incident of the seals slain by lightning is extremely grotesque and puerile. It is doubtful whether any details can be assigned to the original composition, except that the lioness spared her, and that in her subsequent danger Queen Tryphoena fainted. There can be no doubt that this was the cause of Thekla’s rescue from the first, as it still is in the most corrupt form of the tale. It is improbable that the lioness was baptized by Thekla, according to the statement of Jerome. [Lipsius accepts the statement. Jerome, de vir. illustr., c.7] This grotesque detail is quite incongruous with later views; and is also quite as far removed from primitive simplicity as it is from later hagiographical inanity. It can only be treated as a fault of memory on Jerome’s part, who remembered that Tertullian referred to it in his treatise on baptism, and mixed up the baptizing with the lion.The precise form in which the incident was originally related cannot be discovered; but the following considerations suggest themselves:-

1. Zahn is probably right in suspecting that Ignatius refers to this incident when he speaks of beasts, “as they have done to some, refusing to touch them through fear." [See p. 312. The narrative of Tacitus,Hist., ii., 61, is specially appropriate. Mariccus was spared by the beasts to whom he was exposed, and the crowd believed that this was the effect of his divine power Cp. Le Blant,Actes, pp. 86 and 95.] Such an occurrence may be accepted as quite possible. The capricious conduct of beasts suddenly released from confinement and darkness, and brought into the glare of the arena amid the shouts of the spectators is natural; and is vouched for by narratives of perfect credibility. [Zahn inGötting. Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1877, p. 1308; Ignatius, Rom., 5.Zahn inGötting.Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1877, p. 1308; Ignatius, Rom., 5.] We believe, that this incident was embodied in a literary form early enough to be known to Ignatius.

2. A remarkable analogy to the case of Thekla occurs in that of an African martyr, Marciana. A lion was sent against her in the arena. It sprang on her and placed its paws on her breast, and then, after smelling her, [Acta Sanctorum, 9 Jan., p. 569. M. le Blant’s reference, Actes, p. 86, directed me to this document. His view with regard to the scene differs from mine. The lion, having licked Thekla’s feet, might recognise her in the arena by smell.] let her alone. Immediately afterwards a bull wounded her, and then a leopard killed her. This action of the lion was interpreted afterwards in a more miraculous sense: an old Spanish hymn speaks of the lion “coming to worship, not to devour the Virgin." [Adoraturus, non comesturus, Virginem, where, as M. le Blant observes, the old odoratus has undergone only a slight change. The hymn is quoted inActa Sanctorum, l.c.] The tale of Marciana is unhistorical. [In such a case one need not conclude that the person is a myth, but that details had perished, and were in demand, and were supplied from the analogy of other documents and general probability. M. le Blant has shown that details, historical in one tale, were adopted unhistorically in others,Actes, p. 88, etc. ]It contains various miracles of a rather absurd type. Possibly her fate in the arena was modelled on that of Thekla; and perhaps the incident of the lion was told in Acta Theklæ originally in this simple and natural form, which afterwards was replaced by other details of a more marvellous kind, suited to the taste of later centuries. In this small city of an eastern province it is not probable that the venatio would be on a large scale; probably it was given at the expense of the president, as was commonly the case, and as is here stated in the Latin version. There was therefore probably only one lion; and this single lion was esteemed a great rarity and a proof of unusual magnificence. The Syriac version speaks only of one lion. Bears were found in the mountains not far from Antioch, [I have actually seen a bear further east in a solitary glen of the Anti-taurus; and in one case among the Phrygian mountains a Turk professed to point out traces of a bear in a cave, and asserted that bears were occasionally found. I felt far from certain that he was not speaking from a wish to please me, mistaking, as these people often do, curiosity about a point for a desire that the point should be of some suggested character.]and it is quite probable that there was a bear in the venatio, and that the original intention, before a criminal turned up in the person of Thekla, was to exhibit a fight between the two. [Camel fights are now a recognised sport at festivals. A lion. and-bear fight is reported inScotsman, about January 2nd, 1893.]All versions of the tale mention the bear and its fight with
the lioness. The Syriac version alone mentions a leopard. This is probably an addition; and we remember that the Syrian Ignatius makes the earliest known reference to leopards, [Lightfoot,Ignat., i., p. 412; ii., p. 212. Syrian and African leopards were the two species used invenationesby Probus,Scr. Hist. Aug., xxviii., 19.]which therefore must have been well known in Syria. Panthers were frequently found in Taurus at that time; [They are often mentioned in Cicero’s letters from Asia Minor.]and I have heard men assert that they are still found in the country, but have never known any person who had actually seen a panther there. As no reference occurs to the panther, we may set down the leopard as an addition made by the Syrian translator. The numerous other animals are likewise due to later exaggeration. The bulls alone, which were introduced as an afterthought on the part of Alexander, in order to tear the criminal asunder, perhaps belong to the original tale. Some specially shock- ing detail is needed as a cause for Tryphæna’s fainting; and this seems a device which might be easily suggested and acted on in real life. The preparation of this mode of execution so affected the Queen that she fainted. Alexander was terrified lest he should be considered by the Emperor, her relative, as guilty, if Tryphæna suffered seriously. He hastened to release Thekla. The governor, who is represented as having consented rather reluctantly to the last act of barbarity, at once pardoned her, and she returned home with Tryphæna. In the scene at Antioch few traces are found which imply that Thekla was known to be a Christian. The women sympathise with her in a most thorough and enthusiastic way. Her cause was theirs: what she is con- demned to suffer they may in ordinary course deserve. This is most strongly expressed in the Latin version, § 32, but the Greek also has it less plainly. Such a view was impossible if they thought her a Christian; they believed her to be a devotee, bound by some unusual conditions. [Much allowance, they might contend, ought to be made for an inspired servant of "the God" ; she differed from the usual type, but that is a matter between "the God" and herself.] Only in the passage referring to Falconilla is Thekla’s religion known to other persons. But the name Falconilla [It could not occur in thegens Antonia: it became familiar in Asia when Falco was proconsul, about 130.

