| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Heortology : A history of the Christian festivals from their origin to the present day
Author: Kellner, K. A. Heinrich
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Heortology : A history of the Christian festivals from their origin to the present day" ***
HEORTOLOGY
A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVALS FROM
THEIR ORIGIN TO THE PRESENT DAY
BY
DR K. A. HEINRICH KELLNER
PROFESSOR OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IN
THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN
TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION FROM
THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION
BY
A PRIEST OF THE DIOCESE OF WESTMINSTER
LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LIMITED
DRYDEN HOUSE, GERRARD STREET, W.
1908
_NIHIL OBSTAT_
FR. OSMUND, O.F.M.,
Censor deputatus.
_IMPRIMATUR_
✠ GULIELMUS,
Episcopus Arindelensis, Vicarius Generalis.
Westmonasterii,
_die 24 Feb., 1908_.
_IMPRIMATUR TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION_
✠ THOMAS,
Archiepp̄s.
Friburgi Brisgoviæ,
_die 8 Maii, 1906_.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION
In older works on liturgy, the festivals of the Church have been
generally dealt with as forming part of a greater whole, while in more
recent times various questions relating to them have been discussed in
separate articles in encyclopædias and reviews. The time seems now to
have come when the cycle of ecclesiastical festivals ought to be regarded
as a definite department of study by itself. The older works, besides
being difficult of access, do not come up to the standard of modern works
on the same subject, and the independent investigations of recent date,
although throwing much new light upon some points, have left others
untouched, with the result that the reader is unable to gain a clear
conception of the matter as a whole.
The solid results gained by investigations into this branch of study in
earlier and later times must now be collected, and systematised, and
brought up to the level demanded by modern science. Much remains to be
done in this department owing to the fresh light that has been thrown
upon it by the publication of documents hitherto inaccessible, among
which we may mention the so-called Peregrinatio Silviæ discovered by
Gamurrini, the Lectionaries of Silos, and the critical edition of the
so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum of de Rossi and Duchesne. The
last-named document has so far been more of a hindrance than a help in
this branch of study, some attributing too much importance to it, and
others none at all.
It has seemed to the author that the time for gathering together the
ascertained results derived from these and similar books has come. It
is chiefly for theological students and the younger clergy that the
following book is intended. Such a work as would make it easy to deal
with the subject in sermons and catechetical instructions, and, at the
same time, would give clearly and briefly all the information necessary
for dealing with the question from the historical standpoint, avoiding
equally uncritical credulity and sceptical unbelief—such a work seems to
the author demanded by the circumstances of the time.
Moreover, the Minister of Public Worship in Prussia has recently
(12th Sept. 1898) required from candidates for the office of catholic
teacher in higher grade schools, a considerable acquaintance with the
ecclesiastical year among their other qualifications.
This is the reason why the author has confined his attention solely to
the worship of the Roman Catholic Church, merely alluding occasionally
to the usages of other religious bodies. For the same reason, in
accordance with the meaning of the term “Heortology,” he has concerned
himself with those festivals alone which are publicly celebrated, or
were so celebrated formerly. The majority of these afford no features of
historical interest, owing, as they do, their origin to the action of
authority. In cases which do not here come under discussion, reference
may be made to separate works and to the Bollandists in general. In a
matter of such practical interest as this, it cannot fail that some
points have been omitted; still, I think, the amount of material
collected in the following pages is sufficient for the end I have had
in view. In support of the views herein expressed, a somewhat detailed
account is given in the third part of the documents which serve as
the sources of our information. It has not seemed practical to print a
selection from the large number of these documents by way of supplement,
since to have done so would have interfered with the object of this book.
BONN, _All Saints’, 1900_.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE OF THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION
This second (revised and enlarged) edition—from which Dr A. Mercati,
Professor in the Seminary of Reggio, Emilia, has made the Italian
translation—is in substance the same as the first. The sections dealing
with the dedication of churches and the feast of the patron saint, with
the feast of the Immaculate Conception, with the feasts of St Mary
Magdalen, St Cecilia, and St Catherine, and the two concluding sections
have been added, and some appendices.
BONN, _May 1906_.
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE
In this translation, the excursus on the German Protestant
“Buss-und-Bettage” and on St Ursula have been omitted as being of less
general interest, and a few notes have been added.
LONDON, _April 1908_.
BOOKS QUOTED AND REFERRED TO
(A) MEDIÆVAL WORKS, WHICH IN SOME DEGREE ARE OF THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL
SOURCES
ISIDORE of Seville († 658).—_De Officiis Ecclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxxxiii.
AMALARIUS SYMPHOSIUS (“chor-episcopus” at Metz, † between 850 and
853).—_De Officiis Ecclesiasticis libri quattuor._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
cv.
RABANUS MAURUS (Abbot of Fulda, later Archbishop of Mainz, † 856).—_De
Officiis Ecclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii.
ADO (Bishop of Vienne, † 875).—_Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apost._
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiii.
JOHANNES ABRINCENSIS (Bishop of Rouen, † 1079).—_De Officiis
Ecclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. _Ordinarius Canonicorum
Reg._, _ib._ 188-191.
PSEUDO-ALCUIN (middle of the eleventh century).—_De Officiis
Ecclesiasticis._ Incomplete in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci. 1175. According
to Bäumer, Amalarius Fortunatus is really the author.
BERNO of Reichenau († 1045).—_De Officio Missæ_, and two small tracts on
Advent and the Embertides. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii.
LANFRANC († 1089).—_Decreta pro Ord. S. Benedicti._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
cl.
BERNOLD of Constance († 1100). According to Bäumer, the author of the
_Micrologus_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cli.
_De Cærimoniis, Sacramentis, Officiis et Observantionibus Ecclesiæ libri
tres_, by HUGO (Canon of St Victor in Paris, † 1118), or by ROBERTUS
PULLUS. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxxvii. 381.
RUPERT of Deutz († 1135).—_De Divinis Officiis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
clxx.
GUIGO I. DE CASTRO (Prior of the Grande Chartreuse about
1137).—_Consuetudines Carthusienses._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clii. 631-759.
HONORIUS of Autun († _circ._ 1145).—_Gemma Animæ._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
clxxii.
JOHANNES BELETH (Professor of Theology at Paris, † 1190).—_Rationale
Divinorum Officiorum._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii.
_Consuetudines Farfenses_, ed. B. Albers. Stuttgart, 1900. Older editions
in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, c. 4, and (HERGOTT) _Vetus Disciplina Monast._
Paris, 1776.
SICARDUS (Bishop of Cremona, † 1215).—_Mitrale._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
ccxiii.
INNOCENT III. (Pope, † 1216).—_De S. Altaris Mysterio libri sex._ MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, ccxvii.
ODERICUS (Canon of Siena, 1213).—_Ordo Officiorum Eccl. Senensis._ Ed.
Trombelli. Bononiæ, 1766.
CODINUS.—_Curopalates s. de Officialibus Palatii Constantinopolitani et
de Officiis Magnæ Ecclesiæ._ Rec. Imm. Bekker. Bonn, 1839.
(B) MORE RECENT WORKS EMPLOYED OR REFERRED TO
(_a_) BY CATHOLIC AUTHORS
ALLATIUS, LEO.—_De Dominicis et Hebdomadibus Græcorum Recentiorum._ Col.,
1648.
ARENS, FRANZ.—_Der Liber Ordinarius der Essener Stiftskirche_, Essen,
1901.
ASSEMANI, JOS. SIM.—_Kalendaria Ecclesiæ Univ._ Romæ, 1730. Six vols.
BAILLET, ADRIEN († 1706).—_Les Vies des Saints._ Paris, 1703; second ed.
1739, in ten vols. 4to. Vol. ix. contains a history of the movable feasts.
BÄUMER, SUITB.—_Geschichte des Breviers_, etc. Freiburg, 1895.
BENEDICT XIV. (Prosper Lambertini).—_De Festis D.N. Jesu Christi et B.
Mariæ Virginis libri duo._ Patavii, 1756.
⸺ _Commentarius de Festis B. Virg. Mariæ_, etc. Dillingen, 1754.
BINTERIM, ANTON. JOS.—_Denkwürdigkeiten der Kathol. Kirche._ Mainz, 1829,
especially vol. v. part i: “Die kirchichle Heortologie und Chronologie.”
⸺ _Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen Konzilien._ Mainz, 1836.
CHEVALIER, UL.—_Bibliothèque Liturgique. Ordinaires de l’Eglise cath.
de Laon._ Paris, 1897.—_Sacramentaire et Martyrologe de S. Remy et de
Reims._ Paris, 1900. _Ib._ of Bayeux. Paris, 1903.
COMBEFIS, FR., O.S.D. († 1679).—_Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria._
Paris, 1662. Eight vols. A collection of sermons of the Fathers and older
scholastics up to St Thomas Aquinas for the whole ecclesiastical year and
the principal saints’ days.
DUCHESNE, L.—_Origines du Culte Chrétien._ Third ed. Paris. [Engl.
transl. by M. L. Maclure, London, 1903.]
