Justinus
I., or the elder, emperor of the East from A. D. 518-527, was of barbarian, probably Gothic extraction. Tired of the humble occupation of a shepherd, for which he had been brought up in his native village, Tauresium, in Dardania, he went to Constantinople in company with two youthful comrades, to try his fortune in the capital. Justin entered the guards of the emperor Leo, and through his undaunted courage soon rose to some eminence. He served with great distinction against the Isaurians and the Persians, and his merits were successively rewarded with the dignities of tribunus, comes, senator, and at last commander-in-chief of the imperial guards, an important post, which he held in the reign of the emperor Anastasius. It was expected that the aged Anastasius would appoint one of his three nephews his future successor, but as they evinced little capacity, the emperor hesitated. His prime minister, the eunuch Amantius, availed himself of his master's irresolution to promote his own interest by bringing about the election of his creature Theodatus, and for this purpose entrusted large sums of money to Justin, with which he was to bribe the guards and other persons of influence to espouse the cause of Theodatus. He expected that an illiterate and rude barbarian, who resembled Hercules more than Mercury, would faithfully execute his orders. But he was greatly mistaken. Justin employed the money for his own elevation; and when Anastasius died, on the 10th July, 518, it was not Theodatus whom the army proclaimed emperor, but Justin, who thus ascended the throne without opposition, at the advanced age of sixty-eight. Justin could neither read nor write, and was in every respect a rude soldier; but his predecessor Anastasius was scarcely more civilized, and the people preferred a brave master to a learned one. Feeling his incapacities as a statesman, Justin committed the direction of affairs to the quaestor Proclus, and this excellent man discharged his functions to the satisfaction of both master and subjects. Soon after his accession, as it appears, Justin assumed the noble name of Anicius; some, however, believe that he had previously been adopted by a member of that illustrious family. Amantius, indignant at being cheated by a rustic, gave vent to his feelings, and perhaps conspired with Theodatus. They were accordingly accused of treason, and, what was still worse, of heresy, and they paid for their imprudence with their heads. Several of their associates shared their fate. In 519 Justin, who was a stanch adherent of the orthodox church, and had adopted energetic measures against the Eutychians, concluded an ararngement with pope Hormisdas, in consequence of which the harmony between Rome and Constantinople remained undisturbed during a considerable time, to the great satisfaction of the East. In the following year, 520, Justin adopted his nephew Justinian, whom he had withdrawn in early youth from their native village, and the government was henceforth in the hands of Justinian. The elevation of Justinian was signalized by an event which occasioned great discontent and disorders in the empire. The Goth Vitalian, so famous by his war against Anastasius, and who held the offices of consul and magister militum, under Justin, became an object of suspicion and jealousy to the emperor and his crafty nephew, and on rising from a banquet to which he had been invited, was treacherously assassinated by the order and in presence of Justin and Justinian. Vitalian was beloved by the faction of the Green, who immediately took up arms, and as they were opposed by the Blue, who enjoyed the favour of the emperor, great troubles arose, which lasted during three years, without Justin's becoming well acquainted with the extent of danger. When he was at last apprised of it, he appointed one Theodotus prefect of the capital, who succeeded in restoring peace. In 522 some misunderstanding arose between Justin and Theodoric, king of the East Goths in Italy, who was offended with Justin because he continued to appoint consuls, a dignity which, in the opinion of Theodoric, could only be conferred by the master of Rome; but Justin prudently renounced the privilege, leaving its exercise entirely to the Gothic king, who accordingly appointed Symmachus and the famous Boethius consuls for the year 522. In the same year misunderstandings arose between Justin and the Persian king Cabades, on account of the kingdom of Colchis or Lazica. Cabades proposed to the emperor, as a guarantee for their mutual friendship, to adopt his favourite son Nushirwan or Chosroes, who afterwards reigned over Persia with so much glory, and Justin would have complied with the king's wishes, but for the interference of the wise quaestor Proclus, on whose advice the emperor declined the proposition. Annoyed by the failure of his plan, Cabades prepared for war, the outbreak of which was hastened by Gurgenus, king of Iberia, throwing himself upon the protection of the emperor. The Persians having invaded Iberia, Justin dispatched Sittas and Belisarius against them, and this is the first time that the name of Belisarius becomes known in history. He was, however, not successful in this campaign, but was, nevertheless, appointed governor of the great fortress of Dara, on the confines of Mesopotamia and Syria. and the historian Procopius was appointed his secretary. The war was carried on for some years without leading to important results on either side. In 525 a terrible earthquake and the overflowing of several rivers carried destruction through some of the finest cities of the empire. In the East Edesa, Anazarba, and Pompeiopolis were laid in ruins, and in Europe Corinth and Dyrrachium met with a similar fate. But the destruction of Antioch at the same time by fire and water offered a still more heart-rending sight. When Justin heard of its awful fate, he ordered the theatres to be closed, took off his royal diadem, and dressed himself in mourning. He spent two million pounds sterling towards the rebuilding of Antioch, which was done with the utmost splendour, and he evinced a proportionate liberality towards the other sufferers. On the whole, Justin, though a barbarian and a fanatic, was a man of good sense, a sincere well wisher of his subjects, and successful in choosing capable persons to govern them; his knowledge of the human character was remarkably sound. He died on the 1st of August, 527, shortly after having conferred the dignity of Augustus upon his nephew and successor, the great Justinian. He was buried in the church of Euphemia near his wife Euphemia, a woman as illiterate and rude as her husband, but who never interfered with public affairs, and who caused that church to be built at her expense. (Evagr. 4.1-10, 56; Procop. Vandal. 1.9; De Aed. 2.6, 7, 3.7, 4.1 ; Arcan. 100.6, 9; Pers. 1.19. 2.15, &c.; Theoph. p. 141, &c.; Zonar. vol. ii. p. 58, &c.; Cedren. p. 363 in the Paris edit.; Jornand. De Regn. Suec. p. 62, ed. Lindenbrog.) [W.P]
the younger, emperor of the East, from A. D. 565-578, and nephew of the great Justinian. (See the genealogical table prefixed to the life of Justinian I.) His reign is signalized by important and extraordinary events. Justin had infinitely less merit than his cousins Justinus and Justinian, the sons of Germanus, who had distinguished themselves in the field against the Persians, and were universally beloved for the frankness of their character; but he was of a crafty disposition, and while his cousins exposed their lives in the defence of the empire, he prudently remained at Constantinople and courted the aged Justinian. In order to insinuate himself the better into his uncle's favour, he married Sophia, the niece of the empress Theodora, a beautiful and clever woman, but ambitious, imperious and revengeful. In the night that Justinian died (13th of November, 565), Justin had retired to his apartments, and was fast asleep, when he was suddenly awakened by a loud knocking against his door: it was a deputation of the senate, composed of some of its members who had witnessed the emperor's death, and now came to congratulate Justin, whom, according to their report, the dying monarch had appointed his successor. Whether this was true or not, no time was lost by Justin and his friends. He went immediately to the senate, who were already waiting for him, and after a document had been read to him, which purported to be the will of Justinian, he was forthwith proclaimed emperor. Early in the following morning he repaired to the hippodrome, which was filled by an immense and anxious crowd. and after having delivered divers fine speeches, which met with boisterous acclamation, he issued a general pardon for all offenders, and, in order to convince the people the more completely of his vir tuous and generous sentiments, summoned the numerous creditors of Justinian to come forth with their claims. They obeyed eagerly, and their as tonishment was still greater when a file of porters made their appearance, each sighing under the weight of an enormous bag of gold: in a few hours the whole of Justinian's debts was discharged. The people found no limits to their praise and delight, and their admiration of their new master was at its height, when Sophia, imitating the noble example set by her lord, opened her treasury and paid the debts of a host of poor people. At the same time the orthodox Justin issued an edict of universal toleration; all persons exiled for their religion, except Eutychius, were recalled and restored to their families or friends; and the church enjoyed a state of peace for fifty years, unprecedented in the annals of the ecclesiastical history of the East. The golden age seemed to have arrived in Constantinople and the provinces.