] shows that the passage is not original and its inconsistency with its surroundings in this feature confirms the inference. Moreover, the prayers for the soul of the deceased Falconilla have a formal and de- veloped tone, which suits the second century better than A.D. 50. The words of the governor’s act, [F and G retain the termactum, which is correct, though the plural is much commoner than the singular. ] setting Thekla free, have not been left uninterpolated by later taste; at least, the epithet God-fearing (θεοσεβη+̑, metuentum dominum) is due to a later age, and to the desire to use this opportunity of making the governor bear witness to the truth. The phrase "the servant of God," however, is probably original, for, in the Latin [The proceedings were of course in Latin, except where evidence had to be taken in Greek; and the originalactumwas couched in Latin. There can be no doubt that Lipsius has been led astray by his false view as to the excellence of E, when he prefers its text, λέγων, to that of F and G, γράψαα οὕτωσ. The rule was that the sentence must be written out first, and then recited from the document. See Le Blant,Actes, pp. 168, 176.] form ancillam dei, it is susceptible of a sense perfectly consistent with the original scene. The governor knew that the women defended Thekla as a devotee of unusual style acting in obedience to the commands of "the God," who had imposed on her a special service; and he therefore says, "I release to you Thekla, the servant of ’the God’"-i.e., "I accept your explanation of her action towards Alexander as a ground for freeing her from punishment."

M. Le Blant ( Actes, p. 174) finds in the use of the correct term dimitto in the Latin version evidence that the scene is of early character. But it is obvious that the use of such a term in a translation from the Greek cannot be taken as evidence of anything more than the translator’s skill. Moreover, in this case, M. Le Blant makes the mistake of taking Grabe’s Latin rendering of the text of G for the old Latin version. Grabe uses a formula which M. Le Blant considers to be strikingly accurate; but the old Latin version is far losser and freer in its expression. This is one of the cases in which G has preserved the original form better than the Latin version. The ease with which Grabe renders it into a Latin phrase that has deceived M. Le Blant, shows that the Greek is a literal translation of the Latin original.

7. THE ORIGINAL TALE OF THEKLA.

Starting from the arguments advanced in the preceding sections, we must next try to determine the chief features of the original tale, selecting those incidents which are inexplicable except as having been written in the first century, and adding to them others which are needed to connect and complete them, and which bear obvious marks of high antiquity. It would be best to try to
preserve the original language as far as possible; but this attempt would involve a minute study of the text and comparison of the various versions and manuscripts. Perhaps it would prove an impossible task, owing to the great changes that have been introduced during later ages; but even the attempt is precluded to one who has not access to more materials than I have before me. [On the text see the note at the end of this chapter.] A brief outline is all that can now be ventured on. When Paul was expelled from Antioch, a citizen of Iconium, a just man ( Onesiphorus [The name Onesiphorus was introduced in the second century. See next section.]) was warned (in a dream [Perhaps the warning was originally given in a dream. The name of Titus is certainly a later addition. See next section.]) that Paul was about to come to that city, and was told where he should find him, and how he should recognise him. He went forth to the place where the roads met, and watched those who were passing by along the Royal Road that leads to Lystra, until he saw Paul approach, and recognised his appearance (see p. 31). Paul returned with Onesiphorus, lived in his house, and declared the word of God. Meetings were held in the house, with bending of the knees and breaking of bread. A noble Iconian family, rich and influential, lived in an adjoining house. A chamber in an upper story of this house overlooked the humbler home of Onesiphorus; and Thekla, to whom this chamber belonged, could thus easily hear Paul’s teaching. She was fascinated; and her mind was alienated from her ordinary pursuits, from her family, and from her affianced husband Thamyris. This soon became obvious, and drew on Paul the enmity of the two powerful families of Thamyris and Thekla. Paul was, at their instigation, imprisoned by the magistrates, the charge against him being that he had influenced the minds of women by magical arts, and caused disorders in the city. At night Thekla bribed the porter with her bracelets to let her go out of the house. She went to the prison, and, by giving the gaoler a silver mirror, induced him to allow her access to Paul. She was instructed by him throughout the night, and was found there next morning, in the way already described. Paul was then scourged and expelled from the city by the magistrates, the severest penalty within their competence. Thekla was taken to her own home; and it was hoped that in course of time she would recover her reason, and be free from the influence of the magician who had bewitched her. Some interval elapsed, [It is clear that the course of events required some time, because the interpolator of the Myra episode was under the impression that several years elapsed; and when he wished to bring about a subsequent meeting with Paul he thought it necessary to put the meeting at a late period. He must, however, have exaggerated the lapse of time, as all the events belong to the reign of Claudius. The homily attributed to Chrysostom is the authority at this point.] during which her family used persuasion and moral influence: her parents, lover, relatives, and attendants tried all their arts to bring her back to her old ways, but in vain. She could think only of Paul.

