The Latin Martyrdom of *Serenus (gardener and martyr of Sirmium, S01882), dating from the 4th century or later, recounts the accusation, court proceedings and execution in Sirmium (Pannonia, Middle Danube) of a Christian under the Emperor Maximian (Herculius, r. 286-305 or Galerius, r. 293-311). The text survives in two independent recensions, a longer and a shorter one, both presumably written in Sirmium.
E05830
Literary - Hagiographical - Accounts of martyrdom
The Martyrdom of Serenus (shorter version, BHL 7596)
1. Apud Sirmiensium civitatem Syrenus peregrinus monachus, Graecus civis, cum de locis peregrinis venisset, hortum colere coepit, ut inde vitam transigeret, eo quod aliam artem non nosset. Qui tempore persecutionis metuens corporales plagas, latitavit: et dum excoleret hortum suum, quaedam die quaedam mulier ingressa hortum eius, coepit deambulare hora incompetenti. Cumque eam vir sanctus caussa lascivitatis discurrere cognovisset, increpavit eam, monens ut egrederetur, et ut honesta matrona, disciplinate se haberet. At illa cum confusione egressa de horto viri Dei, coepit fremere, dolens non quod inde pulsa esset, sed quod libidinis suae caussam non adimplesset. Et statim scripsit ad virum suum, qui erat Domesticus Maximiani Imperatoris, insinuans ei iniuriam, quam passa fuisset.
2. Cumque accepisset litteras vir eius et legisset, statim conquestus, ait Imperatori Maximiano: Nos cum lateri tuo adhaeremus, matronae nostrae in longinquo positae iniuriam patiuntur. At ille dedit ei potestatem ut vindicaret in eum per Rectorem provinciae. Ille ergo profectus ad Iudicem, ei Imperialia dicta porrexit, conquerens de Syreno. At Praeses ei sibi exibito dixit: Quare intulisti iniuriam matronae tanti viri? At ille constanter respondit: Nulli matronae aliquam iniuriam feci: sed recordor, quod ante hos dies quaedam mulier in horto meo hora indecenti deambulabat, quam increpavi, et dixi, quod non recte versaretur mulier, quae illa hora egressa de domo viri sui esset. Quod cum audisset vir eius, erubuit et obmutuit, nihilque amplius loqui Praesidi ausus est.
3. Praeses vero intra semetipsum cogitare coepit de sancti viri libera obiurgatione, et ait: Hic homo Christianus est, cui displicuit mulierem in hortum suum impudice se gerentem videre. Dixitque illi: Cuius professionis es? At ille sine aliqua mora respondit. Christianus sum. Cui Praeses: Usque nunc ubi latitasti, vel quomodo subterfugisti, ut diis non sacrificares? At ille, Qumodo, inquit, placuit Deo, usque nunc me resrevavit in corpore: modo autem quia palam voluit me esse, paratus sum pro nomine eius pati, ut habeam partem in regno ipsius. Praeses autem haec audiens, vehementer iratus, dixit: Quia hucusque Imperalia praecepta latendo contempsisti, et diis sacrificare noluisti, iubemus te capite plecti, qui statim raptus ac ductus ad locum passionis, decollatus est.
‘1. When the travelling monk (peregrinus monachus) Serenus, a Greek, arrived in the city of Sirmium from foreign lands, he started to cultivate a garden in order to earn a living, in as much as he knew no other craft. He spent the time of persecution hiding in fear of corporal tortures. While he was tending his garden, one day a certain woman entered his garden and started to promenade at an inappropriate time of the day. When the holy man realised that she was parading for lascivious reasons, he reproached her, telling her to leave and behave decently as an honourable lady. Now she left the garden of the man of God in confusion, and started to rage, regretting not the fact that she had been driven out of there, but rather that she had failed to fulfil her lustful purpose. Immediately she wrote to her husband, who was an imperial guard (domesticus) of the emperor Maximian, reporting to him the insult she had suffered.