GAVANTUS, BARTH. (Mediol.).—_Thesaurus Sacrorum Rituum._ Romæ, 1628.
Amstelod., 1634.
⸺ _Id. op._, with _Novæ observationes et additiones_, etc., by C. M.
MERATI. Romæ, 1735. Aug. Vind., 1740.
GRETSER, JAC., S. J.—_De Festis Christianorum libri duo._ (Ingolstadii,
1612), with Auctarium.
GUÉRANGER, PROSP.—_L’Année Liturgique._ Translated anonymously into
German, with a Preface by J. B. HEINRICH. MAINZ, 1888-1894. Thirteen vols.
GUYET, CAR.—_Heortologia._ Venetiis, 1729. Almost entirely occupied with
the rubrics.
HOEYNCK, F. A.—_Gesch. der kirchl. Liturgie des Bistums Augsburg._
Augsburg, 1889.
HOLWECK, F. G.—_Fasti Mariani._ Frib. Brisg., 1892.
MABILLON, JOH.—_De Liturgia Gallicana libri tres._ Paris, 1685, and in
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii.
MARTÈNE, EDMUND.—_De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Disciplinis._ Antwerp, 1737.
MARZOHL, J., and J. SCHNELLER.—_Liturgia Sacra oder Gebräuche und
Altertümer der Kathol. Kirche._ Five vols. Lucerne, 1841. Vol. iii. pp.
55-172 deals with the ecclesiastical year and festivals.
MIGNE, ABBÉ.—_Diction. des Cérémonies et des Rites Sacrés._ German
transl. by E. Schinke and Jos. Kühn. Breslau, 1850.
MORCELLI, SEPH. A.—Μηνολόγιον τῶν Ἐυαγγελίων Ἑορταστικῶν, _sive
Kalendarium Eccl. Constantinopolitanæ Mille Annorum Insigne_. Romæ, 1788.
MURATORI, L. A.—_Liturgia Rom. Vetus, tria Sacramentaria complectens
Leon., Gel., et Antiquum Gregor. Accedunt Missale Francorum, Gothicum et
Galicana duo_, etc. Venetiis, 1748. The Preface and the _Gelasianum_ are
printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv.
NICKEL, MARC. AD.—_Die heiligen Zeiten und Feste nach ihrer Geschichte
und Feier._ Six vols. Mainz, 1825-1838.
NILLES, NIC. S. J.—_Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesiæ Orient. et
Occid._ Ed. Altera. Two vols. Œniponte, 1896.
PILGRAM.—_Kalendarium Chronol. medii potissimum ævi monumentis
accomodatum._ Vienna, 1781.
PROBST, FERD.—_Die ältesten Römischen Sakramentarien und Ordines
erläutert._ Paderborn, 1892.
SCHMID, FRZ. X.—_Liturgik der christkathol. Religion._ Three vols.
Passau, 1831. Vol. iii. pp. 441-610 deals with the festivals.
SCHULTING, CORN.—_Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica._ Col. Agr., 1599. Tom. i. c.
9-17 and tom. ii.
THOMASSIN, LOUIS (Cong. Orat. Presb.)—_Traité des Festes de l’Eglise._
The second vol. contains “Traités Historiques et Dogmatiques sur divers
Points de la Discipline de l’Eglise et de la Morale Chrétienne.” Paris,
1683.
TOMASI, GIUS. MARIA (Cardinal, † 1731).—_Opera._ Ed. Vezzosi. Rome, 1748,
etc.
VEITH, P. ILDEFOUS.—On the Latin Martyrologies in the _Hist.-pol.
Blätter_, 1895 and 1896. On the Greek Martyrologies in _Studien und
Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktinerorden_, 1896 and 1897. See the
_Katholik_, 1894, ii. 314 _et seqq._
(_b_) BY NON-CATHOLIC AUTHORS
ACHELIS, HANS.—_Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert._ Berlin,
1900.
ALT, HEINRICH (Preacher of La Charité).—_Das Kirchenjahr._ Berlin, 1860.
AUGUSTI, J. CHR. WILH.—_Denkwürdigkeiten._ Leipzig, 1817, etc. Vols.
i.-iii.: “Die Feste der alten Christen für Religionslehrer und gebildete
Laien aller Konfessionen.” (The author gives one or two sermons from the
Fathers for each feast as an appendix.)
DANIEL, HENR. ADALF.—_Codex liturgicus ecclesiæ universæ._ Four vols.
Lipsiæ, 1847.
DRESSER, MATTH.—_De festis et præcipius anni partibus._ Lipsiæ, 1584.
ERBES.—_Das Syrische Martyrologium und der Weihnachtsfestkreis_ in
Brieger’s “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch,” 1905, iv., and 1906, i.
HALTAUS, CHR. GOTTLOB.—_Jahrzeitbuch der Deutschen des Mittelalters._
Translated by G. A. Scheffer. Erlangen, 1797.
HOSPINIANUS (WIRTH), RUD.—_De Festis Christianorum._ Genevæ, 1574.
Turici, 1593.
MALTZEW, A. VON.—_Fasten- und Blumen-Triodion_, etc. Berlin, 1899.
The Introduction deals with the ecclesiastical year of the Orthodox,
Armenian, and Roman Catholic Churches.
RANKE, E.—_Das Kirchl. Perikopensystem aus den ältesten Urkunden der
römischen Liturgie dargelegt und erläutert._ Berlin, 1847.
STRAUSS, FRIEDR.—_Das evangelische Kirchenjahr in seinem Zusammenhange
dargestellt._ Berlin, 1850.
USENER, HERM.—_Religionsgeschichte Untersuchungen._ Das Weihnachtsfest.
Bonn, 1889.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECT. PAGE
PART I
THE CHURCH’S FESTIVALS IN GENERAL
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SUNDAY AND ITS OBSERVANCE AS A DAY OF REST 6
3. THE CLASSIFICATION OF FESTIVALS 13
4. THE GRADUAL INCREASE OF FESTIVALS. THEIR DECREASE IN THE
LAST THREE CENTURIES. THE PRESENT POSITION 16
PART II
CHAPTER I.—THE CHURCH’S YEAR
_A._ EASTER, AND THE SACRED SEASONS CONNECTED WITH EASTER
1. EASTER, ITS NAME AND HISTORY 37
2. THE CONNECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL WITH THE JEWISH 41
3. THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO EASTER BEING A MOVABLE FEAST 46
4. THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DATE OF EASTER, AND THE
ATTEMPTS MADE TO COMMEMORATE THE DAY OF THE MONTH
ON WHICH CHRIST DIED 52
5. THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATION OF HOLY WEEK AND EASTER 59
PALM SUNDAY 66
MAUNDY THURSDAY 69
GOOD FRIDAY 73
HOLY SATURDAY 79
EASTER AND THE EASTER OCTAVE 84
6. THE PREPARATION FOR EASTER—QUADRAGESIMA AND THE FAST 88
7. THE SEASON OF PREPARATION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
CHURCH’S YEAR 100
8. THE TRANSFIGURATION 105
9. THE ASCENSION 106
10. WHITSUNDAY 109
11. TRINITY SUNDAY 116
12. CORPUS CHRISTI. THE FORTY HOURS’ PRAYER. THE FESTIVAL
OF THE SACRED HEART 119
_B._ CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTMAS SEASON
1. CHRISTMAS 127
2. ADVENT AND THE SUNDAYS UNTIL SEPTUAGESIMA 158
3. THE OCTAVE OF CHRISTMAS. THE CIRCUMCISION. THE NEW YEAR 163
4. THE EPIPHANY 166
5. THE PURIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (CANDLEMAS) 173
6. THE SUNDAYS OF THE CHURCH’S YEAR AS FORMING CONNECTING
LINKS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL FEASTS 176
_C._ OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE CHURCH’S YEAR
1. THE EMBERTIDES 183
2. LITANIES OR ROGATIONS 189
3. THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH AND THE FESTIVAL OF THE PATRON
SAINT 194
CHAPTER II.—THE SAINTS’ DAYS
1. THE ORIGINS OF THE CULTUS OF THE SAINTS AND THE GROUNDS
ON WHICH IT RESTS 203
2. THE FESTIVALS OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ST STEPHEN THE
PROTO-MARTYR 217
3. FESTIVALS OF OUR BLESSED LADY IN GENERAL 225
4. THE THREE ANCIENT FESTIVALS OF OUR BLESSED LADY—THE
NATIVITY, THE ANNUNCIATION, THE ASSUMPTION 230
5. INSTITUTION AND SPREAD OF THE FESTIVAL OF THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION 239
6. THE LESSER FEASTS OF OUR LADY—
i. The Name of Mary 264
ii. The Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple 265
iii. The Visitation 266
iv. The Feast of the Holy Rosary 268
7. THE FEAST OF ST JOSEPH. THE CULTUS OF SS. JOACHIM AND ANNE 272
8. THE FESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES IN GENERAL 277
9. THE FESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES AND EVANGELISTS IN PARTICULAR 282
i. St Peter and St Paul 282
ii. The Feast of St Peter’s Chains 287
iii. The Conversion of St Paul 288
iv. St Andrew and St Luke the Evangelist 289
v. St James the Great 291
vi. St Philip and St James the Less 293
vii. St John 296
viii. St Simon and St Jude (Thaddeus) 298
ix. St Mark the Evangelist 300
x. The Feast of St Peter’s Chair 301
10. THE FESTIVALS OF ST MARY MAGDALEN, ST CECILIA, AND ST
CATHERINE—
i. St Mary Magdalen 309
ii. St Cecilia 315
iii. St Catherine 321
11. THE FESTIVAL OF ALL SAINTS 323
12. THE COMMEMORATION OF ALL SOULS 326
13. THE FESTIVALS OF THE ANGELS 328
14. THE TWO FESTIVALS IN HONOUR OF THE HOLY CROSS 333
PART III
THE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL
YEAR IS BASED
1. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES IN GENERAL 342
2. THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CALENDARS 347
3. THE ARIAN CALENDAR OF THE FOURTH CENTURY 352
4. THE SO-CALLED MARTYROLOGIUM HIERONYMIANUM 363
5. THE LECTIONARY AND MARTYROLOGY OF SILOS 378
6. EGYPTIAN (COPTIC) CALENDARS AND SYNAXARIA 381
7. THE MENOLOGY OF CONSTANTINOPLE 387
8. THE MENOLOGY OF THE EMPEROR BASIL II., AND THE SYRIAN
LECTIONARY OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY 390
9. THE KALENDARIUM MARMOREUM OF NAPLES 394
10. WESTERN AUTHORITIES FROM THE SIXTH TO THE EIGHTH CENTURIES 396
11. THE MARTYROLOGIES OF BEDE, FLORUS, WANDELBERT, AND ŒNGUS 401
12. THE MARTYROLOGIES OF ADO, USUARDUS, RABANUS MAURUS, AND
NOTKER BALBULUS 405