They then resorted to more severe measures. One of their means was to bring her before a tribunal of the city, in which the judges (dikastai) threatened her with severe penalties. Thekla at last escaped (or was allowed to escape), and was pursued by Thamyris; and presumably it was believed that, if he once forced her to his will, she would thereafter be under his influence, and freed from that of Paul. She fled into the bare level plains that stretch away from Iconium on all sides except the west. Thamyris overtook her: there seemed no escape from his violence: she prayed, and was saved in some way unknown.

Thekla, trying to find Paul, finally came to Antioch. As she entered the city, she was accosted by ( Alexander) [The name was introduced, perhaps, in the second century.]the high-priest, president of the festival which was just beginning. In order to give dignity to this festival, which was of an official character, and formed part of the Roman plan for consolidating the province and strengthening the feeling of loyalty in it, the governor of Galatia had come on a visit to Antioch; and all the most influential and wealthy citizens of the southern parts of the province had come to pay their respects to him. [The statue of Concord, presented by Lystra to Antioch, may have been given on some such occasion as this. (See p. 50) Dio Chrysostom’s description of the crowds at Apameia, when the Roman proconsul of Asia came to hold the conventus, may be read in illustration of this description. See his Apameian oration.] Alexander, struck with the beauty of this young woman, whose appearance, unescorted,in the street seemed to indicate her status outside of the pale of respectability, accosted and kissed her. Thekla repelled his advances, appealing to the right of a stranger and guest, noble in her own city, and engaged in the service of "the God"; and on his continued importunity, she tore his outer garment (chlamys), and pulled from his head the crown that marked his priestly office. He ordered his attendants, who were of course numerous, to arrest her. She called on Paul to help her. Being brought before the Roman governor straight from the scene of the offence, she was judged forthwith at the festival in view of all the spectators. The charge was sacrilege, in that she had assaulted the high-priest while wearing his sacred official dress. The offence being proved by the admission of the accused, she was condemned to be exposed to the wild beasts, which the president was going to exhibit on one of the later days of the festival. Much feeling was aroused in the city; and the women especially took the part of Thekla, as being in the service of "the God," and carrying out the conditions imposed on her by his commands. Thekla was permitted to continue to observe the rule of purity; and, through the general sympathy, the noblest lady in the assembly, Queen Tryphæna, became guarantee for her appearance when required, and took her meantime to her own house. On the day of the procession with which the games in the stadium opened, Thekla was placed on the top of a cage, in which was confined the chief ornament of the exhibition, a lioness. The lioness licked her feet, protruding its tongue between the bars. After the procession Thekla returned to Tryphæna’s charge to spend her last night.

During the night Tryphæna, whose sympathies had been already strongly excited in defence of the young woman, was still further moved in her favour by a dream, in which her own deceased daughter directed her to receive Thekla as a new daughter. [The incident was greatly elaborated in the growth of the tale; but something of the kind seems required to explain the action.] In the morning Tryphæna refused to give up Thekla to her fate, until the appearance of soldiers sent by the governor showed her that it was vain to resist. She then led Thekla by the hand to the stadium, escorted by her numerous train of attendants. The feeling of the crowd had in part changed, and many were eager for the spectacle. But the women were still true to Thekla, and loudly upbraided the governor, sarcastically bidding him slay them all. In the arena Thekla, wearing only the cincture, according to the Roman practice at such executions, was bound to a stake. [This, as M. Le Blant has shown, was the regular practice. Some of the additions to the scene are inconsistent with this, which constitutes an additional argument against them.] She prayed, saying, "My Lord and my God, the Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, Thou art the helper of the persecuted, and Thou art the companion of the poor; behold Thy handmaiden, for lo, the shame of women is uncovered in me, and I stand in the midst of all this people. My Lord and my God, remember Thy handmaiden in this hour." In the venatio, which followed, the lioness, which had already become acquainted with Thekla, recognised her (perhaps by smelling, as in the case of Marciana) and did her no harm When a bear was introduced, the lioness fought with it. Alexander then suggested that Thekla should be fastened to bulls and thus torn asunder, and the governor reluctantly consented. As the preparations were being completed Tryphæna fainted away from horror. Then followed the release of Thekla, as already related. She returned home with Tryphæna, lived as her daughter, and converted her and her household.