Too soon, however, did the real character of Justin show itself, and sadly disappointed the sanguine hopes of the Greeks. An embassy of the khan of the Avars having solicited an audience, Justin dismissed them haughtily and provoked the resentment of their chief; and he exhibited an equally overbearing conduct in his negotiations with the Persians, whence an early rupture might easily be prognosticated. In 566 the indignation of the Greeks was provoked by the murder of Justin the younger, the emperor's cousin. This distinguished prince excited the jealousy of both Justin and Sophia, and, from the Danube, where he commanded against the Avars, he was suddenly sent as governor to Egypt, but had scarcely put his foot on the shore of Alexandria, when he fell under the dagger of a hired assassin. His numerous friends were exasperated; it was said that they had conspired against the emperor, and the alleged conspiracy was stifled in blood. The treasures Justin had spent in satisfying the creditors of Justinian, he recovered by a system of oppression and rapacity which surpassed even that of his predecessor, and the places under government were sold without shame or disguise. Italy, exhausted and ravaged by the Gothic war and its consequences famine and disease, was in a deplorable state. Alboin, king of the Longobards, coveted that fair conquest of Justinian, but his hopes were checked through fear of Narses, who still held the command at Ravenna. Yet Narses was approaching the extreme limits of human life, and Alboin resolved to wait, and to increase his power by breaking that of his troublesome neighbours the Gepidae, who reigned in Hungary. He entered into an alliance with the Avars, and in 566 the Gepidae disappeared from among the independent barbarians in Europe. Every one could now foresee an invasion of Italy, and Justin ought consequently to have concentrated his power in the plains of the Po, and put both his treasures and soldiers at the free disposition of Narses. Narses, however, was hated by Sophia, and he had given just causes of complaint to the Italians, by his arbitrary government and his extreme rapacity. Justin, listening to the foolish advice of his wife, sent him an order to return to Constantinople, and bring with him his own riches and those of the public treasury; and Narses, having remonstrated, pointing out the imminent danger from the Longobards, Sophia sent him a most insulting letter, which so roused the fury of the old general that he invited Alboin to turn his arms against Italy, promising that he would not take the command of the Romans. Soon afterwards, however, he deeply regretted his faithlessness, and tried to dissuade Alboin from the undertaking. But it was too late, the Longobards descended into Italy, and Narses died of grief. [Narses.]
In 568 Alboin descended the Julian Alps, with his stern Longobards and numerous contingents of Bavarians, Suevians, and other Germans: 20,000 Saxons, the kinsmen and old confederates of the Longobards, joined the expedition with their wives and children. Longinus, the successor of Narses, was an incompetent general, who had neglected to fortify the passes through the Alps, and thus the barbarians rushed down into Italy like an Alpine torrent. Forum Julii, built by Caesar, was the first town they conquered, and, having been made by Alboin the seat of a feudal duchy, which extended over the adjacent districts, was the cause of that province being now called Friuli, or in German Friaul, which is a corruption of Forum Julii: Grasulf was its first duke. Aquileia soon followed the fate of Forum Julii, and its fugitive inhabitants took refuge on the Venetian islands. In 569 Alboin took Mantua, conquered Liguria as far as the Cottian Alps, and on the 5th of September of the same year, victoriously entered Milan (Mediolanum), where he was crowned king of Italy. Henceforth the country surrounding Milan was called Longobardia, or Lombardy, the name which it still bears. In the following year Alboin made himself master of a large portion of Central Italy, and founded a second feudal duchy at Spoleto, where Faroald reigned under his supremacy. The establishment of a third duchy at Benevento was the fruit of the campaign of 570: Alboin found a strong colony of Longobards in that place, who had settled there nineteen years previously, having received the town with its territory from Narses, in reward for their services in the Greek armies; their chief, Zotto, was made duke. In 571 Calabria fell into the hands of the Longobards, and now the name of Calabria was given by the Greek government to the narrow peninsula of Bruttium and part of Lucania, countries which are still called Calabria. Rome and Ravenna, however, as well as different other portions of Italy in the north and in the south, withstood the conqueror, and remained under the sway of the emperor.
While the most splendid conquest of Justinian was thus wrested from the Greeks, Justin found consolation in pleasures and, luxury, leaving the government in the hands of his wife, his ministers, and his eunuchs. At the very time that Italy was taken from him, he was involved in a dangerous war with the Persians, which broke out under the following circumstances. The Turks having by this time made great conquests in the countries to the north of Persia, gave umbrage to the Persian king Chosroes, especially since they concluded an alliance with Justin, and Chosroes began hostilities by invading and subjugating the kingdom of the Homeritae, in Southern Arabia. Encouraged by the approach and success of the Turks, the Iberians and Persarmenians threw off the Persian yoke, and submitted to Justin, on condition of his defending them against Chosroes. The emperor promised to do so, and at the same time refused to pay the annual tribute of 30,000 pieces of gold, which had been fixed by former treaties. Thus war broke out in 572. Justin sent Marcian against the Persians, an able general, who found no army on his arrival at the frontiers, but created one in a short time, and did more than could have been expected under such circumstances. He was shut up for some time in the important fortress of Dara. Reinforced by the contingents of the Lazians and other Caucasian nations, he suddenly sallied forth, laid siege to Nisibis, and offered battle to Chosroes, who approached with an army of 100,000 men. At this critical moment Acacius arrived from Constantinople with an order for Marcian to hasten directly to the capital, and surrender the command to him. Marcian obeyed, but no sooner was he gone than the whole Greek army disbanded, as Acacius was known to be destitute of all military talent. The consequence was that Syria was ravaged by the Persians with fire and sword, Dara, the bulwark of the empire, was taken by Chosroes, after a long and gallant resistance. When this news reached Constantinople, Justin showed all the symptoms of insanity, and his mental disorder increased so much as to make him unfit for any business (574). The entire government now devolved upon the empress Sophia.