13. IMPORTANT CALENDARS FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE ELEVENTH
CENTURIES 410
CONCLUSION 419
APPENDIX
I. CLASSIFICATION OF FEASTS IN THE ROMAN CALENDAR 421
II. ON SOME LISTS OF FESTIVALS 421
III. THE FESTIVALS OF OBLIGATION AS OBSERVED IN DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES 423
IV. LITURGICAL VESTMENTS 428
V. THE WORD MASS AS A NAME FOR THE SACRIFICE OF THE ALTAR 430
VI. ON THE DATE FOR CHRISTMAS IN HIPPOLYTUS 437
VII. CHRISTMAS IN ENGLAND DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 439
VIII. EXCURSUS ON THE THREE HOLY KINGS 441
IX. THE GREEK ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR 442
X. ENGLISH WRITERS AND THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 445
XI. EXCURSUS ON THE SO-CALLED TYPICA 447
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 449
INDEX 457
HEORTOLOGY
PART I
THE CHURCH’S FESTIVALS IN GENERAL
1. _Introduction_
The external worship of God, if it is not to remain vague and indefinite,
finds expression on the one hand through certain elements belonging to
the senses, such as signs and words, and on the other it is connected
with places and times. By the changes of day and night, of seasons
and years, Creation calls upon man to raise his mind to God at stated
times and to enter into communion with Him. The day with its brightness
is suited for work, night with its stillness invites man to turn his
thoughts in upon himself. The change of day and night calls upon us to
begin the day’s work with God, and to commend ourselves to His keeping
in the darkness of the night. The course of the seasons, too, matures
the fruits of the earth necessary for our support, and the succession of
years reminds us of the fleeting nature of everything earthly, for our
whole life is composed of successive years. Consequently the civilised
peoples already in remote antiquity have found a call to the worship of
God in the changing seasons and times, and so have introduced sacred
seasons. Sacred times and places are common to all religions in general.
The change of times, bringing with them corresponding changes in nature,
made a religious impression upon mankind. In turn, man sanctified certain
times and dedicated them to God, and these days thus consecrated to God
became festivals.
The worship of God takes precedence over the daily affairs of common
life, and accordingly displaces such of them as are not necessary for
the support of natural life or the wellbeing of society. Thus it came
to pass that the ordinary affairs of life gave place to the worship of
God, and rest from labour became an essential part of the worship paid to
Him. Man abstained from his wonted tasks on certain days, which received
in consequence a higher consecration. And so among the ancient Romans,
the idea of a day of rest and a holy day were intimately connected and
received the name of _feria_. But it was among the Hebrews that the days
set apart for the worship of God received the most distinctive character
as days of rest.[1]
The Christian Church on her part, in wishing that the day set apart
for the worship of God should be observed as far as possible as a day
of rest from labour, acts in accordance with ideas and customs which
nature itself has planted in the human race, and which need no other
justification. The term _sabbatismus_ (Sabbath rest) soon entered into
the theological language of Christendom, and in public life the Christian
holy days, at first only Sundays, gradually, even in secular legislation,
became recognised as days of rest, sometimes in a larger and sometimes in
a smaller number.
The entire number of ecclesiastical holy days and seasons is actually
codified for us in the different Church Calendars. Their contents fall
into two essentially different divisions, each possessing an entirely
different origin and history. The first division consists of festivals
of our Lord, distributed over the year, regulated and co-ordinated
in accordance with certain laws. The second division consists of
commemorations of the saints in no wise connected with the festivals of
our Lord or with one another. Occupying to some extent an intermediate
position between these two chief divisions come the festivals of our
Blessed Lady, which have this in common with the festivals of the
saints, that they fall on fixed days, but, on the other hand, they are
to a certain extent connected with each other, and with some feasts of
our Lord. This is carried out in such a way that they are distributed
throughout the entire Church’s year, and are included in each of the
festal seasons.
The former of these two divisions is the most important, and its chief
feasts are also the oldest. The festivals of our Lord, Easter and
Pentecost especially, compose what is called the Church’s year in the
stricter sense, and, if they coincide with a saint’s day, they take
precedence. The Church’s year is built upon a single basis and according
to one plan, which did not originate in the mind of any one person, but
developed out of the historical conditions resulting from the connection
of Christianity with Judaism.
In the course of the ecclesiastical year, the Church brings before us the
chief events in our Lord’s life and the most striking instances of His
work of redemption. The central point of the whole is the commemoration
of His death and resurrection—_i.e._ Easter—to which all other events are
related, whether those which reach backward to Christmas, or those which
reach onwards to the completion of His redemptive work at Whitsuntide.
In addition, there is, on the one hand, Advent, as a time of preparation
for our Lord’s coming, reminding us of the four or five thousand years
which intervened between the Creation and that event, and, on the other,
the Sundays after Pentecost, representing the period after the foundation
of the Church, and devoted to the consideration of the redemption won for
us, along with its doctrines and blessings. The weeks of the year form
the links of the chain, each Sunday marking the character of the week
which follows it.
The sacred seasons, as they pass in orderly succession, give outward
expression to the spirit which animates the Church, and are of the
utmost importance from the point of view of her worship, since they form
one of the chief elements in the instruction of mankind in the truths
of Christianity. By them one easily becomes familiar with Christianity
itself.
Every religion has its festivals, but none has so rich and so carefully
thought out a system of feasts as the Catholic Church. If we may compare
it to some artistically constructed edifice, we can regard the festivals
of our Lord as forming the piers which support all the rest, the lesser
feasts as contributing the decorations, and the Sundays, with their
attendant weeks, as the stones of which the walls are built. Naturally
all this did not exist at first, but, like many other things in the
Church, has grown up into its present proportions from small beginnings.
We are not told that the Divine Founder of the Church appointed a single
festival or left behind Him any instructions on the matter; still the
germ, destined by Providence to develop afterwards into the system of
festivals with which we are familiar, existed from the beginning. The
subsequent rich and varied development of this system was not the work
of individuals, but was due to the working of the spirit which ever rules
the Universal Church, and ever renews itself within her. Love towards the
Redeemer and gratitude for what He has done for us called the round of
Christian festivals into being. The authorities in the Church have played
the part of the gardener, pruning away superfluous shoots and branches.
In view of the numerous institutions of this kind, some of which date
back to remote antiquity, it was not a mere figure of speech which
Tertullian made use of when, referring to the numerous heathen festivals,
he addressed the Christians of his time with the words, “You have your
own ‘_fasti_’” (“_Habes tuos fastos._”—_De Corona_, c. 13).
The outline of the ecclesiastical year was prefigured in the Old Law,
while the synagogue furnished the fundamental elements in its festivals,
the Sabbath in particular, and in the division of the year into weeks.
This renders a glance at the religious year of the Jews necessary, for,
apart from it, it is impossible to understand the essential character of
the Christian year.
The Jewish festivals in the time of Christ were instituted either in
commemoration of events connected with the divine covenant, such as the
Passover, or they were of an agrarian character or commemorated some
national event, as the dedication of the Temple, Purim, Jom Kippar, etc.