These incidents, in their simple and vivid character, take us back to the age of Claudius, or the earlier part of Nero’s reign; and they are so true to the circumstances of that period, that they could not possibly have been constructed in an age when Christianity had come to be a proof of disloyalty, and the old procedure was forgotten. We are carried back to the first century, and to a writer who remembered at least the local surroundings (see p.31 ff.), the actual characters ( Paul’s appearance, Tryphæna), and the species of charges made about A.D. 50-64. Finally, we consider that the easiest supposition is that Thekla was a real person, and her actual fortunes were related by the original author, with perhaps a certain amount of selection and idealisation. Like Zahn, we should find no chronological difficulty in accepting Jerome’s statement that the original author, a presbyter of Asia, was degraded from his office by St. John. The statement is quite a possible one; but it rests on too poor authority to be accepted, for Jerome quotes from Tertullian, and Tertullian does not name John. Now it is plain that Jerome’s words are at least partly taken from the extant passage of Tertullian; and, unless some further support can be found, we must treat what he adds to Tertullian as void of authority (see also p. 403 f). The question naturally suggests itself,--Why was the author of this tale degraded from his office? We might explain it, partly because he represented the action of Paul as causing a disturbance of family life and family ties which the Church in early times discouraged (see pp. 246, 282), and partly on the hypothesis that some points in his teaching were considered to be dangerous, and were subsequently eliminated, and cannot be recovered. Moreover, there remain even in the mutilated and re-written tale some traces of a view of women’s rights and position, which is thoroughly characteristic of the Asian social system, and thoroughly opposed to the ideas favoured by the Church (see p. 161f.). But I believe the answer lies in another direction. This original edition is not the one alluded to by Tertullian. It is not written by a native of Asia, but is native to Galatic Phrygia, where the scene lies, and redolent of the soil from which it sprang. It is an old tale about Thekla, in which Paul appears only for a brief space at the beginning of the action, and from which a presbyter of Asia, as Tertullian says, constructed the document popularly known and appealed to by some as an authority in his time. Tertullian was clearly aware that this presbyter was not the original author. He does not say that he composed the tale, but that he constructed it from previously existing material. [This statement of Tertullian (de Baptismo, 17), ". . .eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans," has been singularly misinterpreted by writers on the subject. It clearly implies additions made by the presbyter from his own store to a document, the result being that he "augmented it with the title of Paul." His additions were from "love of Paul," and greatly increased the part played by Paul in the action. Such seems the plain inference from Tertullian’s words.] the material consisted of the tale which has just been given, and additions were made by the presbyter.

8. REVISION OF THE TALE OF THEKLA, A.D. 130-150.

About A.D. 130, or soon after, the tale of Thekla was enlarged by a reviser, [For brevity’s sake I state opinions dogmatically, and without argument.] who accepted it as true, and wished to connect it with the incidents and personages recorded in Acts and the Epistles of Paul. This person had never seen either Antioch or Iconium, but probably lived in the province of Asia; and the country from Thyatira to Troas best suits the conditions prescribed by the following view of his action. He belonged to the Church in the period before the differences which led to the Montanist
quarrels began. Hence we find in the work, as he left it, no references to the questions that developed soon after A.D. 150; [Zahn puts this clearly and well,Gött. Gel. Anz., 1877, p. 1305.] but its tone is that of the conditions amid which Montanism grew. This reviser introduced into the tale the teaching, which, while of a strongly ascetic tendency, never actually goes so far as actual disapproval of marriage, but which might readily be pushed to that extreme. Abstaining from wine and flesh is implicitly recommended; for Paul’s food, § 25, consists only of bread, herbs, water, and salt (the last only in the Syriac version). Lipsius, pp. 448-57, has discussed these indications carefully, though his conclusions are different. These views are not expressed in a way so extreme as to have been expelled by later revisers, but belong to a simpler period of thought, when a Catholic writer indulged in an "extravagance of statement" that has almost a "heretical aspect." [So Dr. Gwynn, p. 891, following Dr. Salmon,Introduction to
New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 420.] "Such skill as the writer possessed appears chiefly in the ingenuity with which he works in genuine Pauline phrases, all of them in some degree turned from their proper bent." [Gwynn, p. 890.]