Two years previously Alboin had been assassinated, shortly after he had taken Pavia, where his successor Clepho took up his residence. This king was slain a short time after his accession, but the Longobards, nevertheless, maintained themselves in the greater part of Italy. These events were coincident with a war against the Avars, who worsted the Greek commander Tiberius, a great general at the head of a bad army. The state of the empire was so critical that Sophia persuaded Justin to adopt Tiberius and to make him Caesar. The emperor followed the advice, and in 574 the new Caesar was presented to the senate. Sophia acted wisely in buying a truce of one year from the Persians for the sum of 45,000 pieces of gold, which was soon afterwards prolonged for three years, by an annual tribute of 30,000 pieces. But this truce did not include Armenia, and thus Chosroes set out in 576, or more probably as early as 574, with a large army to extend the frontiers of his realm in the north-west. With great exertions and sacrifices Tiberius succeeded in raising an army of 150,000 foreign mercenaries, with whom he despatched Justinian,the emperor'scousin, against the Persians, thus leaving Italy unprotected and Greece open to the inroads of the Slavonians. The details of this remarkable campaign are narrated in the lives of Tiberius and Justinian. Justinian obtained splendid victories, and sent 24 elephants to Constantinople; but he sustained in his turn severe defeats, and was succeeded in the supreme command by Mauricius, who, in 578, penetrated as far as the Tigris. The war was still raging with unabated fury, when Justin, whose mental sufferings were increased by an ulcer on his leg, felt his dissolution approaching, and consequently created Tiberius Augustus on the 26th of September, 578, and had him crowned and publicly acknowledged as his successor. Justin died on the 5th of October following; the best action of his life was the choice of his successor. (Corippus, De Laud. Justini; Evagrius, 5.1-13; Theophan. p. 198, &c.; Cedren. p. 388, &c.; Zonaras, vol. ii. p. 70, &c.; Glycas, p. 270, &c.; Const. Manasses, p. 68 &c.; Joel, p. 173, in the Paris edit.; Paul. Diacon. 2.5, &c., 3.11, 12; Theophylact. 3.9, &c.; Menander, in Excerpt. Legation.) [W.P]
the elder son of Germanus (see the genealogical table prefixed to the life of Justinian I.), a general of great distinction and popularity in the army, but justly suspected by Justinian I. and Justin II., on account of his ambition and faithlessness. In A. D. 551 he held a command in the army against the Slavonians, and shared its defeat in the battle of Adrianople. He was more fortunate against the Persians in Colchis, over whom he obtained a complete victory on the river Phasis (555), in consequence of which he was entrusted with the command in chief, which had been taken from Martinus. Some time after he discovered the secret designs of the khan of the Avars, who had sent an embassy to Constantinople under the pretext of making a treaty of alliance, and while their real object was the purchase of arms, and the stores which they were secretly sending into Avaria were consequently taken from them by Justin, who commanded on the Avarian frontiers (the Danube). The accession of his cousin Justin proved fatal to him: they had made an agreement that, after the expected death of Justinian, the son of Germanus should be Caesar, while the other Justin, the son of Vigilantia, was to reign as Augustus. But no sooner was the latter seated on the throne, than Justin, the subject of this article, was recalled from the Danube, and after having been detained a short time at Constantinople, was sent as governor (Dux and Augustalis) to Alexandria, where he was, however, treated like a prisoner, and, shortly after his arrival, treacherously assassinated while asleep. His murder caused several of his friends to conspire against the emperor, as is narrated in the life of Justin II. (Theophan. p. 198, 204-210, ed. Paris; Agathias, 2.18, 3.2, 17-23, 4.13-22; Procop. Bell. Goth. 3.32; Evagrius, 5.1, 2.) [W.P]
son of Mauricius. [Mauricius.]
the historian. We possess a work entitled Justini Historiarum Philippicarum Libri XLIV., in the preface to which the author in forms us that his book was entirely derived from the Universal History (totius Orbis Historias), composed in Latin by Trogus Pompeius. Before proceeding, therefore, to consider the former, it is necessary to inquire into the contents and character of the more important and voluminous archetype.
From the statement of Trogus Pompeius himself, as preserved by Justin (43.5), we learn that his ancestors traced their origin to the Gaulish tribe of the Vocontii, that his grandfather received the citizenship of Rome from Cn. Pompeius during the war against Sertorius, that his paternal uncle commanded a squadron of cavalry in the army of the same general in the last struggle with Mithridates, and that his father served under C. Caesar (i. e. the dictator), to whom he afterwards became private secretary. It is hence evident that the son must have flourished under Augustus; and since the recovery of the standards of Crassus from the Parthians was recorded towards the close of his history, it is probable that it may have been published not long after that event, which took place B. C. 20. Works Justini Historiarum Philippicarum Libri XLIV.
Our knowledge of this production is derived from three sources which, taken in combination, afford a considerable amount of inform ation with regard to the nature and extent of the undertaking. 1. A few brief fragments quoted by (Pliny ?), Vopiscus, Jerome, Augustin, Orosius, Priscian, Isidorus, and others down to John of Salisbury and Matthew of Westminster. 2. The Excerpts of Just. 3. A sort of epitome found in several MSS., indicating, under the name of prologues (prologi), the contents of each chapter in regular order, bearing a close resemblance, in form and substance, to the summaries prefixed to the books of Livy, and, like these, proceeding from some unknown pen.
We thus ascertain that the original was comprised in 44 books, that the title was Liber Historiarum Philippicarum, the additional words et totius mundi origines et terrae situs, given by the author of the prologues, being in all probability an inaccurate explanation appended by himself. The term Historiae Philippicae was employed because the chief object proposed was to give a complete account of the origin, rise, progress, decline, and extinction of the Macedonian monarchy, with all its branches; but in the execution of this design, Trogus permitted himself, in imitation of Herodotus and Theopompus, to indulge in so many excursions, that a very wide field of investigation was embraced, although the designation Universal History is altogether inapplicable. In the first six books, which served as a sort of introduction to the rest, while ostensibly examining into the records of the period anterior to Philip I., he took a survey of the various states which eventually became subject to, or in any way connected with, the Macedonians. In this manner the empires of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, were passed under review: the expedition of Cambyses against Egypt led to a delineation of that country and its people: the contest of Darius with the Scythians was accompanied by a geographical sketch of the nations which bordered on the northern and eastern shores of the Euxine: the invasion of Xerxes brought the Athenians and Thessalians on the stage, who in turn called up the Spartans and other Dorian clans. A narrative of the Peloponnesian war naturally succeeded: with the fatal expedition to Sicily was interwoven a description of that famous island, of its races, and of the colonies spread over its surface. The downfall of Athens was next recorded, followed by the enterprise of the younger Cyrus, the campaigns of Agesilaus in Asia, and various minor events, until the decay of the Lacedemonian and the rise of the Boeotian influence gradually introduced the history of Macedon, which, commencing with the seventh book, was continued down to the ruin of Perseus and the abortive attempt of the impostor Andriscus, which were detailed in the thirty-third. But even after the main subject had been fairly commenced, it could only be regarded in the same light as the argument of an Epic poem, which admits of continual episodes and digressions--the guiding-thread of the discourse, which, although often apparently lost, forms the connecting links by which the various portions of the complicated fabric are united and held together in one piece. Thus the interference of Philip in the affairs of Greece suggested an exposition of the causes which led to the Sacred War: his attacks upon Perinthus and Byzantium involved a disquisition on the early fortunes of the cities in question: his dispute with the Scythians and his relations with the Persians afforded an apology for resuming the chronicles of these nations: the transactions of Artaxerxes Mnemon produced an account of the Cyprians and Paphlagonians, while the exploits of Alexander the Epirotan furnished a pretext for an essay on the Apulians, Sabines, and Samnites. The strife which arose among the successors of Alexander the Great formed in itself an almost inexhaustible theme, while the ambitious schemes of Pyrrhus were illustrated by a dissertation on the Sicilians and Carthaginians, which occupied no less than six books. After the reduction of Macedonia to a Roman province, with which, as we have seen above, the thirty-third book closed, the following nine were devoted to the affairs of Asia, Pontus, Syria, Egypt, and Boeotia, including the Parthian monarchy; the forty-second and forty-third contained a sketch of the steps by which the Romans had attained to supremacy; and in the last were collected some scattered notices in reference to the Ligurians, Massilians, and Spaniards, the Greeks having been previously (lib. xxiv.) discussed.