2. When her husband received and read her letter, he immediately uttered a complaint and said to the emperor Maximian: “While we attend by your side, our wives, are far away and suffer injustice”. The Emperor gave him the power to seek vengeance through the governor of the province. He thus went to the judge, presented to him the imperial command, and filed an accusation against Serenus. When he [Serenus] was presented to him, the governor told him: “Why did you offend the wife of such an important man?” He, however, firmly replied: “I have not offended any married woman, but I remember that, a few days ago, a certain woman walked through my garden at an inappropriate time, and I reprimanded her and said that a woman who had left her husband’s home at such an hour did not behave properly”. When her husband heard that, he blushed and became mute, daring to say nothing more to the governor.
3. However, the governor started contemplating in his mind the bold response of the holy man, and said: “This man is a Christian, since he was unhappy to see in his garden a woman acting indecently.” He said to him: “Which religion do you profess?” And he, without delay, replied: “I am a Christian”. The governor said to him: “Where have you been hiding so far and how did you evade sacrificing to the gods?” And he said: “As it pleased God, He has preserved me in the body until now. But now since He wants me to be revealed, I am prepared to suffer for his name in order to have a share in His Kingdom”. Hearing this, the governor, bitterly enraged, said: “Because you have disobeyed the imperial orders by hiding and you refused to sacrifice to the gods, we order that you be beheaded.” And he was immediately seized and taken to the place of his suffering, and was beheaded.’
The Martyrdom of Serenus (longer version, BHL 7595)
(differences from the shorter version are given in bold)
1. Apud Sirmiensium civitatem Serenus peregrinus, Graecus civis, cum de locis peregrinis venisset, hortum colere coepit, ut inde vitam transigeret, eo quod aliam artem non nosset. Qui tempore persecutionis metuens temporales plagas, latitavit non multum temporis, et paucis mensibus. Postea vero hortum sum coepit iterum libere operari; et dum hoc ageret, quodam die quaedam mulier cum duabus puellis ingressa est in hortum eius, et coepit deambulare. Cumque eam vidisset supramemoratus senex, ait illi: Quid hic, quaeris, mulier? At illa ait: Ambulare delector in horto isto. Ille autem dixit: Quae est talis matrona, quae praeterita hora hic deambulat? Cum sit hora iam sexta. Intelligo te non causa deambulandi huc venisse, sed indisciplinationis et lasciviae, ideoque egredere, et habe disciplinam, ut decet honesta matrona habere.
2. At illa cum confusione egressa, coepit intra se fremere, non dolore suae expulsionis, sed quod libidinis suae caussam non adimplesset. Quae tamen scripsit ad virum suum, qui erat domesticus Maximiani Imperatoris, insinuans ei iniuriam quam passa fuisset. Cumque legisset vir eius litteras, statim conqueritur ad Regem et ait: Nos cum lateri tuo adhaeremus, matronae nostrae in longinquo positae iniuriam patiuntur. At ille dedit ei potestatem ut vindicaret se per Rectorem provinciae, ut sibi placeret. Hac igitur potestate accepta, festinabat venire ut vindicaret iniuriam, non matronae, sed inhonestae feminae. Cum vero pervenisset ad supramemoratam urbem, statim ingressus ad Praesidem; et verbum iniuriam prosequitur, et scripta imperialia porrigit, et ait ei: Vindica iniuriam, quam me absente passa est mea matrona. At ubi audivit haec Praeses, mirari coepit, et dixit ei: Quis enim ausus est iniuriam irrogare matronae viri lateri Regis adhaerentis? At ille dixit: Serenus quidam plebeius hortulanus. Cumque de nomine audisset Praeses, iussit eum statim exhiberi, qui exhibitus stetit in conspectus Praesidis. Et ait illi Praeses: Quis vocaris? At ille respondit: Serenus. Praeses dixit: Cuius artis es? At ille ait: Hortulanus sum. Praeses dixit: Quare iniuriam irrogasti matronae tanti viri? Ille respondit: Nulli matronae aliquando iniuriam feci. Praeses autem furibundus dixit: Argue illum, ut confiteatur cui matronae iniuriam fecerit, cum in horto ipsius deambulare vellet. At ille sine omni trepidatione respondit: Scio me retinare, ante hos dies quamdam matronam in horto meo hora indecenti ambulasse. Increpavi eam, et dixi, quod non recte versaretur mulier, quae tali hora de domo viri sui egressa fuisset. Hoc audiens vir suus impurissimae atque indisciplinatae mulieris actum, erubuit, et obmutuit, nihilque amplius suggessit Praesidi, ut vindicaret propter quam venerat iniuriam, quia nimium confusus est.