Demas and Hermogenes belong to this period. Their action in Iconium is an anachronism; but, as M. Le Blant shows ( Actes, p. 97), does not belong to a late period. Their appearance in § 1 is inconsistent with § 3, where Paul seems to advance alone towards Onesiphorus. They belong to a series of interpolations, intended to connect Acta Theklæ with circumstances and personages mentioned in 2 Tim. Demas "forsook Paul, having loved this present world" (2 Timothy 4:10); and Hermogenes turned away from" him (2 Timothy 1:15). The name of Paul’s host at Iconium, Onesiphorus, was also introduced at this time, being suggested by the words, "the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me" (2 Timothy 1:16, cp 2 Timothy 4:19). Probably the host bore in the original tale a native, non-Greek, name, like Thekla. [The name of Onesiphorus’ wife and of one son seem also to be non-Greek; but they have been much corrupted in the MSS.] As Lipsius has remarked, the allusion to Paul’s sufferings at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, in 2 Timothy 3:11, probably directed the reviser’s attention to that Epistle, when he was seeking to connect a tale whose scene lay in these towns with Paul’s own words. Moreover, as Timothy was a native of Lystra, it seemed to the reviser natural that the characters of the tale should be mentioned by Paul in writing to him. The reviser also found in the same Epistle an allusion to a coppersmith (which he used in § 1), and to Titus as travelling apart from Paul (which made him introduce Titus as describing Paul to Onesiphorus in § 2). In the original tale Paul played too slight a part, and this the reviser corrected. He introduced the residence of Onesiphorus and his family with Paul in the tomb on the road to Antioch, [Daphne was substituted when the Syrian Antioch was introduced.] praying for Thekla’s deliverance, and the journey of Thekla to Myra for a last meeting with Paul.

Part of the scene in the tomb, with its ascetic diet, is distinctly of this period. M. Le Blant has argued also that the residence in a grave by the roadside is a sign of early date ( Actes, p. 269); and he illustrates this detail by similar real events. The second century is the date to which M. Le Blant inclines on p. 97. The journey to Myra is due to the desire for a final recognition of Thekla faith by the Apostle. It was introduced by one who had a certain acquaintance with the topography of Asia Minor, and who selected the nearest point on the south coast visited by Paul. This was Myra according to the text of Acts 26:30, as preserved in Codex Bezæ. [See p. 155. In one Latin version, D, the more familiar name Smyrna is substituted for the unknown Myra by a translator ignorant of Asia Minor, and of the very name of Myra.]But this person cannot have had any personal acquaintance with Antioch; for he evidently imagined that the journey to Myra from Antioch was quite a short one. [This we see because (1) Paul’s stay at Myra could not be long, and there was no time for news of his arrival to spread far, and for Thekla to go to him; (2) Tryphæna heard that Thekla was going from Myra to Iconium, and sent offering her gifts. Both considerations imply rapid communication between the two places.]Such imperfect knowledge of the topography implies that he belonged to a district out of direct communication with Antioch, such as Mysia or the Troad;
and that Myra and Antioch were vaguely known to him as distant cities, one on the south coast, and the other connected by road with the same coast. The Myra episode has several marks of early character. M. le Blant quotes from M. Heuzey [Actes des Martyrs, p. 322.] the explanation of the alteration which Thekla made in her dress. By a change in the arrangement of her tunic at the girdle, and by some use of the needle, she so transformed it, that it passed for a man’s tunic. [άναξωσαμένη τε καὶ 1FE5áψασα τòν χιτω+̄να εĸς έπενδóύ03C4ου σχη+̑μα άνδρικν.]This description, so brief yet so particular, was perfectly clear in the second century to readers familiar with the old Greek dress; but it was unintelligible to
persons living in a later period, when the style of dress had changed. We can now understand it by an effort of archæological imagination. Thekla wore the woman’s long tunic, reaching to the feet and confined by a girdle round the waist. Ordinarily, when a woman wished to take active exercise, she took hold of the tunic above the girdle, and pulled it up, so that it formed a wide loose fold, which hung down over the girdle round her body, and which she usually confined by a second girdle; thus the tunic, even though as short as a man’s, still continued distinguishable as a feminine garment. Thekla, instead of allowing the fold to hang down outside, kept it inside, so that it was unseen; and she sewed the tunic together in this position, thus shortening it by a broad "tuck." Her
girdle would conceal the seam, and the garment would resemble a man’s short tunic. The description was evidently quite unintelligible to the Latin translators. It is also clear that the Myra episode was inserted before the confusion with the Syrian Antioch had been caused; for it would be absurd to make Thekla go from the Syrian Antioch to Myra to meet Paul. The reviser evidently connected the tale with Paul’s third journey. His reasoning, apparently, was that the action could not be conceived as taking place at Paul’s first visit to Iconium, for he disappears from the action so quickly; whereas Paul remained in the country, and soon returned to Iconium after his first expulsion or flight from it. Moreover, neither Barnabas nor Timothy, Paul’s companions on his first two journeys, played any part in the tale; and the reviser could imagine that unimportant characters should be omitted, but not important personages like these. On
the third journey nothing is recorded in Acts about Paul; and there was therefore a suitable gap in which to introduce the tale of Thekla. Allowing a fair interval to elapse, he found that, by the time Thekla was victorious over all her trials, Paul might have arrived at Myra on his way to Jerusalem. The reviser showed some skill in connecting the tale of Thekla with the record of Paul’s life; and in the case of Titus this is conspicuous. The argument has often been advanced that Titus is spoken of in Galatians 2:1 as if he were familiar to the Galatians. The presbyter apparently believed that Titus (who, as appears from Acts, did not travel along with Paul on the third journey) went before him through Iconium to Corinth, whence he returned to meet Paul in Macedonia ( 2 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 7:6). The name of Falconilla was introduced at this time (see p. 407), and the scene in the stadium at Antioch was modified in some details. The self-baptism of Thekla is inconsistent with her being fastened to the stake, which was probably the original attitude; and the cloud that veiled Thekla was probably inserted at the same time. The references to baptism may probably all be taken as insertions of this period, except that in § 25 (p. 422). The attitude assumed by Thekla, both in the theatre at Iconium and in the stadium at Antioch, was with hands outstretched in the attitude of crucifixion. M. le Blant ( Actes, p. 297) quotes various passages, showing that this attitude was common for martyrs and for persons praying. [The Christians would not pray in the heathen attitude,palmas ad cælum tendentes. Tertullian,de Orat., 17, says the Christians, from a feeling of humility, did not raise their hands high.] But the custom seems to belong to the second and later centuries, and the statements about Thekla’s attitude
(which vary greatly in different MSS.) must be all considered interpolations, probably of this period.