To what period Justin (who is designated in one MS. as Justinus Frontinus, and in another as M. Junianus Justinus, while the great majority exhibit the simple appellation Justinus) belongs it is impossible to determine with certainty. The expression which he employs (8.4.7), " Graeciam etiam nunc et viribus et dignitate orbis terrarum principem" would in itself be scarcely sufficient to prove that he flourished under the Eastern emperors, even if it related to the age in which he composed, and not, as it does in reality, to the particular epoch of which he happened to be treating in his narrative; while the words " Imperator Antonine," which appear in the preface, are to be found in no MS. now extant, but are probably an interpolation foisted in by some of the earlier editors who followed Isidorus, Jornandes, and John of Salisbury, in confounding Justin the historian with Justin the Christian father and martyr. The earliest writer by whom he is mentioned is Saint Jerome (Prooem. in Daniel), and therefore he cannot, at all events, be later than the beginning of the fifth century. Assessment
Justin has been frequently censured by scholars in no measured terms for the slovenly manner in which he executed what they are pleased to consider as an abridgment of Trogus. It is unquestionable that many leading events are entirely omitted, that certain topics are dismissed with excessive brevity, that others not more weighty in themselves are developed with great fulness, and that in consequence of this apparent caprice an air of incoherence and inequality is diffused over the whole performance. But before subscribing to the justice of these animadversions, it would be well to ascertain if possible the real object of the compiler. Now we are distinctly told by himself (Praef.) that he had occupied his leisure during a residence in the city by selecting those passages of Trogus which seemed most worthy of being generally known, passing over such as in his estimation were not particularly interesting or instructive. Thus it is clear that the pages of Justin are not to be viewed in the light of a systematic compendium of Trogus, but rather, in his own words, as an Anthology (breve florum corpusculum), and that the criticisms alluded to above are altogether inapplicable to what is professedly merely a collection of Elegant Extracts. We may indeed lament that he should have thought fit to adopt a plan by which we have entirely lost, or at least very imperfectly retained, a mass of valuable information on a great variety of topics, of which we are ignorant ; but on the other hand, we must feel grateful to the labours, which have preserved from oblivion many facts not recorded elsewhere. Sources
To discover the sources from which a lost writer derived his materials would seem to be a hopeless quest, when it is certain that most of these sources have themselves disappeared. For not only did Trogus enter upon large departments of historical research, where we can compare him with no authority now extant; but even when he trod the ground previously travelled over by Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius, we clearly perceive that far from confining himself to their statements, he frequently adopted accounts completely at variance with those which they followed. It is certain, however, that his guides were exclusively Greek, and we have every reason to believe that to no one did he owe more than to Theopompus, from whom he borrowed not only the title, but much of the general plan and execution of his work. He was also, we may conjecture, largely indebted to Ephorus, Timaeus, and Posidonius; but our limits forbid us to enter upon an inquiry which has been prosecuted with great learning by Heeren in the essay quoted below. De Animalibus
We must not omit to remark that the quotations from Trogus found in Pliny appear to be all taken from a treatise De Animalibus mentioned by Charisius (p. 79. ed. Putsch.), and not from his histories. Editions
The Editio Princeps of Justin was printed at Venice by Jenson, 4to. 1470, and another very early impression which appeared at Rome without date or name of printer is ascribed by bibliographers to the same or the following year. The first critical edition was that of Marcus Antonius Sabellicus, published along with Florus at Venice, fol. 1490, and again in 1497 and 1507: it was superseded by that of Aldus, 8vo. Venet. 1522; the volume containing also Cornelius Nepos; and this in turn gave way to that of Bongarsius, 8vo. Paris, 1581, in which the text was revised with great care, and illustrated by useful commentaries; but conjectural emendations were too freely admitted. Superior in accuracy to any of the preceding is the larger edition of Graevius, 8vo. Lug. Bat. 1683; that of Hearne, 8vo. Oxon. 1705; and above all, those of Gronovius, Lug. Bat. 1719 and 1760, belonging to the series of Variorum Classics, in 8vo. The last of these is in a great measure followed by Frotscher, 3 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1827, whose labours exhibit this author under his best form. Translations
Numerous translations have from time to time appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. The earliest English version is that executed by Arthur Goldinge, printed at London in 4to, by Tho. Marshe, 1564, and again in 1570, with the following title, " Thabridge Mente of the Histories of Trogus Pompeius, gathered and written in the Laten tung, by the famous historiographer Justine, and translated into English by Arthur Goldinge: a worke containing brefly great plentye of moste delectable Historyes and notable examples, worthy not only to be read, but also to bee embraced and followed of al men. Newlie conferred with the Latin copye, and corrected by the Translator. Anno Domini 1570. Imprinted at London by Th. Marshe." We have also translations by Codrington, 12mo. Lond. 1654; by Thomas Brown, 12mo. Lond. 1712; by Nicolas Bayley, 8vo. Lond. 1732; by John Clarke, 8vo. Lond. 1732; and by Turnbull, 12mo. Lond. 1746; most of which have passed through several editions. Fragments mentioned in this article
The fragments spoken of at the beginning of this article will be found in Plin. Nat. 7.3, 10.33, 11.39, 52, 17.10, xxxi. sub fin.; Vopisc. Aurelian. 2, Prob. 2; Hieron. Prooem. in Daniel, Comment. in Daniel. 100.5; Augustin, de Civ. Dei, 4.6; Oros. 1.8, 10, 4.6, 7.27, 34; Isidor. de N. R. 6; Priscian, 5.3.12, 7.11.63; Vet. Interp. ad Virg. Aen. 3.108, 4.37; Jornandes, de R. G. 6, 10. Further Information
Every thing that is known or can be conjectured with regard to Trogus, Justin, and their works, is contained in the "Commentationes de Trogi Pompeii eiusque epitomatoris Justini fontibus et auctorirate," by Heeren, printed originally in the 15th volume of the Gottingen Transactions, and prefixed to the edition of Frotscher. [W.R]
(Ἰουστῖνος), ecclesiastical.