3. Praeses vero cum responsionem sancti viri audisset, intra se cogitare coepit de eius libera obiurgatione, et ait: Hic homo Christianus est, cui indecenti hora displicuit mulierem in horto suo. Et dixit ad illum: Quod genus tibi est? At ille sine omni mora respondit: Christianus sum. Praeses dixit: Usque nunc ubi latitasti, vel quomodo subterfugisti, ut diis non sacrificares? At ille respondit: Qumodo placuit Deo, ut huc usque me resrevavit in corpore. Eram autem sicut lapis proiectus ab aedificatione; nunc autem requiret me Dominus in aedificium sum. Modo autem quia palam voluit me esse, paratus sum pro nomine eius pati, ut cum ceteris sanctis eius habeam partem in regno ipsius. Praeses autem cum haec audisset, vehementer iratus dixit: Quia huc usque imperalia praecepta latendo contemsisti; et quia diis sacrificare noluisti, iubemus te capite plecti. Et statim raptus et adductus, a diaboli ministris decollatus est octavo Kalendas Martii, regnante Domino nostro Iesu Christo, cui est honor et Gloria in saecula seculorum. Amen.
‘1. When the traveller Serenus, a Greek, came to the city of Sirmium from foreign lands, he started to cultivate a garden in order to earn a living from it, in as much as he knew no other craft. During the persecution, he went into hiding, for fear of worldly torture – not for a long time, but for a few months. Afterwards, he again started to tend his garden in freedom. Now one day, while he was doing that, a certain woman with two girls entered his garden, and started to promenade. When the aforementioned old man saw her, he said to her: “What do you want here, woman?” And she said: “I like to walk in this garden.” He, however, said: “Which married woman (matrona) is such as to walk here at such a late hour? For it is already the sixth hour. I understand that you have not come here for a walk, but for misconduct and lasciviousness, therefore, leave and have the self-discipline which befits an honest married woman.”
2. She left in embarrassment and started to rage within herself, not in regret of her expulsion, but rather because she had failed to fulfil her lustful purpose. She then wrote to her husband, who was an imperial guard (domesticus) of the emperor Maximian, reporting that she had suffered an offence. When her husband read her letter, he immediately made a complaint to the king, and said: “While we are attending by your side, our wives, living far away, suffer injustice”. He authorised him to seek vengeance and satisfaction through the rector of the province, as he pleased. Having received this authorisation, he hastened to come and avenge the injustice, not on behalf of a wife, but of a dishonest woman. Now when he arrived in the aforementioned city, he straightway visited the governor, reported the offence, presented the imperial document, and said to him: “Avenge the injustice which my wife suffered in my absence.” Now when the governor (prases) heard these things, he started to wonder and said to him: “Who dared offend the wife of a man attending by the king’s side?” And he responded: “A certain Serenus, a plebeian gardener.” When the governor heard the name, he ordered that the man be immediately summoned, and he was summoned and stood before the governor. And the governor said to him: “What is your name?” He replied: “Serenus.” The governor said: “What is your craft?” And he said: “I am a gardener.” The governor said: “Why did you wrong the wife of such an important man?” He replied: “I have never wronged a married woman.” Enraged, the governor said: “Declare your accusation, so that he may confess which married woman he offended, when she attempted to walk through his garden.” But he replied without any trembling: “I know how to restrain myself. Some days ago, I reproached a married woman who was roaming my garden at an inappropriate time. I told her that a woman who leaves her husband’s home at such an hour does not behave properly.” When her husband heard about the act of his unclean and disobedient wife, he blushed and was mute, and he requested no more from the governor to avenge the offence for which he had come, for he was utterly embarrassed.