Lipsius quotes a number of characteristics which prove that the Acta belong to a date not later than A.D. 190. These seem to me to fall into two classes: (1) those which are consistent with a first century date--e.g., the simple formula of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (§ 34), the simple forms of worship (bending the knee, breaking of bread, declaring the word of God, § 5), the meeting in private houses (§§ 5, 7). (2) Those which rather point to the second century, or at least a period of more developed forms than the middle of the first century--e.g., prayers for the heathen dead (§ 29), designation of baptism as "the seal" (§ 25), the conception of baptism as a safeguard against temptation (§§ 25, 40). It will be found that the division to which the investigation has led us independently, corresponds well with this evidence.

M. le Blant chapter (Actes, p. 80) on the method of interpolation of some hagiographical documents is most instructive in regard to the history of the Acta, and he gives some striking examples of the way in which old texts were worked over, additions being made in some places and complete changes in others (the changes being sometimes almost motiveless in their inanity, sometimes conditioned by a distinct purpose). The author of this revised edition may be identified as the Asian presbyter said by Tertullian to have constructed the document by adding to older material. His date is determined both by internal evidence (1, character of the teaching of Paul, already described; 2, he still seems to consider Antioch and Iconium as in the same province), and by inference from Tertullian, who implies that the work was known and quoted as an authority and not as a work of yesterday. It seems hard to think that Tertullian could have written as he did, if the work had not been "constructed" at least twenty-five or thirty years previously--i.e., the revision was older than 165 or 170.

We gladly acquit the presbyter of making Paul go with Thekla to Antioch and play the disgraceful part assigned to him there; for this episode is necessarily connected with the trial and attempted burning of Thekla, and is inconsistent with the flight of Thekla to the wilderness. Moreover, when Thekla asked for baptism, there was at this stage of the growth of the legend no reason why it should be refused; whereas at a later stage it must be refused in order to preserve the self-baptism at Antioch. Again, the presbyter did not object to Thekla’s dressing like a man; but the composer of her interview with Paul did evidently object to it, and makes Paul formally express disapproval of it. In the presbyter’s revision, then, Paul, after fasting and praying for Thekla’s deliverance, went on to Antioch and Ephesus (see chap. v.).

9. THE ICONIAN LEGEND OF THEKLA.

About A.D. 140-160Lycaonia was united with Cilicia and Isauria, and the "three Eparchies" were governed by an official of consular rank. Iconium was henceforth a city of higher dignity, metropolis of an eparchy, and a colony. As it was now completely separated from Antioch, the situation implied in the tale of Thekla was no longer suitable to existing conditions. Moreover, when Christianity became the strongest element in the city, the close union between the Christians and their co-religionists in other towns was replaced by a certain emotion of municipal patriotism and a feeling of distinction from other cities. Thekla was the heroine of Iconium, and it seemed right that the city should be signalised as the scene of her triumph, and it had more right to the presence of a Roman governor than Antioch, which was not a metropolis. Thus an Iconian legend grew up, and was finally incorporated in the tale, to the effect that Thekla was tried, condemned by the governor to the flames, and miraculously rescued. This legend involved the dropping out of the older tale of Thekla’s sufferings and flight. The meeting with Paul in the tomb and journey with him to Antioch were substituted for the episode in the wilderness.