1. Surnamed the Martyr (ὁ Μάρτυς), or the Philosopher (ὁ Φιλόσοφος), one of the earliest of the Christian writers, was a native of Flavia Neapolis, or the New City of Flavia (Justin. Apolog. Prima, c. 1), which arose out of the ruins, and in the immediate vicinity of the ancient town, called Shechem in the Old Testament and Sychar in the New. The year of his birth is not known: Dodwell, Grabe (Spicileg. SS. Patrum, saec. ii. p. 147), and the Bollandists (Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii. p. 110, note c), conjecture from a passage of Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. 46.1), which, as it now stands, is clearly erroneous, that he was born about A. D. 89; but this conjecture (which is adopted by Fabricius) is very uncertain, though sufficiently in accordance with the known facts of his history. Tillemnont and Ceillier place the birth of Justin in A. D. 103, Maran in A. D. 114, Halloix in A. D. 118. He was the son of Priscus Bacchius, or rather of Priscus, the son of Bacchius, and was brought up as a heathen; for though he calls himself a Samaritan (Apoloq. Secunda, 100.15, Dialog. cuma Tryphone, 100.120), he appears to mean no more than that he was born in the country of Samaria, not that he held that Semi-Judaism which was so prevalent among his countrymen. (Comp. Apolog. Prima, 100.53, sub med.) He devoted himself to philosophy, and for a considerable time studied the system of the Stoics, under a teacher of that sect; but not obtaining that knowledge of the Deity which he desired, and finding that his teacher undervalued such knowledge, he transferred himself to a Peripatetic, who plumed himself on his acuteness, whom, however, he soon left, being disgusted at his avarice, and therefore judging him not to be a philosopher at all. Still thirsting after philosophical acquirements, he next resorted to a Pythagorean teacher of considerable reputation, but was rejected by him, as not having the requisite preliminary acquaintance with the sciences of music, geometry, and astronomy. Though at first disheartened and mortified by his repulse, he determined to try the Platonists, and attended the instructions of an eminent teacher of his native town, under whom he became a proficient in the Platonic system. His mind was much puffed up by the study of incorporeal -existences, and especially by the Platonic doctrine of ideas, so that he soon conceived he had become wise; and so greatly were his expectations raised, that, says he," I foolishly hoped that I should soon behold the Deity." Under the influence of these notions he sought opportunities for solitary meditation; and one day, going to a lone place near the sea, he met with an old man, of meek and venerable aspect, by whom he was convinced that Plato, although the most illustrious of the heathen philosophers, was either unacquainted with many things, or had erroneous notions of them; and he was recommended to the study of the Hebrew prophets, as being men who, guided by the Spirit of God, had alone seen and revealed the truth, and had foretold the coming of the Christ. The conversation of this old man with Justin, which is narrated with considerable fulness by the latter (Dial. cum Tryph. 100.3, &c.), led to Justin's conversion. He had, while a Platonist, heard of the calumnies propagated against the Christians, but had hardly been able to credit them. (Apolog. Secunda, 100.12.) The date of his conversion is doubtful. The Bollandists place it in A. D. 119; Cave, Tillemont, Ceillier, and others, in A. D. 133; and Halloix about A. D. 140.
Whether Justin had lived wholly at Flavia Neapolis before his conversion is not quite clear: that it had been his chief place of abode we have every reason to believe. Otto conjectured, from a passage in his works (Cohortat. ad Graec. 100.13), that he had studied at Alexandria; but, from the circumstance that while in that city he had seen with interest the remains of the cells built, according to the Jewish tradition, for the authors of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, we are disposed to place his visit to Alexandria after his conversion. He appears to have had while yet a heathen an opportunity of seeing the firmness with which the Christians braved suffering and death (Apol. Secunda, 100.12), but we have no means of knowing where or on what occasion.
Justin retained as a Christian the garb of a philosopher, and devoted himself to the propagation, by writing and otherwise, of the faith which he had embraced. Tillemont argues from the language of Justin (Apolog. Prima, 100.61, 65) that he was a priest, but his inference is not borne out by the passage; and though approved by Maran, is rejected by Otto, Neander, and Semisch. That he visited many places, in order to diffuse the knowledge of the Christian religion, is probable (comp. Cohortat. ad Graec. cc. 13, 34), and he appears to have made the profession of a philosopher subservient to this purpose. (Dialog. cum Tryphon. init.; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.11; Phot. Bibl. cod. 125.) According to what is commonly deemed the ancient record of his martyrdom (though Papebroche considers it to narrate the death of another Justin), he visited Rome twice. On his second visit he was apprehended, and brought before the tribunal of Rusticus, who held the office of praefectus urbi; and as he refused to offer sacrifice to the gods, he was sentenced to be scourged and beheaded; which sentence appears to have been immediately carried into effect. Several other persons suffered with him. Papebroche rejects this account of his martyrdom, and thinks his execution was secret, so that the date and manner of it were never known: the Greek Menaea (a. d. 1 Junii) state that he drank hemlock. His death is generally considered to have taken place in the persecution under the emperor Marcus Antoninus; and the Chronicon Paschale, (vol.i. p. 258, ed. Paris, 207, ed. Venice, 482, ed Bonn), which is followed by Tillemont, Baronius, Pagi, Otto, and other moderns, places it in the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens, A. D. 165; Dupin and Semisch place it in A. D. 166, Fleury in A. D. 167, and Tillemont and Maran in A. D. 168. Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii. p. 107), assigning the Apologia Secunda of Justin to the year 171, contends that he must have lived to or beyond that time. Dodwell, on the contrary, following the erroneous statement of Eusebius in his Chronicon, places his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius; and Epiphanius, according to the present reading of the passage already referred to, which is most likely corrupt, places it in the reign of the emperor Hadrian or Adrian, a manifest error, as the Apologia Prima is addressed to Antoninus Pius, the successor of Hadrian, and the second probably to Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, who succeeded Antoninus. The death of Justin has been very commonly ascribed (comp. Tatian. contra Graecos, 100.19; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.16, and Chron. Paschale), to the machinations of the Cynic philosopher Crescens. The enmity of Crescens, and Justin's apprehension of injury from him, are mentioned by Justin himself (Apolog. Secunda, 100.3); but that Crescens really had any concern in his death is very doubtful. [Crescens.] Justin has been canonized by the Eastern and Western churches: the Greeks celebrate his memory on the 1st June; the Latins on the 13th April. At Rome the church of S. Lorenzo without the walls, is believed to be the restingplace of his remains; but the church of the Jesuits at Eystadt, in Germany, claims to possess his body; there is, however, no reason to believe that either claim is well founded. The more common epithet added to the name of Justin by the ancients is that of " the philosopher " (Epiphan. l.c.; Euseb. Chironicon, lib. ii.; Hieronym. de Vir. Illust. c. xxiii.; Chron. Paschale, l.c.; Georgius Syncellus, pp. 350, 351, ed. Paris, p. 279, ed. Venice; Glycas, Annal. pars iii. p. 241, ed. Paris, 186, ed. Venice, 449, ed. Bonn); that of "the martyr," now in general use, is employed by Tertullian (Adv. Valent. 100.5), who calls him " philosophus et martyr; " by Photius (Biblioth. cod. 48, 125, 232), and by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall. vol. ii. p. 754, ed. Lequien), who, like Tertullian, conjoins the two epithets.