According to the dates of their origin they fall into two classes:—
(_a_) The ancient festivals instituted by Moses: the Passover, the Feast
of Weeks, in the earlier part of the year; the Feast of Trumpets, the
Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles, in autumn, _i.e._ on the
first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month Tizri.
(_b_) The more recent festivals instituted by the Synagogue, such as the
Dedication of the Temple on the 25th Chisleu; Purim, or the Feast of
Haman, on the 14th Adar. To these were added four fast days as days of
national humiliation.
Consequently, since the death of Christ took place on the first day of
the feast of the Passover (15th Nisan), and since the Descent of the Holy
Ghost followed on the day of Pentecost, the chief Jewish feasts served
as the foundation of the Christian ecclesiastical year, and the Apostles
could join with the Jews in their Passover celebration. Certainly the
object of their feast was very different from that of the Jews, yet,
outwardly there was no separation from the synagogue.
2. _Sunday and its Observance as a Day of Rest_
The Sabbath and the week of seven days, by their appointment in the
ancient Law, formed already a necessary element of the ecclesiastical
year and maintained their position in the Church. The division of the
year into weeks is not specifically Jewish, but rather Semitic, since we
find it in existence in ancient Babylon, though there a new week began
with the first day of every month, and the first, seventh, fourteenth,
twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month were always days of
rest.[2] This system of dividing time into weeks received a religious
consecration among the Jews, inasmuch as the Sabbath rest was enjoined
by the Law under the severest sanctions. All servile work of whatsoever
kind must be laid aside on the Sabbath, according to the Jewish law. It
was not even permitted to light a fire or prepare food. Important as
was the place given to rest, it was, however, only one part, and that a
subordinate part of the Sabbath festival. The most important part was the
performance of the acts of divine worship God enjoined upon the people,
that is to say the sacrifice of a holocaust, consisting of two yearling
lambs, along with “flour tempered with oil and the libations.”[3]
There is no evidence of the Sabbath having been abrogated by Christ or
the Apostles, but St Paul declared its observance was not binding on
Gentile converts, who soon formed the majority of those converted to the
faith; and in Col. ii. 16, he classes it along with the feasts of the new
moon. Accordingly, the observance of the Sabbath fell more and more into
the background, yet not without leaving some traces behind.[4] It appears
at first to have rather existed side by side with Sunday.[5] Among the
Christians, the first day of the Jewish week, the _prima sabbati_, the
present Sunday, was held in honour as the day of our Lord’s resurrection
and was called the Lord’s Day.[6] This name took the place of the name
_dies solis_, formerly in use among the Greeks and Romans. The different
days of the week were named after the heavenly bodies, which in turn
took their names from the chief divinities of heathen mythology. Thus
the names _dies solis_, _lunæ_, _Martis_, etc., were very general and
widespread in antiquity. The Christians did not employ these titles
for liturgical purposes, but called the week-days simply _feriæ_, and
distinguished them merely by numbers.[7] In the romance languages the
ecclesiastical name for Sunday, _dies dominica_, has quite taken the
place of all others.
These names were already in use in the Apostolic period, and Sunday
was the day on which the eucharistic worship of God was performed.[8]
Christian worship in the earliest time consisted of two parts. Already,
in the letters of Pliny, we find mention of a nocturnal service of
preparation at which psalms were sung, prayers recited, and passages
read from Holy Scripture. The eucharistic part of the service followed
at dawn. These two parts appear sharply distinguished, especially in
the diary of Silvia (or Etheria). The vigil service developed out of
the first part. The second part in Silvia’s diary usually bears the
name of _Oblatio_, while the term _missa_ denotes merely the dismissal
of the faithful and the respective divisions of the psalmody.[9] There
also seems to have been a general confession of sins at the commencement
of the service, which explains the exhortation of the “Teaching of the
Apostles,” that the faithful should confess their sins on Sunday. At
any rate, Eusebius plainly refers to the practice, and adds, “We, the
adherents of the New Covenant, are constantly nourished by the Body of
Christ; we continually partake of the Blood of the Lamb, and celebrate
every week on Sunday the mysteries of the true Lamb, by Whom we have been
redeemed.”[10] Upon the cessation of persecution, the present arrangement
of divine service soon became established—that is to say, Mass and Sermon
at nine A.M., with Vespers and Compline as popular devotions in the
afternoon.
Besides Sunday, at least in Tertullian’s time, the liturgy was performed
on Wednesday and Friday, the so-called Station Days. In the East, on
the other hand, it was performed only on Saturdays, at least in many
places.[11] To put on one’s best clothes for attendance at worship was
a custom of the heathen, which the Christians retained, and which has
survived to the present day.[12]
As to the grounds for celebrating Sunday, the Fathers are unanimous from
the earliest times—it was kept as a festival because Christ rose again on
the first day of the Jewish week.[13] A clear indication of this is given
by the practice observed in Jerusalem in the fourth century of reading at
the psalmody on each of the Sundays in Quinquagesima, the Gospel of the
resurrection of Jesus.[14]
The first Christian Emperor did his best to promote the observance of
Sunday and to show it all respect as a day of prayer. He gave leave
to the Christian soldiers of his army to be absent from duty in order
that they might attend divine service. The heathen soldiers, however,
had to assemble in camp without their arms, and offer up a prayer for
the Emperor and his family.[15] Eusebius, in his “Life of Constantine,”
mentions in detail these pious endeavours of the Emperor, yet his
information must have been incomplete, since Sozomen[16] informs us that
Constantine also forbade the law-courts to sit on Sunday. It has been
attempted to throw doubt on the veracity of this information because of
the silence of Eusebius; but Sozomen was an advocate, and must have been
better up in the existing legislation than Eusebius, and, moreover, a
clear grasp of the point at issue along with a lucid representation of
all the facts concerned is not one of the excellences of Eusebius. The
information given by Sozomen is further supported by the fact that a law
of Constantine’s directed to the same end is in existence.[17]
The prohibition of the transaction of legal business on Sunday was
frequently renewed by his successors, and extended so as to suspend the
courts of arbitration, and to prohibit summonses for debt.[18]
A law of Valentinian II., in A.D. 425, forbade games in the Circus, and
all theatrical representations on Sunday. To the honour of the Emperors
it must be said that they suppressed these representations more than
once.[19] The Emperor Leo also renewed the law concerning the Sunday
rest, and went so far as to forbid music on Sundays,[20] but his law is
not included in the general collection of statutes, having been repealed
after a short time.
As regards working on Sunday, the Church very carefully avoided the
adoption of a pharisaical observance of the day; but, from the beginning,
there was a consensus of Christian opinion against the continuance
of all work which rendered the attendance of the faithful at divine
worship impossible—as, for instance, the labours of slaves or the
work of servants. In course of time this was extended so as to exclude
all kinds of work out of keeping with the dignity of the day. As to
details, different views prevailed to a great extent in different places
and times.[21] The first Christian Emperor had already, according to
Eusebius,[22] made a law prescribing throughout his Empire rest on
Sundays, and even on Fridays as well. Ecclesiastical legislation on its
part maintained that slaves must have sufficient free time to attend
divine worship and receive religious instruction in church. Attendance
at this was regarded as the duty of all grown up Christians.[23] For
the rest, the prohibition of work on Sunday was not always regarded in
antiquity as of general obligation. Thus, for example, the Council of
Laodicea forbade Christians on the one hand to celebrate Saturday in the
Jewish manner, and, on the other, enjoined rest from labour only “in so
far as it was possible.”[24]
That the establishment of rest from labour had special reference to
slaves is shown by the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In them we
have (8, 33) the days on which slaves were to be free from labour once
more enumerated in detail, and the limits of the earlier legislation
considerably extended.
Days of rest for slaves were to be: Saturday and Sunday, Holy Week
and Easter Week, the Ascension, Whitsunday, Christmas, Epiphany, all
festivals of Apostles, St Stephen’s Day, and the feasts of certain
martyrs. Naturally the object of this ordinance was not to make all
these days festivals in the strict sense of the word.
In his anxiety to do honour to the holy days of the Church, the first
Christian Emperor went still further. He desired to make Friday, the
day of Christ’s death, a day of rest and devotion as well.[25] We have
no information as to how far this regulation took practical effect
during his life. No trace of such a custom exists at a later date except
among the Nestorians. How earnest he was in securing the execution of
these decrees is shown by the fact that he commanded the prefects of
the provinces not only to observe Sundays, but also to celebrate the
commemorations of the martyrs, within their jurisdictions.[26]
It has been already observed that Saturday as well as Sunday had
its liturgical observance. In certain Eastern countries it attained
to a position almost equal to that of Sunday. For, in the Apostolic
Constitutions, it is laid down that the faithful shall attend divine
service on this day also, and abstain from servile work,[27] although the
rank of Sunday was acknowledged to be higher.[28] The Council of Laodicea
forbade indeed, as we have observed above, the abandonment of work on
Saturday, but it enjoined the reading of the Gospel as on Sunday (Can.
