RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Zeno of Verona
the first bishop from the East, though the Greek name does not necessitate this. In the time of Gregory the Great (c. 600) Aquileia was the metropolis, earlier the city was under Milan. The correspondence of Ambrose (Epist., v.-vi.) with Bishop Syagrius is that of a metropolitan with his suffragan. The latter had proceeded illegally and injuriously against the consecrated virgin Indicia, to whom Ambrose refers as approved by “ Zeno of sacred memory.’ This is the earliest and surest testimony to the life of Zeno. It has been objected that the reference does not affirm either the episcopal standing of Zeno or his residence at Verona; but this follows from the whole situation. Syagrius had threatened his metropolitan with the results of outraged public opinion. Ambrose replied that such was not the character of the Veronese, and he would moreover make the matter clear through a commission and pacify them; for Syagrius had passed a misjudgment on a virgin consecrated by Zeno of blessed memory, to whom he had thus by implication set himself in opposition. That Zeno belonged in Verona follows from the fact that Indicia lived there, and from the implication that Syagrius knew that fact; of what other Bishop Zeno could this be true? An additional circumstance is alleged, the consecration of a sister Marcellina. Bishops, not presbyters, were obligated to perform such ceremonies according to the rules in force before 390 (L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, p. 408, Paris, 1889, Eng. transl., Christian Worship, tts Origin and Evolution, p. 423, London, 1904). That is to say, some years before Ambrose wrote the letter, Zeno had officiated at the veiling of a virgin whose testimony was still obtainable.
Still, the exact date is not ascertainable. It does not follow from the words “ of blessed memory ”’ that Ambrose was personally unacquainted with Zeno; all that is necessarily involved is that Zeno was an older contemporary of Ambrose. It is known
from Athanasius (MPG, xxv. 599 B)
Zeno of that in 356 Bishop Lucillus (Lucius) of
the Fourth Verona was still alive; according to
Century. the catalogues Zeno was his second
successor in the see. Much effort has been expended to determine from this the years of beginning and end of Zeno’s episcopate, employing the datum that Zeno was consecrated Dec. 3, and from that determining the year on which that day fell on a Sunday. But that datum is insecure. It is indeed one of the days on which Zeno is commemorated; but Rabanus first names Apr. 12 as the date of martyrdom, elsewhere Dec. 8 is named. ASB, April, ii. 69 E derives this date from the Missale Ambrosianum, but there Zeno appears as confessor (a good indication of the early date of the tradition). It seems as though Petrus Galesini, apostolic prothonotary, was the first to be so definite as to name Dec. 8 as the day of consecration and Apr. 12 as the natal day. The basis of this entire system of reckoning is so doubtful that it seems unnecessary to note the objections that have been advanced against it. Both the assumed year of beginning and the assumed year of the end (362 and 370) are uncertain. Even the duration of his episcopate (eight or nine years) does not depend upon
the liturgical indications of the sermon fragments. The best that can be done is to affirm that some time about 856 Zeno became bishop, and on internal grounds it is improbable that he was active as an author after 381, since there are no traces in his writings of the Council of Constantinople in 381. It is usual to trace Zeno’s origin to Africa. Ordinarily one does not speak of African Latin; but an exception is made when the peculiarities of the “ Apuleian style’’ so abound as they do in Zeny. It follows that he used much other African writers. Tractate 18 of book ii. has as title “ On Conclusions. the natal day of S. Arcadius, which occurs on the day before the Ides of January in the city of Caesarea Mauretania.” Duchesne thinks that this tract is only by chance among Zeno’s works, but Bigelmair points to its literary relationship with the rest. It purports to be a historical writing, but is so lacking in concrete detail that no local coloring is left to speak for an origin in Madaura. The most of the tractates are fragments of sermons; i. 1 is a letter and may have been written when Fortunatianus was bishop of Aquileia. Until recently it was held that Zeno’s writings were the earliest examples of sermons in the Latin language, but that has become questionable. Their literary value consists in the fact that they are high-water mark in the application of the rules of art to the Latin sermon. The author had read widely, observed closely, thought matters out, polished, built up, and reconstructed until he had finished his task. But he was always desirous of having something to say, and back of the discourses was an unusual, worthful, pious, and delightful personality. The sermons have their own peculiarity. II. 44, for example, is perhaps the best description extant from early times of the process of baking bread, and every detail is treated symbolically; similarly i. 27 deals with viticulture, and ii. 48 with horoscopes. Dogmatically they are important as revealing Western theology before the stress of the Apollinarian controversy. Pauline thoughts predominate (James is never cited), Mary is to the fore, with considerable use of apocryphal material. (F. ARNOLD.) BrsiioGrRaAPHy: The Sermones, ed. P. and H. Ballerini, were issued at Verona, 1739, this edition being repeated in A. Gallandius, Bibliotheca veterum patrum, v. 109 saq., 14 vols., Venice, 1765-81, and in MPL, xi. 10 sqq.; a new ed. of Ballerini was issued at Augsburg, 1758, enlarged by two essays by Bonacchi (also included in MPL). Note further: Tillemont, Mémoires, iv. 1, pp. 24sqq.; P. Ughelli, Italia sacra, v. 679 sqq., Venice, 1720; G. B. C. Giuliari, S. Zenones sermones, Verona, 1883, new impression, 1900, ef. the editor’s Vita di S. Zenone, ib. 1877 (this edition contains on pp. Ixxxix.—cviii., cxiii—cxxxix. a painstaking index to the literature on Zeno up to the year 1881); ef. on Giuliari C. Weyman in AMA, 1893, ii. 359 saq., and note the same author in AMA, 1893, ii. 350-361. In addition to the foregoing, consult: I. A. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 754-759, 4 vols., Stuttgart, 1846-56, Eng. transl., Hist. of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1861-63; F. A. Schiitz, S. Zenonis doctrina Christiana, Leipsic, 1854; L. Jazdzewski, Zeno . . . commentatio patrologica, Regensburg, 1862; L. Duchesne, in Bulletin critique, iv (1883), 136- 141; Hurter, in Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie, viii (1884), 233 sqq.; J. Fessler, Institutiones patrologie, ed. B. Jungmann, i. 712-715, Innsbruck, 1890; A. Harnack, Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1895 (shows the influence of Tertullian); especially important is A. Bigel-
Zenos Zerbolt