A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

:LUCIANUS. LUCIAN US. r811
ferred to by orthodox and heterodox with equal Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 77), two smallworks,
reverence. It was probably on his reunion with the "libelli," on the Christian faith, and some short
Church that he gave in the confession of his faith, letters to various individuals. The two works " on
which is mentioned by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 5), and the faith" (De Fide) were, perhaps, the creed
given at length by Socrates (H.-E. ii. 10). It was already noticed as discovered and published by the
promulgated by the Eusebian or Semi-Arian Synod synod of Antioch, and the speech (Oratio) made
of Antioch (A. D. 341), the members of which an- by him before the emperor, which is preserved by
nounced that they had found it in the hand-writing Rufinus (H. E. ix. 6). If this defence was spoken,.
of Lucian himself. Sozomen expresses his doubt it-lmust have been at another examination than that
of the genuineness of the document; and the described by Chrysostom. Of the letters of Lucian
caution with which it is worded, for the most part we have no remains, except a fragment in the
in scriptural terms, so suited to the purpose of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 277, ed. Paris; p. 221,synod, which desired to substitute for the Nicene ed. Venice; vol. i. p. 516, ed. Bonn). But the
confession a creed which moderate men of both most important of Lucian's literary labours was his
parties might embrace, renders the suspicion of revision of the text of the Septuagint. Some
Sozomen not unreasonable. The genuineness of (Ceillier, AnteursSacres, vol. iv. p.47, and Neander,
the creed is, however, maintained by Bishop Bull Church Hist. by Rose, vol. ii. note ad fin.) have
(Defensio Fid. Nicaen. ii. 13. ~ 4-8), by powerful thought that he revised the text of the N. T.: but
arguments, and is indeed generally admitted; but the although some expressions used by Jerome (Praef.
controversy as to its orthodoxy has not been decided ad Evangelia) give countenance to their opinion,,
even in modern times; for although trinitarian we believe the revision was limited to the Septuawriters for the most part affirm that it is orthodox, gint. The author of the Acta S. Luciani says he
Petavius and Huetius, with the Arian Sandius, im- was moved to undertake his revision by observing
pute to it an Arian character. It was strenuously the corruption of the sacred books;. but his subseupheld by the Arians of the fourth century, espe- quent statement that the revision was guided by a
cially as it did not contain the obnoxious term comparison of the Hebrew text, limits the ex" d4zoodoos." Supposing it to be genuine, its am- pression "sacred books" to the 0. T. The copies
biguity probably arose from the desire of Lucian of the edition of Lucian, though unfavourably
not to compromise his own real sentiments, yet to characterised by Jerome (I. c.), are described by
express them in terms of so orthodox an appearance him elsewhere (Apolog. contra Rufin. ii. 27) as
as to satisfy the rulers of the Church, into which commonly used in the churches from Constantinople
he sought to be readmitted. to Antioch. They were known as "exemplaria
After his reunion with the Church, Lucian Lucianea." (Hieron. De Viris Ilustr. c. 77.) In
appears to have recovered or increased his reputation the Synopsis S. Scripturae, printed with the works
both for learning and sanctity. He was especially of Athanasius (c. 77), is a curious account of the
eminentfor his charity to the poor. His eminence discovery of Lucian's autograph copy of his revision
marked him out as a victim in the persecution under at Nicomedeia. (Euseb. H. E. viii. 13, ix. 6
Diocletian and his successors. He fled from Antioch Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus, 11. cc.;:
and concealed himself in the country; but, near Philostorg. H.E. ii. 12-15; Synopsis S. Scripturae,
the close of the year 311, he was apprehended at Athanas. adscripta, 1. c.; Dial. III. de Sancta TriAntioch, by order, according to Eusebius and nitate, Athanas. adscripta, c. 1; Epiphanius,. c.;
Jerome, of the emperor Maximin (Daza), but:Chrysostom, 1. c.; Hieronym. ll. cc.; Chiron. Pasaccording to the author of his Acta, under Max- cihale, pp. 277, 279, 283, ed. Paris, 221, 223, 226,
imian (Galerius). The slight difference of the: ed. Venice,vol. i. pp. 516,519, 520, 527, ed. Bonn;
names Maximin and Maximian easily accounts for Acta S. Luciani Presbyt. Martyris, Gr. apud Sym.
the difference of these statements: if he was mar- Metaphr.; Latin& apud Lipomannum, Surium,
tyred under Maximian we must place his appre- et Bolland. Acta Sanctor. vii. Januar. vol. i. p.
hension at least a year earlier than the date just 357, &c.; Suidas (who transcribes Metaphirastes),
given. He was conveyed by land across Asia s. vv. AovuKtads and Nc0evfel; Tillemont, MgMinor to Nicomedeia in Bithynia, where, after moires, vol. v. p. 474, &c.; Ceillier, 1. c.; Cave,
suffering the greatest tortures, which could only Hist. Litt. ad ann. 294; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol;
extort from him the answer, "I am a Christian" iii. p. 715; Hody,- De Textib. Original. lib. iii. p.
(Chrysost. Homilia in S. Lucianum, Opera, vol. i. ed. i. c. 5. ~ 4, 5, lib. iv. c. 3. ~ 1.)
Morel., vol. v. ed. Savil., vol. ii. ed. Benedict), he 2. Of BYZA, apparently the BizVA of the classical.
was remanded to prison. He died the day after writers, an episcopal city of Thrace, lived in the fifth
the feast of the Epiphany, A. D. 312, most probably century. A Latin version of a letter of his to the
from.the effects of the tortures already inflicted, emperor Leo I. Thrax (who reigned from A. D. 457
anid especially by starvation, having been fourteen to 474), is given in the various editions of the Condays withoet food, for he would not taste of that cilia. It recognises the authority of the three councils.
which was placed before him, as it had been offered of Nice, A.D. 325, Ephesus A.D. 431, and Chalcedon
to idols. His body was caste into the sea; and A. D. 451, and declares Timotheus (Aelurus) patrihaving been washed ashore-near the decayed town, arch of Alexandria, to be deserving of deposition.
or the ruins of Drepanum, was buried there. Con- From the reference to this last matter, on which
stantine the Great afterwards rebuilt the town in Leo seems to have required the judgment of various
honour of the holy martyr, and gave to it, from his prelates, the letter appears to have been written in
mother, by whom he was probably influenced, the or soon after A. D. 457. In the superscription to
name of Helenopolis. The statement of the Alex- the letter he is called " Byzae Metropolitanus;"
anzdrian or Pasc]tal Chironicle, that he was burnt to but if we are correct in identifying Byza with
death, is utterly inconsistent with other more trust- Bizya, this title must not be understood as implyworthy statements. ing archiepiscopal rank, for Bizya does not appear
The works of Lucian comprehended, according to to have been an archiepiscopal see, but a simple