16). Traces of this pre-eminence of Saturday among the week-days exists
at the present time in the Churches of the East.[29]
In conclusion, it is to be noticed that, in the Middle Ages, the rest
from labour commenced, contrary to our present custom, with the Vespers
of Saturday. Pope Alexander III., however, decreed that local custom
should retain its prescriptive right, and so it came to pass that the
practice of reckoning the feast day from midnight to midnight became
general.[30]
3. _The Classification of Festivals_
According to the points of view taken, festivals may be divided into
different classes:—
1. According to the object of the festival, into festivals of our Lord
and festivals of the saints.
The former fall into three divisions: (_a_) movable feasts—Easter,
Pentecost, etc.; (_b_) immovable feasts—Christmas, Epiphany, etc.; (_c_)
such as are not included in the above cycles and are immovable, _e.g._,
the Transfiguration, Invention of the Cross, etc.
The saints whose feasts are celebrated are either Old Testament
personages—although these do not appear in the Roman Calendar as they
do in others, especially those of the Oriental Churches—or Apostles,
martyrs, virgins, confessors, angels, and, finally, the Mother of our
Lord.
2. With regard to their observance, festivals may be either local or
general.
3. According to their character, we may theoretically divide the
festivals into commemorative and devotional festivals. Commemorative
festivals are those which celebrate a historical event, _e.g._, the
birth, and death of Jesus, the death of an Apostle, of a martyr,
etc. These, in many cases, are celebrated on the actual day of the
event commemorated. As devotional festivals, we may rank those which
celebrate some mystery of the Faith, _e.g._, the Holy Trinity, or those
which, although they commemorate a particular event, such as the
Transfiguration, do not celebrate it on the day on which it actually
happened.
Since the number of festivals altered much in the course of centuries,
and their objects are so various, they are distinguished from one another
by differences of rank and a whole series of gradations has arisen.
In the first place there are purely ecclesiastical festivals whose
celebration is confined within the four walls of the Church (_festa
chori_), and festivals which have their bearing upon the common life of
the people, chiefly on account of the rest from labour which is conjoined
with them (_festa fori_).
The so-called _feriæ_ and the festivals strictly so called are clearly
distinguished from one another. According to the practice of the Church,
the ordinary days of the year have their place in the liturgy, and share
to a certain extent in the festal character of the season, although
distinguished from those days on which is commemorated some mystery of
our redemption or the memory of a saint. These latter are holy days
(_festa_) in a higher sense.
These holy days again are divided into greater or lesser feasts—in the
language of the rubrics, into _festa duplicia_ and _simplicia_, with
an intermediate class, the _semi-duplicia_. This is more marked in the
arrangements of the Breviary than in the Missal. This does not exhaust
the differences between festivals, for there are further distinctions
in their rank, especially in the case of the festivals of our Lord and
of the chief mysteries of our redemption, _i.e._ _duplicia majora_,
and _duplicia primæ_ and _secundæ classis_. The _festa duplicia primæ
classis_ are usually kept up for eight days—the so-called octave; so too
some of the _secundæ classis_.
The different rank of feasts is not so elaborate among the Greeks
and Russians, for they divide their festivals simply into greater,
intermediate, and lesser, which are marked in their Calendars by special
signs.
The octave which belongs to the chief festivals has its origin in
Judaism, for the Jews prolonged for eight days the festivals which
commemorated the two chief religious and political events in their
history—the Exodus from Egypt or the Passover, and the Dedication of the
Temple.[31] With regard to the Passover, there was another reason for
prolonging the feast during eight days. Since many Jews, after the Exile,
remained scattered throughout various countries, there was a risk, owing
to the uncertain character of the Jewish Calendar, that the correct date
of the feast might not be known to all. In order to avoid the misfortune
of celebrating the feast on a wrong day, the feast was prolonged for
eight days, one of which would certainly be the right day. The first,
second, seventh, and last days were especially regarded as festivals.[32]
Then Pentecost and Christmas were also observed with an octave, and so
matters remained for a long period. It was owing to the influence which
the Franciscan Order exerted in liturgical affairs that the number of
octaves was increased. The Franciscans provided an inordinate number
of festivals with octaves in their Breviary, and observed each day of
the octave with the rite of a _festum duplex_. In this way a number of
saints’ festivals, in addition to the feasts of our Lord, were provided
with octaves. According to the ancient Roman rite, the observance of
the octave consisted merely in a simple commemoration of the festival
inserted in the office on the eighth day, without taking any notice of
the festival on the intervening six days.[33] A single example of this
ancient custom still exists in the Breviary in the _festum S. Agnetis
secundo_.
Formerly saints’ festivals were not distinguished from one another in
rank, but all were kept with the rite of a _festum simplex_, as it
is now called, and also were provided with one lection only, as the
Breviary developed. An alteration in this respect was introduced by
Gregory VII., who appointed that the commemoration of Popes who were also
martyrs should be celebrated as _festa duplicia_.[34] Next, Boniface
VIII., in 1298, ordered that the feasts of the Apostles, Evangelists,
and four great doctors of the Western Church should be advanced to the
same rank.[35] The Franciscans brought about a complete revolution by
celebrating in their Breviary and in their churches all festivals of the
saints as _duplicia_, and by adding a number of new saints.[36] Pius
V. reduced the rank of many feasts, but over and above the _duplicia_
he permitted doubles of the first and second class. To the ordinary
_duplex_, or _duplex simpliciter per annum_, Clement VIII. added yet
another species, the _duplex majus_.[37] Thus, according to the present
regulations, feasts are ranked either as _simplex_, _semiduplex_,
_duplex_, _majus_, _duplex II._ and _I. classis_.[38]
4. _The Gradual Increase of Festivals. Their Decrease in the Last Three
Centuries. The Present Position_
It is a recognised fact in history that the festivals of the Church in
the course of centuries considerably increased in number, and that, when
this increase had reached its highest point, their number began again to
diminish. This was partly effected by means of legislation and without
disturbance, but partly by the violent proceedings attendant upon the
French Revolution. The stages in this process will be best understood
from an account of the secular and ecclesiastical legislation by which
they were brought about.
Tertullian[39] is the first ecclesiastical writer who enumerates the
feasts celebrated among the Christians. The only festivals known to him,
and to Origen after him, are Easter and Pentecost.[40] His statement
is all the more noteworthy, because the exigencies of his controversy
with Celsus required he should specify all the festivals by name. These
are, besides Sundays, the Parasceve, Easter, and Pentecost. Tertullian
and Origen are witnesses respectively for the East and West, and since
their evidence coincides, it is certain that in the third century only
the first germs existed of that Church-life which subsequently was to
reach so rich a development. The cessation of persecution removed those
hindrances which up to then had stood in the way of its evolution.
The increase of festivals can now be traced with the assistance of
secular legislation, inasmuch as the Christian Emperors prohibited the
sitting of the law-courts and games in the circus on certain days. It
has been already shown that Constantine, as early as 321, appointed that
no legal business should be transacted on all Sundays of the year. In a
proclamation concerning the regulation of legal vacations, put forth by
Valentinian II. and his colleague in the Empire, and dated from Rome on
the 7th August 389, the seven days before and after Easter are added to
the Sundays.[41] In the same way as special sittings of the law-courts
were abolished on Sundays, so, later on, the proceedings before the judge
of arbitration were forbidden.
When a day became recognised as exempt from legal business, this did
not at once render it a festival or holy day, otherwise, according to
the law of 389, there would have been fifteen consecutive holy days.
The prohibition of legal proceedings in the courts on a given day, had
regard, in the first place, to the removal of all hindrances which
might interfere with attendance at divine worship on the part of those
employed therein. In the second place, however, it must be remembered
that in those days the sittings of the criminal courts almost always
implied the application of torture; and such proceedings on holy days
seemed especially out of place. This must also have been the reason why
Valentinian and his colleague forbade prosecutions in the criminal courts
throughout the whole of Lent. He certainly did not aim at changing all
the days of Lent into feast-days. This law was renewed by Justinian.[42]
The legislation concerning Christmas and Epiphany exhibits a good
deal of vacillation, probably connected with the fact that these two
festivals were not yet generally celebrated and recognised everywhere
in the fourth century. They seem to have been originally mentioned in
the law of 389, but to have been struck out by the redactors of the
_Codex Theodosianus_.[43] It was only through the inclusion of the law
in question in the Code of Justinian that they were finally marked
as days on which the law-courts did not sit. This privilege had been
already taken away from heathen festivals by a law of Valentinian and his
colleague in 392.[44]
Alongside these laws we find others forbidding games in the Circus and
in the theatres. These interfered with the attendance of many persons
at divine service as much as, or even more than, the proceedings in the
law-courts, for they began early in the morning and lasted the whole
day. Valentinian II. and his colleague, on the 19th June 386, re-enacted
one of their earlier laws forbidding the performance of such plays on
Sundays.[45] Through later legislation, it came to pass that the same
held good for the seven days before and after Easter as well, and in 395
were added all the days of the year which were regarded as _feriæ_.[46]
Finally, a law of Theodosius II. of 1st February 425, gives a list of
all those days on which these spectacles (_theatrorum atque circensium
voluptas_) were forbidden. These were all the Sundays of the year,
Christmas, Epiphany, and the whole period from Easter to Pentecost.[47]
In A.D. 400 Arcadius and Honorius forbade races on Sundays, plainly for
the reason that they drew away the people from divine service.[48]
In order to illustrate the increase in the number of festivals, we make
use, as we have said, of the official decrees on the subject put forth by
the authorities both in Church and State, where such are at our disposal.