3. Yet, hearing the response of the holy man, the governor started to contemplate in his mind this bold response of his, and said: “This man is a Christian, since he was upset to see a woman at an inappropriate time in his garden”, and he said to him: “What is your community?” And Serenus without delay replied: “I am a Christian”. The governor said: “Where have you been hiding so far, and how did you evade sacrificing to the gods?” And he replied: “As it pleased God, he has preserved me in the body to this moment. I was indeed like a stone that had been rejected from construction; now, however, the Lord is seeking to build me into his house. And since He wants me to be revealed, I am prepared to suffer for His name, in order to have a part in His kingdom with His other saints”. Hearing this, the governor was bitterly enraged and said: “Since you have so far disobeyed the imperial commands by hiding, and you have refused to sacrifice to the gods, we order you to be beheaded”. And he was immediately seized, taken away, and beheaded by the servants of the Devil on the 8th day before the Kalends of March, in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be honour and glory be forever and ever. Amen.’
Text: Acta Sanctorum, Februarii (shorter version); Ruinart 1859 (longer version). Translation: Aleksandra Smirnov-Brkić, Efthymios Rizos.
Saint’s feast
Non Liturgical ActivityComposing and translating saint-related texts
Protagonists in Cult and NarrativesWomen
Soldiers
Officials
Merchants and artisans
Source
The shorter version of the Martyrdom of Serenus survives only in the Bollandist edition published within the Acta Sanctorum collection as Acta S. Sireni, where the text is linked to a manuscript from St. Martin’s Cathedral in Utrecht – now lost. According to BHLms (http://bhlms.fltr.ucl.ac.be), the longer version of the Martyrdom is preserved in the following manuscripts: Vaticanus Latinus 5771 (9th/10th c.); Royal Library Brussels, Cod. 9290 (12th c.); Municipal Library Angers, Ms. 807 (12th c.); Royal Library Brussels, Cod. 207-208 (13th c.); Parisinus Latinus 5289 (14th c.).Discussion
The Martyrdom of Serenus is our main hagiographical source concerning the cult of one of the martyrs of Sirmium, the gardener Serenus or Syneros. This cult is epigraphically attested in the 4th century, but the two versions of our text represent the only extant record of its legend.Even though the two versions of the Martyrdom of Serenus differ significantly with regard to syntax and vocabulary, they both reflect practice in Late Latin. The linguistic features, together with the shortness of the narrative, the lack of epic literary means and the authenticity of historical settings influenced earlier scholars to date the text as early as the 4th century. However, the oldest surviving manuscript cannot be dated before the mid 9th century and there is no evidence that the core of the narrative was familiar to authors before the 7th century. Unfortunately, little scholarly attention has been given to Serenus’ case and there have been no attempts to create a full dossier of this saint. This is why recent studies are more cautious about applying a date to the text and do not classify it among historical martyrdom accounts, but leave a clear possibility of an older document that formed the basis for the archetype of the martyrdom, of which the surviving text is a novelistic reworking.