In our notice of the works of Justin Martyr we adopt the classification of his recent editor, J. C. T. Otto, by whom they are divided into four classes. Works I. Undisputed Works. 1. Ἀπολογία πρώτη ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον τὸν Εὐσεβῆ (Apologia prima pro Christianis ad Antoninum Pium
In the only two known MSS. of the Apologies, and in the older editions of Justin, e. g. that of Stephanus, fol. Paris, 1551, and that of Sylburg, fol. Heidelburg, 1593, this is described as his Second Apology. It is the longer of the two Apologies, and is one of the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity. It is addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius and to his adopted sons "Verissimus the Philosopher," afterwards the emperor M. Aurelius, and " Lucius the Philosopher" (we follow the common reading, not that of Eusebius), afterwards the emperor Verus, colleague of M. Aurelius. From the circumstance that " Verissimus" is not styled Caesar, which dignity he acquired in the course of A. D. 139, it is inferred by many critics, including Pagi, Neander, Otto, and Semisch, that the Apology was written previously, and probably early in that year. Eusebius places it in the fourth year of Antoninus, or the first year of the 230th Olympiad, A. D. 141, which is rather too late. Others contend for a later date still. Justin himself, in the course of the work (100.46), states that Christ was born a hundred and fifty years before he wrote, but he must be understood as speaking in round numbers. However,Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, Ceillier, Maran, and others, fix the date of the work in A. D. 150. To this Apology of Justin are commonly subjoined three documents. (1.) Ἀδριανοῦ ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν ἐπιστολή, Adriani pro Christianis Epistola, or Exemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adriani ad Minucium Fundanum, Proconsulem Asiae. This Greek version of the emperor's letter was made and is given by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.9.) Justin had subjoined to his work the Latin original (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.8), which probably is still preserved by Rufinus in his version of Eusebius, for which in the work of Justin the version of Eusebius was afterwards substituted. (2.) Ἀντωνίνου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας, Antonini Epistola ad Commune Asiae. It is hardly likely that this document was inserted in its place by Justin himself; it has probably been added since his time, and its genuineness is subject to considerable doubt. It is given, but with considerable variation, by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.13), andwas written, according to the text of the letter itself as it appears in Eusebius, not by Antoninus, but by his successor M. Aurelius. (3). Μάρκου βασιλέως ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον, ἐν ᾗ μαρτυρεῖ Χριστιανοὺς αἰτίους γεγενῆσθαι τῆς νίκης αὐτῶν, Marci Imperatoris Epistola ad Senatum qua testatur Christianos victoriae causam fuisse. This letter, the spuriousness of which is generally admitted (though it is said by Tertullian, Apologet. by the emperor), relates to the famous miracle of cap. 5, that a letter of the same tenor was written the thundering legion. [M. Aurelius, p. 441]. 2. Ἀπολογία δευτέρα ὑπὲρ τῶν Χριστιανῶν πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων σύγκλητον (Apologia Secunda pro Christianis ad Senatum Romanum)
This second and shorter Plea for the Christians was addressed probably to the emperors M. Aurelius and Lucius Verus, or rather to Aurelius alone, as Verus was engaged in the East, in the Parthian war. It was written on occasion of an act of gross injustice and cruelty, committed by Urbicus, praefectus urbi at Rome, where Justin then was. Neander adopts the opinion maintained formerly by Valesius, that this Apology (placed in the older editions before the longerone just described) was addressedto Antoninus Pius: but Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.17, 18), and Photius (Bibl. cod. 125), among the ancients; and Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Grabe, Ruinart, Ceillier, Maran, Mosheim, Semisch, and Otto, among the moderns, maintain the opposite side. Otto thinks it was written about A. D. 164; others place it somewhat later. Scaliger (Animadv. in Chron. Euseb. p. 219), and Papebroche (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis, vol. ii. p. 106), consider that this second Apology of Justin is simply an introduction or preface to the first, and that the Apology presented to Aurelius and Verus has been lost; but their opinion has been refuted by several writers, especially by Otto. Two Fragmenta, given by Grabe in his Spicileg. Saecul. ii. p. 173, are supposed by him to belong to the second Apology, in the present copies of which they are not found; but the correctness of this supposition is very doubtful. 3. Πρὸς τρυφῶνα Ἰουδαῖον διάλογος (Cum Tryphone Judueo Dialogus)
This dialogue, in which Justin defends Christianity against the objections of Trypho, professes to be the record of an actual discussion, held, according to Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18), at Ephesus. Trypho describes himself as a Jew "flying from the war now raging," probably occasioned by the revolt under Barchochebas, in the reign of Hadrian, A. D. 132-134. But though the discussion probably took place at this time, it was not committed to writing, at least not finished, till some years after, as Justin makes a reference to his first Apology, which is assigned as we have seen to A. D. 138 or 139. It has been conjectured that Trypho is the Rabbi Tarphon of the Talmudists, teacher or colleague of the celebrated Rabbi Akiba, but he does not appear as a rabbi in the dialogue. The dialogue is, perhaps, founded upon the con versation of Justin with Trypho, rather than an accurate record of it; but the notices of persons, and especially the interesting account of Justin's own studies and conversion, are likely to be generally correct. It appears to be mutilated, but to what extent is a matter of dispute. Two fragments are assigned to it by Grabe, Spicileg. Saec. ii. p. 175; but it is doubtful with what correctness.
It is to be observed, that although Otto ranks the Dialogus cum Tryphone among the undisputed works of Justin, its genuineness has been repeatedly attacked. The first assault was by C. G. Koch, of Apenrade, in the Duchy of Sleswick (Justini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone... νοθεύσεως..convictus), but this attack was regarded as of little moment. That of Wetstein (Prolog. in Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 66), founded on the difference of the citations from the text of the LXX. and their agreement with that of the Hexaplar edition of Origen, and perhaps of the version of Symmachus, which are both later than the time of Justin, was more serious, and has called forth elaborate replies from Krom (Diatribe de Authentia Dialog. Just. Martyr. cum Tryph. &100.8vo. 1778), Eichhorn (Einleitung in das A. T.), and Kredner (Beitrage zur Einleitung, &c.). The attack was renewed at a later period by Lange, but with little result. An account of the controversy is given by Semisch (book ii. sect. i. ch. 2), who contends earnestly for the genuineness of the work. It may be observed that the genuineness even of the two Apologies was attacked by the learned but eccentric Hardouin. II. Disputed or Doubtful Works attributed to Justin Martyr. 4.
Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας, Oratio ad Graecos. If this is indeed a work of Justin, which we think very doubtful, it is probably that described by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18) as treating περὶ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων φύσεως (Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 125); and by Jerome (De Vir. Illustr. c. 23) as being "de Daemonum natura;" for it is a severe attack on the flagitious immoral ities ascribed by the heathens to their deities, and committed by themselves in their religious festivals. Its identity, however, with the work respecting demons is doubted by many critics. Cave sup poses it to be a portion of the work next mentioned. Its genuineness has been on various grounds dis puted by Oudin, Semler, Semisch, and others; and is doubted by Grabe, Dupin, and Neander. The grounds of objection are well stated by Semisch (book ii. sect. 2.100.1). But the genuineness of the piece is asserted by Tillemont, Ceillier, Cave, Maran, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, and by Otto, who has argued the question, we think, with very doubtful success. If the work be that described by Eusebius it must be mutilated, for the dissertation on the nature of the daemons or heathen deities is said by Eusebius to have been only a part of the work, but it now constitutes the whole. 5. Λόγος Παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας (Cohortatio ad Graecos)
This is, perhaps, another of the works mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome and Photius (ll. cc.); namely, the one said by them to have been entitled by the author Ἔλεγχος, Confutation, or perhaps Τοῦ Πλατῶνος ἔλεγχος, Platonis Confutatio (Phot. Bibl. cod. 232), though the title has been dropped. Others are disposed to identify the work last described with the Confutatio. The genuineness of the extant work has been disputed, chiefly on the ground of internal evidence, by Oudin, and by some German scholars (Semler, Arendt, and Herbig); and is spoken of with doubt by Neander; but has been generally received as genuine, and is defended by Maran, Semisch (b. ii. sect. 1.100.3), and Otto. It is a much longer piece than the Oratio ad Graecos. 6. Περὶ μοναρχίας (De Monarchia
The title is thus given in the MSS. and by Maran. A treatise under nearly the same title, Περὶ Θεοῦ μοναρχίας, De Monarchia Dei, is mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius (ll. cc.). The word Θεοῦ is contained in the title of the older editions of the extant treatise, which is an argument for Monotheism, supported by numerous quotations from the Greek poets and philosophers. As, according to Eusebius, Justin had used citations from the sacred writings, which are not found in the extant work, it is probable that if this be the genuine work, it has come down to us mutilated. Petavius and Tillemont, in a former age, and Herbig and Semisch, in the present day, doubt or deny the genuineness of this treatise, and their arguments are not without considerable force; but the great majority of critics admit the treatise to be Justin's, though some of them, as Cave, Dupin, and Ceillier, contend that it is mutilated. Maran, understanding the passage in Eusebius differently from others, vindicates not only the genuineness but the integrity of the work. Some of the passages quoted from the ancient poets are not found in any other writing, and are on that account suspected to be the spurious additions of a later hand. 7. Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Διόγνητον (Epistola ad Diognetum)
This valuable remain of antiquity, in which the writer describes the life and worship of the early Christians, is by some eminent critics, as Labbe, Cave, Fabricius, Ceillier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, ascribed to Justin: by others, as Tillemont, Le Nourry, Oudin, Neander, and Semisch, it is ascribed to some other, but unknown writer, whom some of these critics suppose to have lived at an earlier period than Justin. Grabe, Dupin, Maran, and Otto, are in doubt as to the authorship. Both Otto and Semisch give a lengthened statement of the arguments on the question: those of Semisch, derived chiefly from a comparison of the style and thoughts of the author with those of Justin in his undisputed works, seem decisive as to the author being a different person from him. Fragment on the Resurrection
The fragment of Justin on the Resurrection is noticed below under No. 14, among the lost works. III. Spurious Works. 8. Ἀνατροπὴ δογμάτων τινῶν Ἁριστοτελικῶν (Quorundam Aristotelis Dogmatum. Confutatio)
Possibly this is the work described by Photius (Bibl. cod. 125) as written against the first and second books of the Physics of Aristotle. Its spuriousness is generally admitted; scarcely any critics except Cave, and perhaps Grabe, contend that it belongs to Justin; but its date is very doubtful, and its real authorship unknown. 9. Ἔκθεσις τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁμολογίας (Expositio rectae Confessionis
Possibly this is the work cited as Justin's by Leontius of Byzantium, in the sixth century; but it was little known in Western Europe till the time of the Reformation, when it was received by some of the reformers, as Calvin, as a genuine work of Justin, and by others, as Melancthon and the Magdeburg Centuriators, placed among the works of doubtful genuineness. But it is now generally allowed that the precision of its orthodoxy and the use of various terms not in use in Justin's time, make it evident that it was written at any rate after the commencement of the Arian controversy, and probably after the Nestorian, or even the Eutychian controversy. Grabe, Ceillier, and some others ascribe it to Justinus Siculus [No. 3]. 10 Ἀποκρίσεις πρὸς τοὺς ὀρθοδόξους περὶ τινῶν ἀναγ καίων Ζητημάτων (Responsiones ad Orthodoxos de quibusdam Necessariis Quaestionibus)
This is confessedly spurious. 11. Ἐρωτήσεις Χριστιανικαὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας (Quaestiones Christianae ad Graecos) and Ἐρωτήσεις Ἑλληνικαὶ πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς (Quaestiones Graecae ad Christianos)
Kestner alone of modern writers contends for the genuineness of these pieces. It is thought by some, that either these Answers, &c., or those to the Orthodox just mentioned, are the Ἀποριῶν κατὰ τῆς εὐδεβείας κεφαλαιώδεις ἐπιλύσεις, Brief Resolutions of Doubts unfavourable to Piety, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 125). 12. Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum
Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, commencing Ἰουστῖνος Ζηνᾷ καὶ Σερήνω τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Χαίρειν, Justinus Zenae et Sereno fratribus salutem. This piece is by the learned (except by Grabe, Cave, and a few others), rejected from the works of Justin Martyr. Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier, ascribe it to a Justin, abbot of a monastery near Jerusalem, in the reign of the emperor Heraclius. of whom mention is made in the life of St. Anastasius the Persian; but Maran considers this as doubtful. IV. Lost Works. 13. Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων (Liber contra omnes Haereses)
mentioned by Justin himself in his Apologia Prima (100.26, p. 70, ed. Maran. vol. i. p. 194, ed. Otto), and therefore antecedent in the time of its composition to that work. 14. Contra Marcionem
Lo/goi s. Σύγγραμμα κατὰ Μαρκίωνος, or Πρὸς Μαρκίωνα Contra Marcionem. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 4.6, conf. 5.26; Hieron. de Viris Illustr. c. 23 ; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.11; Phot. Bibl. cod. 125.) Baumgarten-Crusius and Otto conjecture that this work against Marcion was a part of the larger work, Contra omnes Haereses, just mentioned; but Jerome and Photius clearly distinguish them. The fragment De Resurrectione Carnis preserved by Joannes Damascenus (Sacra Parall. Opera, vol. ii. p. 756, &c., ed. Lequien), and usually printed with the works of Justin, is thought by Otto to be from the Liber contra omnes Haereses, or from that against Marcion (supposing them to be distinct works), for no separate treatise of Justin on the Resurrection appears to have been known to Eusebius, or Jerome, or Photius: but such a work is cited by Procopius of Gaza, In Octateuch. ad Genes. 3.21. Semisch, however (Book ii. Sect. 1.100.4), who, with Grabe and Otto, contends for the genuineness of the fragment, which he vindicates against the objections of Tillemont, Le Nourry, Maran, Neander, and others, thinks it was an independent work. 15. Ψάλτης (Psaltes)
A work, the nature of which is not known. 16. Περὶ ψυχῆς (De Anima)
Both mentioned by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.18) and Jerome (l.c.). Other Works
Besides these works, Justin wrote several others, of which not even the names have come down to us (Euseb. 4.18); but the following are ascribed to him on insufficient grounds: 17. Ὑπομνήματα εἰς Ἑξαήμερον (Commentarius in Hexaemeron
A work of which a fragment, cited from Anastasius Sinaita (In Hexaem. Lib. vii.), is given by Grabe (Spicil. SS. Patr. vol. s. saec. ii. p. 195) and Maran (Opp. Justin). Maran, however, doubts if it is Justin's, and observes that the words of Anastasius do not imply that Justin wrote a separate work on the subject. 18. Πρὸς Εὐφράσιον σοφιστὴν περὶ προνοίας καὶ πίστεως (adversus Euphrasium Sophistam, de Providentia et Fide
A citation of this is preserved by Maximus (Opusc. Polemica, vol. ii. p. 154, ed. Combéfis). This treatise is probably the work of a later Justin. 19. A Commentary on the Apocalypse
The supposition that Justin wrote such a work is probably founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 9.), who says that " Justin Martyr interpreted the Apocalypse:" but without saying that it was in a separate work. The authorship of the work, Περὶ τοῦ παντός, De Universo, mentioned by Photius (Bibl. cod. 48), was, as he tells us, disputed, some ascribing it to Justin, but apparently with little reason. It is now assigned to Hippolytus. [Hippolytus, No. 1.] Editions
Nearly all the works of Justin, genuine and spurious (viz. all enumerated above in the first three divisions except the Oratio ad Graecos and the Epistola ad Diognetum), were published by Robert Stephanus, fol. Paris, 1551. This is the editio princeps of the collected works; but the Cohortatio ad Graecos had been previously published, with a Latin version, 4to. Paris, 1539. There is no discrimination or attempt at discrimination in this edition of Stephanus between the genuine and spurious works. The Oratio ad Graecos and the Epistola ad Diognetum, with a Latin version and notes, were published by Hen. Stephanus, 4to. Paris, 1592, and again in 1595. All these works, real or supposed, of Justin were published, with the Latin version of Langus, and notes by Frid. Sylburgius, fol. Heidelburg, 1593: and this edition was reprinted, fol. Paris, 1615 and 1636, with the addition of some remains of other early fathers; and fol., Cologne (or rather Wittemburg), 1686, with some further additions.