The service-books, which do not always give the distinction between
_festa in choro_ and _in foro_ with precision, will be consulted when
necessary.
A list of feasts and sacred seasons appears for the first time in the
fifth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, viz. the Birthday of our Lord
(25th December), Epiphany, Lent, the Holy Week of the Passover, the
Passover of the Resurrection, the Sunday after Easter, on which is read
the Gospel of unbelieving Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost. This gives
the festivals in the fourth century. Other evidence of the same period,
_i.e._ the sermons of Chrysostom and others, affords certain proof for
the existence of five or six festivals only, according as Good Friday is
included among them or not, viz. Christmas, Epiphany, the Passion, the
Resurrection, the Ascension of Christ, and Pentecost.[49]
A list of the festivals celebrated at Tours and in the neighbouring
Abbey of St Martin’s during the fifth century, is given us by Perpetuus
(461-91), the sixth bishop of the see.[50] In this is shown the days on
which the principal service is held in the cathedral, and those on which
it is held in other churches in the town:—
_Natalis Domini._ _In ecclesia._
_Epiphania._ _In ecclesia._
_Natalis S. Joannis_ (24th June). _Ad basilicam domni Martini._
_Natalis S. Petri episcopatus_ (22nd February). _Ad ipsius
basilicam._
_VI._ (_al. V._) _Cal. Apr. Resurrectio Domini Nostri J. Chr._
_Ad basilicam domni Martini._[51]
_Pascha._ _In ecclesia._
_Dies Ascensionis. In basilica domni Martini._
_Dies Quinquagesimus_ (Pentecost). _In ecclesia._
_Passio S. Joannis._ _Ad basilicam in baptisterio._
_Natalis SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli._ _Ad ipsorum basilica._
_Natalis S. Martini_ (_i.e._ the day of his consecration as
bishop, the 4th July). _Ad ejus basilicam._
_Natalis S. Symphoriani_ (22nd July). _Ad basilicam domni
Martini._
_Natalis S. Litorii_ (13th September). _Ad ejus basilicam._
_Natalis S. Martini_ (11th November). _Ad ejus basilicam._
_Natalis S. Brictii_ (13th November). _Ad basilicam domni
Martini._
_Natalis S. Hilarii_ (13th January). _Ad basilicam domni
Martini._
The regulations for festivals contained in the statutes of Sonnatius,
Bishop of Reims (614-31), show a further development. It marks as
festivals: _Nativitas Domini_, _Circumcisio_, _Epiphania_, _Annunciatio
Beatæ Mariæ_, _Resurrectio Domini cum die sequenti_, _Ascensio Domini_,
_dies Pentecostes_, _Nativitas beati Joannis Baptistæ_, _Nativitas
apostolorum Petri et Pauli_, _Assumptio beatæ Mariæ_, _ejusdem
Nativitas_, _Nativitas Andreæ apostoli et omnes dies dominicales_. These
thirteen days were to be celebrated “_absque omni opere forensi_.”[52]
The omission of Candlemas Day is remarkable. The day after Easter appears
for the first time as a holy day. The Council of Maçon, however, had
already gone further and forbidden (Can. 2) servile work throughout the
whole of Easter week. This extension of the festival was probably at that
time unique, while we often meet with it in the ninth century, when it
had probably become general.
According to this document, the number of days which in the course
of the year were exempt from labour did not exceed sixty-three in
the seventh century. Their number was considerably increased in the
subsequent period. In the notes on festivals ascribed to St Boniface, it
has increased to seventy-one, including the two Sundays on which Easter
and Pentecost fall. These notes are included in the collection known as
_statuta quædam S. Bonifacii_,[53] and even if they do not owe their
origin to St Boniface, they belong without doubt to his period. Days in
which rest from labour (_sabbatismus_) is enjoined in this document are
Christmas (four days), the Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, Easter
(four days), Ascension, Nativity of St John the Baptist, the festival of
SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, St Andrew’s
Day (30th November). Pentecost is passed over because it has already been
mentioned in the thirty-fourth canon, but it was to be celebrated in the
same manner as Easter, that is, during four days with a vigil.
In the Frankish Empire, during the ninth century, the regulations for
holy days were everywhere reduced to order, and in consequence we
possess numerous ordinances bearing on the subject. With the exception
of festivals of local saints and patrons, they present little variety.
With regard to the _Assumptio B.V.M._ alone, there seems to have been
some fluctuations in France at the beginning of the ninth century,
as a statement of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 proves. The
Council enumerates the following festivals: _Natalis Domini_, _natales
S. Stephani_, _S. Joannis Evangelistæ_, _SS. Innocentium_, _octabas
Domini_ (the Circumcision), _Epiphania_, _Purificatio S. Mariæ_, _Pascha
dies octo_, _Litania major, scensa Domini_, _Pentecoste_, _natales S.
Joannis Baptistæ_, _SS. Petri et Pauli_, _S. Martini_, _S. Andreæ_.
_De Assumptione S. Mariæ interrogandum reliquimus._[54] The Council of
Mainz in 813, however, in its thirty-sixth canon, includes this last
festival along with the others, as well as the _litania_ with four days,
_i.e._ including the preceding Sunday. It also directs that, besides the
commemoration of those martyrs and confessors whose relics repose within
the diocese, the anniversary of the dedication of the church shall also
be celebrated.[55] About the same time, _i.e._ in 827, Bishop Hetto of
Basle put out a statute, in the eighth chapter of which the festivals
entailing rest from servile work (_dies feriandi_) are enumerated:
Christmas and the three following days, _Octava Domini_, _Theophania_,
_Purificatio S.M._, _Pascha_ (which, according to the seventh chapter,
was prolonged for eight days), the three Rogation days, the Ascension,
the Saturday before Pentecost, St John Baptist, the festivals of the
Apostles, _Assumptio S. Mariæ_, St Michael, the Dedication of the Church,
and the Feast of the patron saint, these two last to be observed locally.
Three other days, _i.e._ St Remigius, St Maurice, and St Martin, were
not exempt from servile work.[56] This arrangement differs from the
preceding, inasmuch as it includes all the Apostles, while the other
mentions only SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. The festivals of the
Apostles are also absent from the list given by the Council of Mainz in
809.
The Council of Mainz in 813, and the statutes of Bishop Rudolph of
Bourges and Bishop Walter of Orleans in the same century, prescribe
eight days for the festival of Pentecost, as well as for Easter,
and mention in addition the Nativity of our Lady and St Remigius as
festivals.[57] The Council of Ingelheim in 948 retained the Easter octave
but reduced the festival of Pentecost to four days, which were finally
reduced to three by the Council of Constance.[58] A few additions to
these festivals are given in the collections of canons put out at a
subsequent period by Burchard of Worms[59] and Ivo of Chartres.[60]
The Canon Law contains two lists of festivals, the one representing the
state of things in the twelfth, the other that in the thirteenth century.
The former, in the decretal of Gratian,[61] enumerates all the Sundays
in the year from Vespers to Vespers, and then, throughout the year, the
following days are exempt from servile work: Christmas and the three
following days, St Silvester, _Octava Domini_, _Theophania_, _Purificatio
S. Mariæ_, Easter and the entire Easter week, the three Rogation days,
the Ascension, the days of Pentecost (probably three), St John the
Baptist’s Day, all the Apostles, St Lawrence, _Assumptio_ and _Nativitas
B.M.V._, the Dedication of the Church, St Michael and All Saints, and,
finally, the festivals approved by the bishop of the diocese. This list
exhibits a further increase on its predecessors.
The decretal of Gregory IX., _Conquestus est nobis_, of the year
1232,[62] is important for the Middle Ages, although it does not
represent the highest point in the development. According to it, legal
business was not to be transacted on the _Natalis Domini, S. Stephani,
Joannis Evangelistæ, SS. Innocentium, S. Silvestri, Circumcisionis,
Epiphaniæ, Septem Diebus Dominicæ Passionis, Resurrectionis cum septem
Sequentibus, Ascensionis, Pentecostes cum duobus qui sequuntur,
Nativitatis Baptistæ, Festivitatum omnium Virginis Gloriosæ, Duodecim
Apostolorum et præcipue Petri et Pauli, Beati Laurentii, Dedicationis
Beati Michælis, Sollemnitatis omnium Sanctorum ac Diebus Dominicis
ceterisque sollemnitatibus, quas singuli episcopi in suis diæcesibus
cum clero et populo duxerint sollemniter celebrandas_. Setting down the
number of Our Lady’s feasts as five, and the Apostles’ as eleven, we have
here ninety-five days in the year on which no legal proceedings took
place, not counting the particular festivals of the country and diocese.