In comparison to other cases of martyrdom accounts from Pannonia (the Martyrdom of Irenaeus, the Martyrdom of Polio and the Martyrdom of Quirinus) and their hagiographical tradition, both versions of the Martyrdom of Serenus follow their constricted reported form with a dialogue imitating the Roman court proceedings in their central part combined with the editor’s narrative. Given the fact that versions of these texts are thought to have appeared by the late 4th or the beginning of the 5th century, it is probable that the legend of Serenus also dates from that period. Although the story of Serenus presents affinities with other Pannonian martyrdom accounts, it shows less evidence of direct textual dependence. Unlike the other passiones from Pannonia, the dialogue between the Praeses and Serenus contains no Biblical citations, except one allegory appearing in the longer version. While the passiones of Irenaeus, Pollio, and Quirinus mention the same emperor, Maximian, and give names of provincial governors for each province (Probus for Pannonia Secunda, Maximus for Pannonia Prima and Amantius for Pannonia Savia), the Martyrdom of Serenus is the only case where we are given no name for his judge. All these texts prolifically use anachronism and literary means typical to this hagiographic genre. In the case of Serenus, the shorter version refers to the martyr as vir sanctus or vir Dei, while the longer one presents us with literary critical comments such as festinabat venire ut vindicaret iniuriam, non matronae, sed inhonestae feminae; a diaboli ministris decollatus est; and cum ceteris sanctis eius. The longer version has an ending more suitable for the genre: octavo Kalendas Martii, regnante Domino nostro Iesu Christo, cui est honor et Gloria in saecula seculorum. Amen. While in the Passio Irenaei and Passio Pollionis we even find the same biblical quotations, the author of the longer version of the Martyrdom of Serenus puts into the gardener’s mouth only one allegory: Eram autem sicut lapis proiectus ab aedificatione; nunc autem requiret me Dominus in aedificium sum, which could be linked to the third vision in the Shepherd of Hermas (27-30), a text of great popularity throughout the Middle Ages, especially in the Latin West. The allegory could also be linked to Prov. 118:22, Acts 4:11, Mt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10, 1 Pet. 2:4, 7 and the allusion to the passion of Christ, a common motif of the genre.
In terms of dating the legend, it is important to note a striking discordance between the versions of the Martyrdom of Serenus. This arises already in the first line, where the shorter version adds that Serenus was a monachus, a Greek loan-word that can refer to a monk or to a solitary, a recluse. The word peregrinus adjoined to monachus could also be associated with monasticism in the case of travelling or wandering monks, a class of monks which developed in the West in the 5th century. But, in an early 4th century meaning it could only refer to a traveller or a foreigner. The word led to the theory of a possible Greek archetype of the text, along with the use of the term Rex instead of Imperator in the longer version. But there is not enough evidence to support this theory, as the majority of Pannonian passiones do not exist in primary Greek tradition. Moreover, the Pannonian provinces were situated on the border of the Latin West and the Greek East, with shifting jurisdictions in the late 4th century, exposing both languages to mutual influence.
Unless monachus is an interpolation, the word could be used for the dating of the text, as the Greek term for a monk was introduced together with the institution of monasticism in the Latin West towards the end of the 4th century. The term could also be interpreted as evidence of monasticism in Pannonia, similar to the mentioning of consecrated virgins (virgines) as opposed to wives (coniuges) in the Martyrdom of Pollio of Cibalae. If the term monk was introduced by a later editor of the Martyrdom of Serenus while reworking the old records on Serenus, the dating of the shorter version shifts towards the 6th century, when Serenus the monk started to appear in other sources as well, and when monasticism was fully developed in the West.
The Martyrdom also echoes ideas of Christian morality concerning the respectable conduct of married women. The Martyrdom of Pollio of Cibale also refers to a similar Christian view on marriage. This theme in the narrative can be interpreted as an anti-pagan attitude of the author rather than his recounting of historical events. However, Serenus’ view on married women’s chastity is not sufficient to declare him Christian, as late Roman law was especially concerned with the same issues. In terms of the plausibility of a court case described in the Martyrdom of Serenus, all the legal terms in both versions of the text are coherent with late Roman law, and Serenus’ behaviour was in accordance with the old Roman view that respectable women should lead a secluded and modest life away from the public eye and his conduct prevented him from committing an illicit sexual relationship (stuprum).
The dating of the actual martyrdom of Serenus in Sirmium is based on the reference of the text to the emperor (Maximianus) and to Serenus’ conduct in the time of the persecution (latitavit non multum temporis, et paucis mensibus). Providing that the name is not a common hagiographical mistake, the emperor in question is probably the anti-Christian Caesar and later Augustus Maximian Galerius (293-311), whose primary domain in Diocletian’s tetrarchy was Illyricum, including Pannonia. The Augustus Maximian Herculius (286-305) was not involved in the persecutions in Illyricum and in hagiography he is usually mentioned within a traditional tetrarchic imperial sequence together with Diocletian, as evident in other Pannonian passiones. If Serenus was a layman, the only edict of the Great Persecution that affected all Roman citizens who confessed Christianity was issued early in 304, probably in Pannonia. Serenus reportedly escapes by going into hiding, not for a long time, but a few months, after which he again starts openly cultivating his garden. In 311 the edict was revoked in the territory of Illyricum and the persecution legally ceased, but there are no sources to confirm that there were cases of persecution in Illyricum after 307, when it ended due to the abdication of the senior emperors and the establishment of the new tetrarchy, in which Pannonia fell under the jurisdiction of Licinius whose policy toward Christians was more favourable. This time frame places Serenus’ martyrdom from late 304 to 307, although the earlier date seems more plausible.