A far superior edition, with the remains of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias the Philosopher, with a learned preface and notes, was published, " opera et studio unius ex Monachis congreg. S. Mauri," i.e. by Prudentius Maranus, or Maran, fol. Paris, 1742. In this the genuine pieces, according to the judgment of the editor (Nos. 1-6 in our enumeration), are given in the body of the work, together with the Epistola ad Diognetum, of the authorship of which Maran was in doubt. The two Apologies were placed in their right order, for the first time, in this edition. The remaining works, together with fragments which had been collected by Grabe (who had first published, in his Spicilegium SS. Patrum, the fragment on the Resurrection, from Joannes Damascenus) and others, and the Martyrum S. Justini, of which the Greek text was first published in the Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii., were given in the Appendix.
From the time of Maran, no complete edition of Justin was published until that of Otto, 2 vols. 8vo. Jena, 1842-1844. The first volume contains the Oratio et Cohortatio ad Graecos, and the Apologia Prima and Apologia Secunda. The second contains the Dialogus cum Tryphone, the Epistola ad Diognetum, the fragments, and the Acta Martyrii Justini et Sociorum.
Several valuable editions of the separate pieces appeared, chiefly in England. The Apologia Prima was edited by Grabe, 8vo. Oxford, 1700; the Apologia Secunda, Oratio ad Graecos, Cohortatio ad Graecos, and De Monarchia, by Hutchin, 8vo. Oxford, 1703; and the Dialogus cum Tryphone, by Jebb, 8vo. London, 1719. These three editions had the Latin version of Langus, and variorum notes. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda, and Dialogus cum Tryphone, from the text of Rob. Stephanus, with some corrections, with the version of Langus, amended, and notes, were edited by Thirlby, and published, fol. London, 1722. It has been conjectured that this valuable edition, though published under the name of Thirlby, was really by Markland. The Apologia Prima, Apologia Secunda, Dialogus cum Tryphone, and the fragments, are given in the first volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandi.
We do not profess to have enumerated all the editions of the Greek text, and we have not noticed the Latin versions. Full information will be found in the prefaces of Maran and Otto. There are English translations of the Apologies by Reeves, of the Dialogue with Trypho by Brown, and of the Exhortation to the Gentiles by Moses. Further Information
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.8-13, 16-18; Hieronym. De Vir. Illustr. c. 23; Phot. Bibl. codd. 48, 125, 232, 234; Martyrium s. Acta Martyrii Justini. apud Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii.; s. apud Opera Justini, edit. Maran and Otto; Halloix, Illustrium Eccl. Orient. Scriptorum Vitae, Saecul. ii. p. 151, &c.; reprinted with a Comment. Praevius and Notae, by Papebroche, in the Acta Sanctorum, April. vol. ii.; Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patrum, Saecul. (s. vol.) ii. p. 133; Baronius, Annales, ad annos 130, 142, 143, 150, 164, 165; Pagi, Critice in Baronium; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 60, ed. Oxford, 1740-1743; the ecclesiastical histories of Tillemont, vol. ii. p. 344, &c.; Fleury, vol. i. pp. 413, &c., 476, &c.; Neander and Milman; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque, &c.; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. p. 1, &c.; Lardner, Credibility, &c.; Otto, De Justini Martyris Scriptis; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 52, &c.; Semisch, Justin. Martyr. (transl. by Ryland in the Biblical Cabinet); and the Prolegomena and notes to the editions of Justin, by Maran and Otto.)
2. Of Jerusalem. In the Acta S. Anastasii Persae Martyris, of which two Latin versions are given in the Acta Sanctorum, Januar. vol. ii. p. 426, &c., mention is made of Justin, who was abbot of the monastery of St. Anastasius, about four miles distant from Jerusalem, about A. D. 620. Works Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum
To this Justin some critics ascribe the Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, which has been ascribed to Justin Martyr, and printed among his works. [No. 1.]
3. Of Sicily, bishop of one of the sees in that island in the latter part of the fifth century. He was present at a council held at Rome A. D. 483 or 484, under Pope Felix III., in which Petrus Fullo Γναφεὺς), or Peter the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch, was condemned as a heretic, for having added to the " trisagion" the heretical words " who suffered for us." Several bishops, among whom was Justin, desirous of recalling Peter from his errors, addressed letters to him. Letter of Peter Fuller to Justinus Editions
The letter of Peter, in the original Greek, with a Latin version, Epistola Justini Episcopi in Sicilia, ad Petrum Fullone s. Cnapheum, is given in the Concilia (vol. iv. col. 1103, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. ii. col. 839, ed. Hardouin; vol. vii. col. 1115, ed. Mansi.)
The genuineness of this letter, and of six others of similar character, from various Eastern or Western bishops, which are also given in the Concilia, is disputed by Valesius (Observat. Eccles. ad Evagrium Libri duo, Lib. I. De Petro Antiochen. Episcop. 100.4); but defended by Cave (Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 458), who, however, contends that the Greek text is not the original, but a version from the Latin. Pagi (Critice in Baronii Annales, ad ann. 485, 100.15) proposes to correct the reading of the title of Justin's letter from Episcopi in Sicilia, to Episcopi in Cilicia; others would read the name Justinianus, but on what authority we do not know. Works Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, and Expositio Rectae Confessionis
Dodwell and others ascribe to this Justin the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, and the Expositio Rectae Confessionis, reputed to be by Justin Martyr. Editions
These are printed with the works of Justin Martyr. [No. 1.] Further Information
Cave, l.c.; Mongitor. Biblioth. Sicula, vol. i. p. 417, &c.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 53; vol. xi. p. 661; vol. xii. p. 655. [J.C.M]
[Hesychius, No. 5.]
the name of one of the lexicographers prefixed to the work of Suidas, but instead of which we ought to read Julius Vestinus. [Vestinus.]