The above-mentioned decretal is silent concerning servile work. We may
assume that there were ten out of the fifteen days exempt from legal
proceedings on which servile work was permitted, and thus the total of
days exempt from labour must have amounted to eighty-five in the course
of the year, omitting the festivals proper to the diocese.[63]
With this, the highest point of development was almost attained, for
only a very few festivals were added later, such as _Corpus Christi_,
and, for certain localities, the Conception of Our Blessed Lady,
and one or two more, but the number of local festivals might, under
certain circumstances, be largely augmented. Between the thirteenth
and the eighteenth centuries there were dioceses in which the number
of days exempt from labour reached or even exceeded a hundred, so
that, generally speaking, in every week there was another day besides
the Sunday on which ordinary occupations were laid aside.[64] In some
dioceses[65] the number of festivals observed exceeded those proscribed
by lawful authority.[66]
In the Byzantine Empire the number of days exempt from legal proceedings
was even more considerable than in the West. A distinction was made
between whole holidays and half holidays. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus
reduced their number by a constitution, dated March 1166. According
to this, the first-class comprised no fewer than sixty-six days, not
including Sundays, and the second comprised twenty-seven.
From the Calendar of Calcasendi,[67] we learn what were the festivals
observed by the Copts in Egypt, in the eighth century, under Mahomedan
rule. They distinguished between greater and lesser festivals, and kept
seven of each.
The greater festivals are:—
1. _Annuntiatio_, Calcasendi adds: _Innuunt per eam
annuntiationem consolatoris, qui ipse est juxta eorum
disciplinam Gabriel, Mariæ, super quam sit pax, de nativitate
Jesu, super quam sit misericordia Dei._ The festival was held
on 29th Barchamoth—25th March.
2. _Olivarum s. festum palmarum in die solis postremo jejunii
illorum_, _alias_ _festum Alschacaniu_ (a corruption of
Hosanna), Palm Sunday.
3. _Pascha celebrant die solutionis jejunii eorum._
4. _Feria quinta quadraginta_ (_scil._ _dierum_), _i.e._
_festum ascensionis_.
5. _Festum quinque_ (_scil._ _decadum dierum_), _i.e._
_pentecoste_.
6. _Nativitas Domini._
7. _Immersio_, _i.e._ _baptismus Domini_, Epiphany.
The lesser festivals are:—
1. _Circumcisio Domini._
2. _Quadragesima_ (_scil._ _dies_, reckoned from Christmas),
Candlemas Day; the date 8th Mesori is given.
3. _Feria quinta confœderations sive testimonii_, Maundy
Thursday.
4. _Sabbatum Luminis_, Holy Saturday.
5. _Festum claudens s. terminans est octiduo post pascha_, Low
Sunday.
6. _Festum transfigurationis_ (6th August).
7. _Festum crucis_, on the 14th September.
For the Egyptian Christians, Good Friday was not a festival of either the
first or second class. In this it stood in marked distinction from the
preceding and following days—Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday, which
were regarded as festivals of the second class.
The festivals observed in the latter period of the Byzantine Empire under
the Paleologi are found in the treatise of an official of the palace,
George Codinus, _De Officiis Palatii_, in which detailed information is
given of the costume, insignia, etc., with which the Emperor and his
courtiers attended divine service in the different churches of the
capital. Beside the great festivals—Christmas, Epiphany, Hypapante,
Easter, and Pentecost—the following days were distinguished by the
attendance of the Court at divine service: the First Sunday in Lent,
called by the Greeks Orthodox Sunday, Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday and the
Easter Octave, the 1st September being New Year’s Day. To these were
added a great number of saints’ days, _i.e._ 1st January, St Basil;
23rd April, St George; 21st May, Constantine; 24th June, Nativity of St
John the Baptist; 30th June, the Feast of the Apostles; 8th August, the
Transfiguration; 15th August, the Assumption (κοίμησις τῆς ὑπεραγίας
θεοτόκου); 29th August, the Beheading of St John the Baptist; 31st August
or 2nd July, the Translation of Our Lady’s garment to the Church of the
Blachernæ; 8th September, the Nativity of Our Lady; 14th September, the
Invention of the Cross (ὕψωσις τοῦ σταυροῦ); 26th October, Feast of the
Martyr Demetrius Myroblyta; 13th November, St Chrysostom; 21st November,
the Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple; and, finally, the day of
the Resurrection of Lazarus, which was kept on the Saturday before Palm
Sunday. The Court did not attend divine service on Good Friday, although
it did on Holy Saturday. No mention is made of the Ascension.
The large increase in festivals in the Middle Ages was due to the fact
that the bishops exercised the right given them by Canon Law,[68] of
introducing new feasts within the limits of their dioceses. This arose
from the ancient custom, that it belonged to them to watch over the
cultus of the martyrs, and it depended upon their authorisation whether
or not a given martyr should be recognised and venerated as such. Later,
when the religious orders became widespread and influential, it usually
happened that some monastery began to venerate a mystery or a saint, and
then, as this cultus was taken up by the people, other monasteries, or
the whole Order, adopted the festival,[69] and, finally, the bishops gave
their approbation to the institution of the holy day in question. Lastly,
the civil power and the Roman See intervened, and the new holy day was
in this way fully sanctioned. Things, however, did not always proceed so
far, for in many cases the festival was confined to a single diocese, the
result being great variety in particulars and general uncertainty. These
abuses became more deeply felt in course of time, and so Urban VIII.,
in his constitution _Universa per orbem_, published in 1642, warns the
bishops not to use their rights in this respect for the future, and at
the present day these rights, without having been abrogated, are regarded
as antiquated.[70]
The fact that formerly the bishops enjoyed the right of introducing
festivals into their dioceses, or of excluding them, must constantly be
borne in mind, because, if it is left out of sight, the institution and
development of even a single festival cannot be understood, much less
the historical development of the whole festal cycle. When we realise
that this principle was acted upon from the beginning, and for more than
a thousand years, during a period remarkable for its rich development
in many directions, the wonder is that the result is as harmonious and
systematic as it is. No departure was made from the natural basis upon
which the whole was built up, and the attempts of the Councils were all
in the direction of uniformity.
The abuses resulting from the excessive multiplication of holy days was
remarked upon even in Catholic times, especially by John Gerson, at a
provincial synod at Reims in 1408, and by Nicholas de Clemangiis, who,
in a work[71] devoted to that purpose, published about 1416, spoke out
boldly against the introduction of any more festivals. In the sixteenth
century, the Protestants in their _Gravamina_ denounced the great number
of festivals, and already in 1524 the legate Campeggio settled their
number, and so put an end to their arbitrary increase for the future.[72]
By the introduction of diocesan and local festivals, the number of holy
days became excessive in some localities, and great uncertainty arose
as to which festivals should be celebrated by all, in accordance with
the general precepts of the Church, and which should not. This, and the
complaints of the poor that they were prevented by the number of holy
days from gaining their livelihood, while others again took advantage
of them to indulge in laziness or the pursuit of pleasure, was the
ground which Gerson had already adduced in his time. The same reasons
now induced Pope Urban VIII. to regulate the arrangements of festivals
and to fix limits for the whole Church beyond which it would not be
lawful to go. For this purpose, he published, on the 24th September
1642, the important constitution _Universa per orbem_, in which the
following holy days are prescribed: 1. Feasts of our Lord—Christmas,
Easter and Pentecost, with the two following days, New Year, Epiphany,
the Ascension, Trinity, Corpus Christi, the Invention of the Cross. 2.
Feasts of Our Lady—Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Assumption, and the
Nativity. 3. Saints’ Days—St Michael (8th May), Nativity of St John the
Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, St Andrew, St James, St John, St Thomas,
SS. Phillip and James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, SS. Simon and Jude,
St Matthias, St Lawrence, St Silvester, St Joseph, St Anne, All Saints’,
and the patron saint of the country. The actual reduction was small, and
concerned chiefly the lesser saints days, such as St Mary Magdalene, St
Cecilia, St Catherine, St Martin, etc. A more important consequence of
this constitution was, that the original right of the bishop to appoint
festivals, although recognised by the Council of Trent, was rendered
practically ineffective.
In the eighteenth century, the hatred against the Church which showed
itself at the Courts of the Bourbon sovereigns, and the so-called advance
of culture, necessitated fresh regulations on this point. First of
all, at the request of the provincial synod of Tarragona in 1727, Pope
Benedict XIII. consented to the reduction of the number of festivals for
a part of Spain. From this arose the distinction between half and whole
holy days.[73] Rest from servile work was maintained only on the Sundays
and seventeen festivals, _i.e._ half the number given in the list above,
and for the other seventeen days it was enjoined that the faithful assist
at Mass only. After attendance at divine service, all kinds of work were
to be permitted. This permission was extended in 1748, by Benedict XIV.,
to Naples, Sicily, and several Spanish dioceses.