It is clear, however, that the scene in the theatre developed separately from the meeting with Paul. These were two independent floating legends, which were awkwardly put side by side in the text without being properly worked into one another. The literary form of these additions is defective; and they show a vulgarity of conception and poverty in creative power which places them below the work of the presbyter. The Iconian legend was familiar to Gregory of Nyssa, and other writers of the fourth century; [The Iconian revision was unknown to the author of theHomilyattributed to Chrysostom; but the date of theHomilyis not known.] and appears even to be older than A.D. 300, to judge from the account given by Dr. Gwynn of the evidence of Methodius. [I have not access to his dialoguede angelica virginitate et castitate. Photius is said to declare that the work had been adulterated.]Probably there were for a time copies of both the presbyter’s and the Iconian revision in circulation; but the latter soon prevailed, for the deliverance from fire was too striking a detail to be omitted. A general revision of the text, with slight modifications, additions, and modernisations, also continued to be made as time went on. A proof of this appears in the title proconsul, which is applied in most MSS. to the governors. Now there never was a time when a proconsul was resident at Iconium or Antioch, or was governor of the province in which either city was situated. We often find anachronisms in the way of giving to an officer a title appropriate to the period in which the writer lived, but inappropriate to that in which his scene lay; here the anachronism cannot be explained in that way. Dr. Gwynn suggests that a writer, who lived in Asia before A.D. 190, named the governor of Galatia proconsul, "because he had himself been accustomed to see a proconsul at Ephesus or Smyrna." [Dict. Chr. Biogr., iv., p. 8934, where he has not noticed that at the period in question Antioch and Iconium were in separate provinces. See above, p. 111.]But no parallel is known at that period, for titles are generally given very accurately in documents of the second century; and such accuracy is usually taken as a test of date. The title proconsul is found in a very uncertain way in the MSS., [The correct titles,Hegemon,Præses, are commoner in the MSS. In the scene at Antioch one of the Latin MSS., D, uses onlypræses, while another,c, usesproconsulvery often, and the third,m, occasionally. In the same scene the termproconsuloccurs only once in the Greek MSS., which have it frequently in the Iconian scene. Again, we find cases where the titleproconsuloccurs only in the poorer Greek MSS., while the better havehegemon--e.g., § 16, l. 6, where two MSS., F and G, readhegemonwith the Syriac version, while all Lipsius’ other MSS. haveproconsul. Lipsius includes the Latin MSS in this latter class, but D haspræses. Moreover,proconsulin the Greek MSS. is rarely used, except in the vocative, in which it is least likely to belong to the original text, and most likely to be a later insertion. Basil uses proconsul at Iconium, hegemon at Antioch.] and has probably crept gradually into the text, after the meaning and distinction of the Roman titles had been forgotten, through a process of ignorant archaising under the influence of other old Acta, in which the title was rightly used. Apparently the false title was first introduced in speeches addressed to the governor, and gradually spread to some other cases; and it is far more generally used in the late Iconian narrative than in the old Antiochian scene.
If, as is not improbable, the Latin text c, in which the title is often used, was of African origin, the writer would be familiar with similar tales in which proconsuls were prominent.

M. Le Blant ( Actes, p. 109) points out that the governor at Iconium was assisted by a council. Such assessors are a well-known feature of Roman procedure (pp. 223-28). Undoubtedly accuracy in such points is a proof of good character in a tale; but the Iconian reviser was quite as likely as the Asian presbyter to introduce the procedure by assessors (consilium), which was in regular use at the time when he was writing. In subsequent history, the worship of Thekla as a saint became established widely in Asia Minor; first of all in the southern parts, and especially in Seleuceia of Isauria. There grew up at each shrine, doubtless, a foundation legend (ι + ̔ερὸς λόγος), [Any one who wishes to study the formation of such legends in the country should go to Sasima in Cappadocia, now called Hassa
Keui, and ask the priest to tell the story of the foundation of the village church by St. Makrina, to whom it is dedicated.] and such legends found their way into the text. In this way Thekla was made to travel to Seleuceia, and to pass through various adventures there. In some MSS. she is even described as going to Rome and dying there. But we need not enter on these Seleucian and later developments, nor touch on the statements about her age, which are devoid of authority.

NOTE 1.

