MONTANISTS
521
MONTANISTS
modelling. His child forms, infant and cherub, are
peculiarly happy. He would not consent that any of
his figures should be tinted except under his own
supervision.
Palomino y Velasco, Vidas de los Pintores y Estatuarios eminentes Espaiioles (London, 1742); Cean-Bermudez, Diccio- nario histoHco de los mas ilustres profesores de las Bellas artes en Espafia (Madrid, 1800); Mont.^ner y Simon, Diccionario Enciclopedico Hispano-Americano, XII (Barcelona, 1893); Stirling-Maxwell, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1891; DiEULAFOT, La Statuaire polychrome en Espagne (Paris, 1908).
M. L. Handley.
Montanists, schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the Phry- gians" (oi Kara i>pvyai), then as Montanists, Pepu- zians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophet- esses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Pris- cilla.
C'hronology. — -An anonymous anti-Montanist writer, cited by Eusebius, addressed his work to Abercius Marcellus, Bishop of Hieropolis, who died about 200. Maximilla had prophesied continual wars and troubles, but this writer declared that he wrote more than thirteen years after her death, yet no war, general or partial, had taken place, but on the con- trary the Christians enjoyed permanent peace through the mercy of God (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.",V, xvi, 19). These thirteen years can be identified only with the twelve and a half years of Commodus (17 March, 180 — 31 December, 192). The wars between rival emperors began early in 193, so that this anonymous author wrote not much later than January, 193, and Maxi- milla must have died about the end of 179, not long before Marcus Aurelius. Montanus and Priscilla had died yet earlier. Consequently the date given by Eusebius in his "Chronicle" — eleventh (or twelfth) year of Marcus, i. e. about 172 — for the first appear- ance of Montanus leaves insufficient time for the development of the sect, which we know further to have been of great importance in 177, when the Church of Lyons wrote to Pope Eleutherius on the subject. Again, the Montanists are co-ordinated with the mar- tyr Thraseas, mentioned chronologically between Poly- carp (155) and Sagaris (under Sergius Paulus, 16(3-7) in the letter of Poly crates to Pope Victor; the date of Thraseas is therefore about 160, and the origin of Montanisra must be yet earlier. Consequently, Zahn, Harnack, Duchesne, and others (against Volter and Voigt, who accept the late date given by Eusebius, regard St. Epiphanius (Hser., xlviii, 1) as giving the true date of the rise of the sect, "about the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius" (that is, about the year 156 or 157).
Bonwetsch, accepting Zahn's view that previously (Haer., xlvi, 1) Epiphanius had given the twelfth year of Antoninus Pius where he should have said M. Aurelius, wishes similarly to substitute that emperor here, so that we would get 179, the very date of the death of Maximilla. But the emendation is unneces- sary in either case. In "Haireses", xlvi, 1, Epiphanius clearly meant the earlier date, whether right or wrong ; and in xlviii, 1, he is not dating the death of Maximilla but the first appearance of the sect. From Eusebius, V, xvi, 7, we learn that this was in the proconsulship of Gratus. Such a proconsul of Asia is not known. Bonwetsch accepts Zahn's suggestion to read "Qua- dratus", and points out that there was a Quadratus in 155 (if that is the year of Polycarp's death, which was under Quadratus), and another in 166, so that one of these years was the real date of the birth of Monta- nism. But 166 for Quadratus merely depends on Schmid's chronology of Aristides, which has been rejected by Ramsay and others in favour of the earlier chronology worked out by Waddington, who obtained 155 for the Quadratus of Aristides as well as for the Quadratus of Polycarp. Now it is most probable that
Epiphanius's authority counted the years of emperors
from the September preceding their accession (as
Hegesippus seems to have done), and therefore the
nineteenth year of Pius would be Sept., 155-Sept.,
156. Even if the later and Western mode of reckon-
ing from the January after accession is used, the year
157 can be reconciled with the proconsulship of Qua-
dratus in 155, if we remember that Epiphanius merely
says "about the nineteenth year of Pius", without
vouching for strict accuracy. He tells us further on
that Maximilla prophesied: "After me there shall be
no prophetess, but the end", whereas he was writing
after 290 years, more or less, in the year 375 or 376.
To correct the evident error Harnack would read 190,
which brings us roughly to the death of Maximilla
(385 for 379). But 'iKarov for OiaKhma. is a big change.
It is more likely that Epiphanius is calculating from
the date he had himself given. 19th of Pius=156, as he
did not know that of Maximilla's death; his "more or
less ' ' corresponds to his former ' ' about " . So we shall
with Zahn adopt Scaliger's conjecture SiaKbaia ewtaKai-
Hko. for oiaKb<na ivevriKovTa, which brings US from
156 to 375=219 years. As Apollonius wrote forty
years after the sect emerged, his work must be dated
about 196.
MoNTANisM IN A.siA MiNOR. — Montanus was a re- cent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behaviour of the priests and devotees of the "great godd&ss". The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maxi- milla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous oppo- nent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3) : first the prophet appears dis- traught with terror {^f TrapeKo-Tda-ei), then follows quiet (ioeia Kal arpojila, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (fKowios aixaeia.) , he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (dKoi5<rto9 ixavla. >pOxv^)- The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. " I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didy- mus, "De Trin.", Ill, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into a man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "HiEr.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet — cf. Matt., vii, 15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power. " This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was in- capable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Mon- tanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Ha^r. ", xlviii, 4).
We hear of no false doctrines at first. The Para- clete ordered a few fasts and abstinences; the latter were strict xerophagice, but only for two weeks in the year, and even then the Saturdays and Sundays did not count (Tertullian, "De jej.", xv). Not only was vir- ginity strongly recommended (as always by the Church), but second marriages were disapproved. Chastity was declared by Priscilla to be a preparation for ecstasy: "The holy [chaste] minister knows how to minister holiness. For tho.se who purify their hearts [reading piin'Jiranlft: enim rorda, by conjecture for purificantia cnim ronronliil] both see visions, and placing their head downwards (!) also hear manifest voices, as saving as they are secret" (Tertullian, "Ex- hort." X, in one MS^). It was rumoured, however, that Priscilla had been married, and had left her hus-