The earliest evidence for the existence of Serenus’s cult are the two 4th century funerary inscriptions from Sirmium, which mention the martyr Syneros (see $E###; $E###). These inscriptions confirm that there was a martyrium dedicated to Syneros, around which a Christian necropolis subsequently developed and which was used until the early 5th century. Furthermore, the Martyrologium Hieronymianum gives confusing sets of information seemingly on two different martyrs from Sirmium under two subsequent dates. The first is a martyr Senerus or Serenus who died in Sirmium on 22 February with a group of unnamed martyrs. There are variations in number of the accompanying martyrs in the various manuscripts of the Hieronymianum (16, 62 or 72). The same source mentions a certain Sineros (with variation Seneros) who died in the same city the next day, 23 February, together with Antigonus, Rutilus and Libius. It is not clear whether the entries in the Hieronymianum refer to the same martyr as the Martyrdom of Serenus or to two different martyrs as the possible etymology suggest - Σερῆνος and Συνέρως. It is more plausible that the Hieronymianum records the same feast on two dates, either because the difficult Greek name of the original martyr Syneros mentioned in the inscriptions confused the Latin compiler, or because the feasts fluctuated or lasted for several days. The consistency of the record that Serenus belonged to a group of martyrs possibly suggests the existence of a different version of the legend, which has not survived. The difficulty with evidence that derives from the Hieronymianum is that the version that has come down to us is a redaction almost three centuries after the north-Italian original. There is no good evidence that Bede’s Martyrology of the 8th century included more information on Serenus than what he found in the Hieronymianum. On the other hand, later medieval martyrologies (Ado, Usuardus) substantially enriched the information on Serenus, still maintaining two Sereni, but adding for the latter a short narrative explaining which emperor, and under which circumstances, his arrest and conviction were ordered (qui tempore Maximiani imperatoris, cum unus ex domesticis eius uxorem, hora incongrua in horto, quem ipse sibi excolebat, deambulantem, acrius increpando repulisset; iubente Maximiano tentus, et Christianum se esse confessus, capite caesus est). It is most probable that the doublet is a scribal error and there was only one martyr whose name of Greek origin caused confusion in Latin and left no trace in Greek tradition.
Bibliography
Text editions:Acta Sanctorum, Feb. III, 369-372 (= shorter version).
Ruinart, T., Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta (Paris, 1689), 456-457 (here used according to 3rd ed., Ratisbonae, 1859, 516-518) (= longer version).
Further reading:
Delehaye, H., Les legendes hagiographiques. 2nd ed. (Brussels, 1906), 137.
Delehaye, H., Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels, 1921), 161, 293.
Farlati, D., and Coleti, J., Illyricum sacrum, Tome VII (Venice, 1817), 497-507.
Herzog, R. (ed.), Restauration und Erneuerung. Die lateinische Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Ch. (Munich, 1989), 530.
Praet, D., "Susanna, the Fathers and the Passio Sereni (BHL 7595-6): Sexual Morals, Intertextuality and Early Christian Self-Definition," Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 15 (2011), 556-580.
Zeiller, J., Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l'Empire Romain, (Paris 1918), 87-88, 121-124, 188-190.
Aleksandra Smirnov-Brkić, Efthymios Rizos
3/10/2018
ID | Name | Name in Source | Identity | S01882 | Serenus, gardener martyr of Sirmium | Serenus | Certain |
---|
Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL:
Aleksandra Smirnov-Brkić, Efthymios Rizos, Cult of Saints, E05830 - http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E05830