heart of the gospel with all his heart, and while a certain controversial[1] element inevitably enters into his exposition—since he is writing with his eye on the Roman Church—any such considerations are quite subordinate to his dominating aim.
The epistle dates itself. Paul is on his way to Jerusalem with the moneys collected from the Macedonian and Achaian churches (xv. 19–32), and, after his visit to the Jewish capital, he proposes to visit the church of Rome en route for a mission in Spain. The situation corresponds to that outlined in Acts xx. 2–3. Paul probably despatched the epistle from Corinth. This conclusion would be put almost beyond doubt were Rom. xvi. regarded as an integral part of the original epistle, since in that case Timothy and Sosipater (xvi. 21) would be with Paul as in Acts xx. 4, like Gaius (xvi. 23) and Erastus, both of whom were Corinthians (1 Cor. i. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 20). Phoebe of Cenchreae, the seaport of Corinth, would also be the bearer of the epistle (xvi. 1). But even apart from the evidence of ch. xvi., the tone of the epistle (especially of xv. 19 f.) indicates that Paul regards his work in the eastern provinces as done, and now turns to the West. It is just possible, of course, that the epistle was written from some other town, perhaps in Illyricum (so H. E. G. Paulus), but the facilities of communication point to Corinth.[2]
Literature.—The ablest recent editions of the Greek text have been those of B. Weiss (in Meyer’s commentary, 9th ed. 1899, thorough and all-round), R. A. Lipsius (Hand-Commentar, 2nd ed. 1892), H. Oltramare (Paris, 1881–82), Sanday and Headlam (Internat. Crit. Comm. 5th ed. 1905, strong in philology and external criticism), and Denney (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1901, a masterpiece of theological exposition), to which the Roman Catholic commentaries of A. Schäfer (Münster, 1891) and Cornely (Paris, 1896) may be added. The patristic and medieval literature is summarized by Sanday and Headlam (op. cit. pp. xcviii. f.), and a conspectus of the vast later work may be found in W. P. Dickson’s translation of Meyer (Edinburgh, 1873–74). The editions of Tholuck (1842), Moses Stuart (3rd ed. 1876), Godet (1879–80, Eng. trans. 1888), E. H. Gifford (Speaker’s Commentary, 1881) and Philippi (4th ed. Frankfort, 1896) are of special theological value, Godet’s for its delicate exegesis and Gifford’s for its adequacy of treatment; so, from its own point of view, is F. Delitzsch’s Brief an die Römer aus dem griech. Urtext in das Hebräische übersetzt, und aus Talmud and Midrasch erläutert (1870); with which may be classed the earlier works of Reiche (Versuch einer ausfürl. Erklärung, &c., 1833–34) and C. F. A. Fritzsche (1836–43). Since Dean Alford (1852), the freshest English editors have been Dr David Brown (Glasgow, 1860), Moule (Cambridge Bible, 1879), C. J. Vaughan (7th ed. 1890), B. Jowett (3rd ed. 1894), J. Agar Beet (9th ed. 1901) and Garvie (Century Bible, 1901). Jülicher’s notes in Die Schriften des N. T. (1907), though written from a different standpoint, resemble Denney’s in their conciseness and penetration. Lietzmann’s edition, again, is slight and philological (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1907). Lightfoot’s posthumous fragment (Notes on Epistles of St Paul, 1895, pp. 237–305) unfortunately breaks off at vii. 25. In addition to the special monographs already noted in the course of this article, the essays of H. E. G. Paulus (De originibus Pauli epist. ad Rom., Jena, 1801), Lorenz (Der Römerbrief, 1884), Grafe (Über Veranlassung and Zweck des R., 1881), G. B. Stevens (The Pauline Theology, 1894), Feine (Der Römerbrief, 1903) and A. Robertson (Hastings' Dict. of Bible, iv. 295–306) may be specially mentioned out of a large crowd, together with G. Semeria’s monograph, Il pensiero di S. Paolo nella lettera ai Romani (Rome, 1903). Holsten’s position is stated in a series of articles in the Jahrbuch für protest. Theologie (1879), pp. 95 f., 314 f., 680 f., Pfleiderer’s in Das Urchristentum (2nd ed. i. 149 f., Eng. tr. Primitive Christianity, i. pp. 211 f.) and Hilgenfeld’s in his own Zeitschrift für die wissensch. Theologie (1892), pp. 296–347. The recent literary and historical discussions are chronicled in C. Clemen's Paulus, i. 85 f., ii. 238 f., with which the English reader may compare R. J. Knowling’s The Testimony of St Paul to Christ (1905), pp. 60 f., 311 f., 465 f. On Marcion’s text of the epistle cf. Zahn’s Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, ii. pp. 515–521; on the early reception of the epistle in the church, Gregory’s Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907), pp. 192 f., and Leipoldt’s Geschichte des neut. Kanons (1907), i. pp. 77 f., 188 f., 192 f., 209 f. (J. Mt.)