NOTE 1. PAULINE CHRONOLOGY.--Assuming a historical element in the tale of Thekla, we must try to fix the date. My view is that, after his first journey, Paul was possessed with the idea that his work lay towards the west ( Acts 15:38; Gal.passim); and no long interval is likely to have occurred in his work. Particularly after the trial before Gallio his views developed rapidly. He recognised that his work lay in the Empire, which protected the Christians against the Jews; and his thought developed from the stage seen in Thessalonians to that in Galatians. Accepting Spitta’s view that Acts 15:1-33 precedes Acts xiii., xiv., we date Paul’s first journey April, 49-July, 51; his second began in April, 52. He came to Corinth, and wrote to the Thessalonians in autumn 53. The rupture with the Jews took place, as usual, soon after his arrival; Gallio was proconsul 1 July, 53-30, June, 54. In spring 55 Paul went to Ephesus, whence he wrote to the Galatians (see p. 167); after visiting Jerusalem and Antioch, he resided in Ephesus from autumn 55 till the end of 57 (the three months, Acts xix. 8, are probably included in the two years, Acts 19:10). Then, after visiting Macedonia and Greece, he reached Patara and Myra in late summer 58. His first residence in was in winter 49-50; and the story of Thekla belongs to the spring, summer, and autumn of A.D. 50.

NOTE 2.

NOTE 2. FAMILY OF ANTONIA TRYPHÆNA, QUEEN-CONSORT IN THRACE, QUEEN OF PONTUS ( Mommsen, Eph. Ep. II. p. 259ff. :--

(1) Polemon Eusebes was made King of Lycaonia and perhaps part of Cilicia in 39 B.C. ; but this territory, soon afterwards, was seized by Amyntas. Polemon became King of Pontus 38 or 37, King of Armenia Minor 33, and King of Bosporus 14. He died about 8 B.C. (2) Pythodoris, born about 33, married King Polemon B.C. 13 or 12, and reigned as Queen of Pontus after his death till some unknown date after A.D. 21. (3) The eldest son of Polemon and Pythodoris was probably M. Antonius Polemon; but Strabo (p. 556) does not mention his name. He aided his mother in governing Pontus without the title of king; and, soon after the death of Archelaus in 17 A D., he became dynast of Olba. In the passage of Strabo the words δυναστεύει δ + ̕ ὁ πρεσβύτ[ερ]ος αυ + ̓τω+̑ν are to be taken as a subsequent addition made by the writer to the following line. He wrote originally συνδιοικεἰ + ̑, and altered it to συνσιῳ+̑κει, when the change occurred; the words συναστεύει κ.τ.λ. have got into the wrong place, and are incorrectly applied to the son of Tryphæna. The sense is "of the sons of Pythodoris one used to govern along with his mother without regal title, and is now a dynast--viz., the older of them." Polemon ruled at least eleven years at Olba, as we learn from coins. [This account of Tryphæna’s brother is a hypothetical addition.
He died certainly before 41.] (4) M. Antonius Zenon was no doubt his full name. (5-7) The brothers were taken to Rome on the death of their father, and educated there along with the young Caligula. Tiberius was too jealous to allow them to reign. Caligula, as soon as he came to the throne, made them all kings, A.D. 37. (6) Polemon became King of Pontus and Bosporus 37, lost Bosporus and received Olba in exchange 41, lost Pontus 63, died probably before 72.

NOTE 3.

NOTE 3. TEXT.-- Lipsius, Proleg., p. cv, justly praises the Syriac version as retaining much that the Greek MSS. have lost or altered, and as often approaching more closely than they do to the archetype. Among the three Latin MSS. he assigns the first rank to c, as approaching nearest in character to E, to which he attributes a similar rank among the Greek MSS., and he puts m second in point of excellence. It is difficult to judge about the Latin texts, for the plan followed by Lipsius often leads him to omit variants. But, so far as I can judge from using D, it retains some original features which are not quoted by Lipsius from m and c. Occasionally, however, the latter are preferable to D; and they seem to be independently translated from the Greek, but perhaps at a little later date, and therefore they approximate more closely to the Greek. Schlau believes that D may represent a translation of the second century ( Zahn, Gött. Gel. Anz., 1877, p. 1293); but its Latinity is rather of the fifth than the second journey. There was probably no Latin version till after Jerome’s time, when Thekla’s worship had spread to the west. The Syriac version seems earlier than the Latin; one of the MSS. belongs to the sixth century. Among the Greek MSS., G, F, and M show archaic touches lost in the others.

NOTE 4.

NOTE 4. CASTELIUS.--This fictitious governor, resident at Iconium, is supposed by Gutschmid to be historical, and his name to be really Cæsellius ( Rhein. Mus., 1864, p. 397); and this impossible suggestion (no officer Cæsellius is known about A.D. 50) has been quoted on a par with his brilliant identification of Tryphæna. The form Castelius is as old as Basil; but the Latin variant Sextilius points perhaps to Statilius as the original form.