ARISTIDE, MARCIANO. - One of the first Christian apologists. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, 3, 3, and Chron., ad a. 2140) he was an Athenian philosopher and left an Apology to Emperor Hadrian, which was still read by many in his time. However, St. Jerome no longer knew it, since what he says about it (De viris illustribus, 20; Epist., 70, 4) is only a reworking of Eusebius’s words. It then remained unknown until in 1878 the Mechitarists of Venice published an Armenian fragment of it, and in 1889 Rendel Harris found the entire Syriac version in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai; it was then ascertained by I. Armitage Robinson that the Greek text had long been known, forming, with slight variations, chs. 26–27 of the Life of Barlaam and Josaphat.
The Syriac version bears the dedication: “To the emperor Caesar Titus Adrianus Antoninus Augustus and Pius, Marcian Aristides, Athenian philosopher.” The second name Marcian must certainly be considered authentic, while it is still debated whether, for internal reasons, Eusebius (loc. cit.) and the Armenian version are correct in stating that the work was dedicated to Emperor Hadrian. It is also debated whether the Greek text, generally more concise, or the more expansive Syriac text is closer to the original, but the fragments recently recovered from papyri generally support the latter against the former.
The Apology first establishes the true concept of God: eternal, perfect, immortal, omniscient, father of men and self-sufficient, and demonstrates that neither barbarians, nor Greeks, nor Jews have possessed Him, but only Christians (the fourth race), who received their faith from Jesus born of a Jewish virgin, killed by the Jews, risen and ascended to heaven. Their admirable life confirms this, despite the slanders circulated against them. Naturally, A. dwells especially on demonstrating the absurdity of the religions of the “three races” and the holiness of the Christian life.
The Apology is notable for the simplicity and clarity of its line of argument, which highlights the solidity of its reasoning, even if it may seem original only because it is the first document of its kind. And although the author is not a man of great culture or literary ability, he is nonetheless engaging in his naive trust, presenting his ideas full not only of the strength of truth but also of remarkable communicative power. He has been reproached for restricting his theme and not expounding more fully on specifically Christian dogmas; but this would have been out of place in an apology addressed to the emperor, and in any case A. was quite justified in limiting his subject as he saw fit. Moreover, for his purpose this was sufficient, and one cannot deny that the point he developed was essential.
Lo stesso con il testo siriano (e versione) in Texts and Studies, I, 11, Cambridge 1893, ove è pure una nuova ed. del testo greco (già in PG 96, 1108). Ed. critica di R. Seeburg, Lipsia 1894 e J. Geffeken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, ivi 1907. Ivi anche un'omelia su Le, 23, 42 sgg. in armeno, certo apocrita, e un altro frammento armeno «ex epistula Aristida». Taluno (I. P. Beeck, Bogotovska Smatra, Zagabria 1931, pp. 1-16) ritiene persino A. autore della lettera a Diogneto. Oltre gli autori citati V. pure A. Puech, Les Apologistes greci du IIe siècle, Parigi 1912, p. 35 sgg.; id., The Apology of A., in The Harvard theol. Rev., 1937, pp. 233-47; G. Lazzati, Ellenismo e Cristianismo. Il primo capitolo dell'Apologia di A., in La Scuola Cattolica, 1938, p. 35-51; I. Giordani, La prima polemica cristiana, 2ª ed., Brescia 1943, p. 125 sgg.; B. Altaner, Patrologia, vers. ital., 2ª ed., Torino 1944, p. 67; A. Casamassa, Gli apologisti greci, Roma 1944, pp. 31-48; M. Pellegrino, Gli apologisti greci del II secolo, ivi 1947, pp. 25-39. Antonio Ferrua