ROMANSHORN, an important commercial town in the Swiss canton of Thurgau. It is situated on the west shore of the lake of Constance, and by rail is 512 m. N.E. of Zürich, 1212 m. S.E. of Constance, and 10 m. N.W. of Rorschach. In 1900 its population was 4577, mostly German-speaking, while there were 3093 Protestants to 1478 Romanists. Originally a small fishing village, it belonged to the abbot of St Gall from 1432 to 1798, when it became part of the canton of Thurgau. In 1856 the railway from Romanshorn to Zürich was opened, and this vastly increased the commercial importance of Romanshorn. Nowadays it is the centre of a great transit trade, as it communicates, by means of the lake, with the principal towns on its shores. The corn trade and that in timber are among the most important, while there are many industrial establishments. It is essentially a modern commercial centre.
ROMANUS, the name of four East Roman emperors.
Romanus I. (Lecapenus), who shared the imperial throne with Constantine VII. (q.v.) and exercised all the real power from 919 to 944, was admiral of the Byzantine fleet on the Danube when, hearing of the defeat of the army at Achelous (917), he resolved to sail for Constantinople. After the marriage of his daughter Helena to Constantine he was first proclaimed “basileopater” in 919 and soon after crowned colleague of his son-in-law. His reign, which was uneventful, except for an attempt to check the accumulation of landed property, was terminated by his own sons, Stephen and Constantine, who in 944 carried him off to the island of Prote and compelled him to become a monk. He died in 948.
Romanus II. succeeded his father Constantine VII. in 959 at the age of twenty-one, and died—poisoned, it was believed, by his wife, Theophano—in 963. He was a pleasure-loving sovereign, but showed judgment in the selection of his ministers. The great event of his reign was the conquest of Crete by Nicephorus Phocas.
Romanus III. (Argyrus), emperor 1028–1034, was an undistinguished Byzantine patrician, who was compelled by the dying emperor Constantine IX. to marry his daughter Zoe and to become his successor. He showed great eagerness to make his mark as a ruler, but was mostly unfortunate in his enterprises. He spent large sums upon new buildings and in endowing the monks, and in his endeavour to relieve the pressure of taxation disorganized the finances of the state. In 1030 he resolved to retaliate upon the incursions of the Moslems on the eastern frontier by leading a large army in person against Aleppo, but by allowing himself to be surprised on the march sustained a serious defeat at Azaz near Antioch. Though this disaster was retrieved by the successful defence of Edessa by George Maniakes and by the defeat of a Saracen fleet in the Adriatic, Romanus never recovered his popularity. His early death was supposed to have been due to poison administered by his wife.
See J. B. Bury in the English Historical Review (1889), pp. 53–57; G. Schlumberger, L’Épopée byzantine (Paris, 1905), iii. pp. 56–158.
Romanus IV. (Diogenes), emperor 1068–1071, was a member of a distinguished Cappadocian family, and had risen to distinction in the army, when he was convicted of treason against the sons of Constantine X. While waiting execution he was summoned into the presence of the empress regent, Eudocia Macrembolitissa, whom he so fascinated that she granted him a free pardon and shortly afterwards married him. After his coronation he carried on three successful campaigns against the Saracens and Seljuk Turks, whom he drove beyond the Euphrates; in a fourth he was disastrously defeated by Alp Arslan on the banks of the Araxes and taken prisoner. After releasing himself by the promise of a large ransom and the conclusion of a peace, he turned his arms against the
- ↑ Not, however, in the sections bearing on the Law. “It has been customary to explain this feature of the epistle by the fact of its having been written to a church with which Paul had no personal relations, and this may count for something. But there is a deeper and a worthier reason for the contrast in tone between this epistle and those written to the Galatian and Corinthian churches. The whole situation is changed. Then Paul was fighting for existence with his back to the wall; now he writes as one conscious that the cause of Gentile Christianity is safe.” (A. B. Bruce, St Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 96).
- ↑ This is carefully worked out by Paley in his Horae Paulinae (ed. Birks, 1825), pp. 8 f.
