It is difficult to ascertain the facts about this affair. There are
first two brief narratives. One is printed in the 'Ménologie de
Basile.'[1] The other is in Cod. Ambrosianus, D 74, fol. 65_r_. M.
Cumont thinks that both have a single source--namely, an abridgment of
the 'Acts of St. Dasius,' published by himself from the Parisinus 1539,
a MS. of the eleventh century. The two brief late narratives say that
the _Greeks_ in Dorostolum held a yearly feast of Cronos. Thirty days
before the feast they chose a handsome young soldier, clad him in royal
raiment, and allowed him thirty days of revelry, after which he was
to sacrifice himself at the altar of Cronos. The lot fell on Dasius,
who preferred to die as a martyr of Christ. Diocletian and Maximian,
hearing of this, commanded him to be put to the sword. The second MS.
names Bassus as the officer at whose tribunal Dasius was arraigned.
The long MS. first published by M. Cumont says that the man on whom the
lot fell personated Cronos himself. On the thirtieth day of revelry
he died by the sword as a victim to the 'unclean idols.' The author
then adds that, in his own time, so-called Christians do devil-worship
by dancing about in skin of beasts at the new year--which is not the
date of the Saturnalia (December 17-23). Unlike these sinners, who
thus give themselves to the devil, Dasius determined to refuse to be a
sacrifice to heathen gods. He would never sacrifice himself to Cronos.
He proclaimed himself a Christian, was thrown into a dark cell, and was
brought before Bassus, 'the Legate,' next day.
Bassus asked what he was charged with, his name, and profession. Dasius
gave his name, profession, and religion. Bassus (who appears to have
been a mild kind of man) bade him revere the images of the Emperors,
whose salt he ate (δορρουμένων ἡμῑν τὰ σιτηρέσια). Dasius, in a
covenanting spirit, replied that he served no earthly monarch. Bassus
again invited him to adore the images of the Emperor, 'which homage
even barbarous nations pay.' Dasius defied the devil, and anticipated,
in his confession, the still unformulated Nicene Creed. Bassus, keeping
his temper to a marvel, said that every man must obey constituted
authority. Dasius answered, 'Do to me whatever your filthy and impious
Emperors command.' Bassus then offered him two hours for reflection,
'that you may consider in yourself _how you may live among us with
honour_.' Dasius refused the respite in vulgar and insolent terms.
Bassus then ordered him to be decapitated. He had a last chance, being
offered incense to burn before the Imperial effigies, but he threw it
on the ground, and was done to death.
Not a word about the mock-kingship passed between Dasius and Bassus,
who merely asked him to perform the customary sacrifice, that he might
'live honourably in the regiment' (ὅπως δυνηθείης ζῆν ἡμῶν ἐν δόξῃ).
How could Dasius live on if he was to be sacrificed 'at any rate'? Why
did not Dasius tell Bassus the supposed facts of the case--that he
objected to a month of unhallowed revelry, followed by self-sacrifice
to Cronos? Bassus obviously knew nothing about all that. A soldier only
has his orders; Dasius insulted the religion and the head of the State:
he declined to retract, and Bassus had to administer the law. If Dasius
did not like the law he need not have enlisted.
The two brief MSS. give us none of this conversation between Bassus
and Dasius. That foul-tongued confessor, according to Mr. Frazer,
'refused to play the part of the heathen god and soil his last days
by debauchery. The threats and arguments of his commanding officer,
Bassus, failed to shake his constancy, and accordingly he was
beheaded.'[2] But Bassus, a perfect gentleman, never asked Dasius to
soil his last days by debauchery, or to play the part of a heathen god.
He merely offered to Dasius the usual test, just as Claverhouse might
have offered the Abjuration Oath. The position of Dasius was exactly
that of a dragoon of 1684 who 'refused the abjuration.'
In my opinion, Dasius probably was executed for his scruples,
insolently expressed, if we believe his biographer; and, if we do not
believe his biographer, the evidence ceases to exist. The biographer,
knowing about the usual King of the Saturnalia in every Roman
household, and wishing to check the survivals of pagan revelry at
the new year, declared that the King of the Saturnalia was actually
sacrificed to Saturn. But in his own account of the conversations
between Dasius and his commanding officer not a word is said about the
Saturnalia and the sacrifice of the mock-king. On the other hand, the
commanding officer, or military judge, labours to save the life of
Dasius, not being aware that it is in any way endangered--except by
his recusancy. This hardly appears in Mr. Frazer's brief summary. But
a glance at the original 'Acts of St. Dasius' shows the nature of the
evidence.[3]
If any part of it has an official basis, as M. Cumont supposes, that
part must be the examination of Dasius by Bassus. Here occurs no hint
of sacrificing Dasius as Saturn; Bassus expects him to throw incense
on the flame, and to continue an honourable soldier of the Empire. He
knows nothing about sacrificing Dasius. Thus, as historians regard
evidence the statement about the yearly victim of Saturn, a statement
made long after the event, and after the establishment of Christianity,
is weak indeed. For it has no corroboration in the works of Latin or
Greek historians or antiquaries. But anthropology is not history, and
Mr. Frazer argues, 'the martyrologist's account of the Saturnalia
agrees so closely with the accounts of similar rites elsewhere, which
could not possibly have been known to him, that the substantial
accuracy of his description may be regarded as established.'[4]
Now we have the Aztec case and the Sacæan case. But the Aztec victim
is a captive, not a free soldier, whose life Bassus is most anxious
to preserve. The Sacæan victim is not sacrificed, and is a condemned
criminal. Now Mr. Frazer has said 'when a nation becomes civilised, if
it does not drop human sacrifices altogether, it at least selects as
victims only such wretches as would be put to death at any rate.'[5]
But a valuable soldier, like Dasius, is not a wretch who would be put
to death at any rate. Again, among the numerous cases of periods of
licence, like the Sacæa, we know only one instance of sacrifice, and
that of a criminal, in Ashanti. Our business is to prove that free
Roman soldiers voluntarily sacrificed themselves at the Saturnalia. The
Aztec sacrifice of a captive, the Persian execution of a criminal, with
folklore rites of analogous description, scarcely make the Roman custom
probable, while the direct evidence is only that of the martyrologist.
His evidence merely asserts, as to the death of Dasius, that he
perished for refusing the usual test. Again, as M. Parmentier argues,
the sacrifice, if it existed, may have been of Oriental importation. In
this condition of the evidence, especially as it allots thirty days to
the Saturnalia, an otherwise unheard-of period, suspension of judgment
seems prudent.
[1] Urbino, 1727, vol. i. p. 198.
[2] _Golden Bough_, iii. 141.
[3] _Analecta Bollandiana_, xvi. pp. 5-16. The precise position of a
'Legatus' like Bassus is rather indistinct. If an officer, he need not
have asked Dasius what his 'profession' was.
[4] _G. B_. iii. 142.
[5] _G. B_. iii. 120.