¹ Tert. de carnis resur. 58; August, de civ. Dei 18. 30. 2.

² “Jonas,” in F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, Diet, d'archéol. chrét. et de liturgie, VII, 2, 2572–2631 (hereafter referred to as “Leclercq”). Additional allusions to the Jonah story in the Fathers are listed at 2574.

³ AJA 1901, 51–57, with two figures.

⁴ De Rossi, Bull, di archeol. crist, 1866, 46 (No. 3), 52; Leclercq 2612, Fig. 6303.

⁵ Leclercq, 2573.

⁶ A slightly simpler form of this legend may be read in the Zohar, 121a (Vol. II, 3 of M. Simon's translation published by the Soncino Press). L. Ginzberg, from whose Legends of the Jews I take the story (IV, 248), refers in his note (VI, 349, n. 29) to other rabbinical sources which are not accessible to me.

⁷ Reg. No. 03.1008, Fig. 1 on the plate accompanying this article. For the privilege of republishing this gem I am indebted to the courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, and especially to the kindness of Professor G. H. Chase. The stone is evidently the same as that published by Garrucci, Storia dell'arte cristiana, VI, Pl. 478, 28, described on p. 119; thence repeated without comment by Leclercq, DACL VI, 842, fig. 5070. Garrucci did not recognize Jonah in the standing figure, or even in the man seated under the tree. A better illustration appears in Early Christian and Byzantine Art (No. 561, Pl. 78), the catalogue of the exhibition at the Baltimore Museum, where this gem was shown (April–June, 1947). Both tnis illustration and Garrucci's drawing were made from impressions, while the figure on my plate is from a cast, which was preferred because it shows the design as it is seen on the stone itself. At this period many intaglios were meant to be viewed directly, not through the medium of a wax imprint.

⁸ Leclercq, 2582, Fig. 6285.

⁹ Leclercq, 2611, Fig. 6302.

¹⁰ Leclercq, 2606, Fig. 6298. The sarcophagus from Agen is shown in DACL V, 2, 2443, fig. 4694. Leclercq at first called the figure in question simply an orans, but later recognized it as Jonah (VII, 2, 2612).

¹¹ Compare the closing lines of the Carmen de Iona by an unknown author (it las been attributed to both Tertullian and Cyprian): in signum sed enim domini quandoque futurus non erat exitio, sed mortis testis abactae. This, however, is considered by Peiper to be an inferior tradition of the text, the best manuscript (P, Paris, lat. 2772) reading … futurum non erat, exitii, sed caeli gloria factus. The poem has curious points of interest, some of them arising from the double tradition of the text. Thus in 102 Jonah in the belly of the sea monster is said to be inter semesas carries, the reading of P; but semesas classes (VT) seems to receive support from the words of Tertullian cited at the beginning of this article, in cuius alvo naujragia digerebantur. The “interpolated” text is represented by the edition of Hartel, CSEL 3, 3, 29–301; Peiper's appears in CSEL 23, 221–;226. The line (54) describing Jonah's slumber below deck (Jon. 1.5), stertens inflata resonabat nare soporem, will wake rueful memories in anyone who, nimium vicinus, has suffered from an unconscious murderer of his neighbors' sleep.

¹² The subject will be discussed at length in a chapter of my Studies in Magical Amulets, now complete and ready for printing.

¹³ Iren. adv. baer. 1. 19. 1, 4 (I, 199, 203 Harvey); Hippol. Refut. 7. 26. 6 (205, 4 Wendland).