The same Pope extended this reduction of festivals to Austria in 1754,
inasmuch as only fifteen complete holy days besides Sundays were left;
while on the other days, which were to be observed according to the
provisions of the bull, _Universa per orbem_, it was enjoined that Mass
should be heard and the fast kept on their vigil. This last injunction
soon fell into disuse, and even assistance at Mass on the suppressed holy
days was not strictly observed. Accordingly, the Empress Maria Teresa
desired an alteration, and Pope Clement XIV. issued a new brief in 1771.
In this, the direction to keep a fast on the vigil of the suppressed
festivals, and to attend mass, was set aside, and the following festivals
were prescribed to be kept as complete holy days; Christmas, St Stephen’s
Day, New Year, Epiphany, Easter (two days), the Ascension, Pentecost (two
days), Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the five principle
feasts of our Lady, and the festival of the patron saint of the country,
_i.e._ eighteen days in addition to the Sundays. A similar arrangement
was introduced, in 1772, into the then electorate of Bavaria, in 1775,
into Poland and East Prussia, and in 1791, into the whole of Spain.[74]
Under Pius VI. permission was frequently given for the reduction of the
number of festivals at the request of certain dioceses and districts as
appears from the _bullarium_ of this Pope.
It became necessary to make new arrangements concerning festivals for
Prussia, after the incorporation of Silesia. This was effected by a brief
of Clement XIV. of the 24th June 1772, especially granted to the diocese
of Breslau, but applying to all Prussia as it then existed. The festivals
retained were: Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas (each two days), the
Circumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, five feasts of Our
Lady, (_i.e._ the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity, and
Conception), SS. Peter and Paul and All Saints. Where there were several
patron saints, only one, the principal, was to be celebrated.
These regulations remained in force only until 1788, for King Frederick
William II. requested a further reduction in the number of festivals
through his agent in Rome, Ciofani. In consequence of this, Pius VI.
transferred the feasts of the Assumption and Nativity of our Lady to the
Sundays following, and, at the express wish of the King, appointed that
the Wednesday in the third week after Easter, one of the Protestant days
of penitence and prayer, should rank as a festival, an order that all
might implore the same God for a fruitful harvest. In compensation for
the suppressed festivals of the Apostles and other Saints, there was to
be observed the commemoration of all the Apostles on the 29th June, and a
similar commemoration of all the holy martyrs on the 26th December. These
had already been appointed by Clement XIV.[75]
These regulations remained in force for Prussia, and were even extended
to its newly acquired territories by a brief of Leo XII., dated 2nd
December 1828. By this means, the districts on the left bank of the
Rhine, which, while under French dominion had only kept the four holidays
prescribed by the Code Napoleon, again enjoyed a notable increase in
the number of festivals. In order that this might not interfere with
the livelihood of the industrial classes, who had to compete with
Protestants, it was conceded at the representations of Archbishop
von Spiegel that, in the industrial districts, servile labour might
be performed after attendance at Mass on the festivals introduced
in obedience to the brief of Leo XII. Owing to the deeply religious
character of the district in question, very little use was ever made of
this concession, and it has accordingly become obsolete. This is the
origin of the regulations for Catholic festivals at present in force in
Prussia. In one point, however, an alteration has been made, for when the
Protestant day of penitence in prayer which falls in November, was fixed
by authority in 1893, the Catholics fell in with the arrangement, and now
celebrate the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple as a movable feast
on the same day.
The greatest alterations in respect of the Church’s holy days was caused
by the French Revolution. By a decree of the Convention on 5th October
1793, the Christian mode of reckoning was abolished and a new mode
substituted for it. The years were to be reckoned from the establishment
of the French Republic on 22nd September 1792. The division of time into
weeks was also abolished and the months, now uniformly of thirty days,
were divided into the decades. The French observed this mode of reckoning
until 1st January 1806. While it was in force, Napoleon undertook the
re-establishment of ecclesiastical affairs in France, and as far as the
regulations for holy days are concerned, traces of the then existing
state of things survives until the present day. For the Church had
to fall in with the reckoning then in force, to the extent of either
abolishing all holy days which fell in the week, or of transferring
them to the Sunday. According to the ordinance of the Cardinal Legate
Caprara, dated Paris, 9th April 1802, only four holy days were left,
_i.e._ Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption (because the 15th August was
Napoleon’s name-day), and All Saints. This ordinance affected all France
as it was then, that is including the Netherlands, and the whole left
bank of the Rhine.
In the Appendix[76] will be found a detailed list of the festivals
observed in different countries upon which servile work is forbidden. A
list of this kind, in addition to its practical value, is instructive
as showing how the interests of religion are affected by the culture
and social conditions of each country at a given period, and also how
politics have intruded themselves into the sphere of religion. The latter
fact is especially prominent in Protestantism. From the beginning,
Protestantism was affected by two opposing streams—one favourable to the
observance of festivals, prevailing among the Lutheran, the other opposed
to it, prevailing among the Calvinists. Luther wished to retain all
feasts of our Lord, and even Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation found
favour with him as such. Saints days and the two festivals of the Holy
Cross were alone to be abolished. Certain secular governments tolerated
even more festivals, such as St Michael and St John the Baptist. The
Church Order of Brandenburg retained the feasts of Apostles, and even
Corpus Christi, but without a procession, and the Assumption—this last
for the sake of the peasants.[77] The same regulations were observed
in Saxony and Würtemburg. Strict Calvinism retained only Christmas,
Easter, and Pentecost; its spread and increasing influence manifested
itself gradually in the regulations concerning festivals. The Prussian
Union, and the _Agenda_ of the so-called Evangelical State Church of
1895 recognise as holy days of obligation only the three principal
festivals, each with two holidays, _i.e._ the Sunday and the Monday,
New Year, Epiphany, Good Friday, the Ascension, along with the days
of penitence and prayer. Contrary to the principles of Calvinism, the
Established Church of England possesses a Calendar richly furnished with
festivals.[78]
PART II
CHAPTER I
THE CHURCH’S YEAR
A. EASTER, AND THE SACRED SEASONS CONNECTED WITH EASTER
1. _Easter, its Name and History_
Were it our object to deal with the Church’s year as affording material
for a series of doctrinal instructions, we should begin with Christmas,
the festival of Christ’s birth, for, so viewed, the ecclesiastical year
becomes chiefly a compendium of the chief acts in the drama of our
salvation, and recalls in orderly succession the principal events in our
Saviour’s life. But if we make the Church’s year in itself the object of
our studies, especially if we deal with it historically, we are bound
to commence with Easter, because, in order of time, it existed from the
first and formed the natural starting-point for all the rest. It did
not, as other festivals, come into existence gradually, but formed a
connecting link with the Old Testament, and was, in the strictest sense
of the words, the appointment of a Higher Power, providentially ordering
all things according to Its good pleasure. Easter owes its origin not to
human wisdom, or piety: it comes to us with higher sanctions.
Easter is the chief festival of Christendom, the first and oldest of all
festivals, the basis on which the Church’s year is built, the connecting
link with the festivals of the Old Covenant, and the central point on
which depends the date of the other movable feasts. At an early date,
the Fathers mention Easter as the most important of the festivals, as,
for example, St Leo the Great,[79] on the grounds that the incarnation
and birth of the Son of God served as a prelude to the mystery of the
Resurrection, and that Christ had no other purpose in being born of
a woman than that He should be nailed to the Cross for us.[80] Other
Fathers and the Roman martyrology call it the feast of feasts (_festum
festorum_).
With regard to the name, the English word “Easter” comes from Eastre,
in German “Ostra,”[81] the goddess of Spring worshipped by the ancient
Saxons and Angles, whose name survives in many place-names, such as
Osterode, Osterberg, etc. In her honour fires, known as the Easter
fires, were kindled in spring. In Latin, we find at first _dominica
resurrectionis_ alone used in the liturgy, never _Pascha_. _Pascha_ has
no connection with the Greek πάσχω, but is the Aramaic form of _pesach_,
to pass over, פַּסְחָח for פֶּסַח. In Christian times, the
similarity in the sound of the words easily suggested, by a sort of play
upon the words, that which to Christians is the chief object of the
Easter festival. In the Pentateuch, _pascha_ is only found in the strict
sense of _transitus_, _phase_.[82]
The points to be dealt with regarding Easter are its antiquity, and its
connection, in point of view of time and of signification, with the
Jewish Passover, with which it is connected by the death of Christ, as
well as by the day on which that death took place. Then, the character
and duration of the feast, the preparatory solemnity of Lent, and the
subsequent Octave must be dealt with.
With regard to Easter and its antiquity in early ecclesiastical
literature, the Apostolic Fathers, owing to the questions dealt with in
their writings, do not mention it. Only in the interpolated letter of
Ignatius to the Philippians (c. 14) is Easter mentioned. The passage
is directed against the Quartodecimans, which of itself is proof
of its later date. Nothing is to be found in the Didaché or in the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies. When we come to the apologists, we find no
reference to Easter in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (c. 40), and nothing
in either of his Apologies. Clement of Alexandria speaks only of the
Jewish passover, without referring to the Christian feast. Melito of
Sardis, however, wrote an entire treatise on the festival of Easter, in
the year when Servilius Paulus was Pro-Consul of Asia, for at that time
a disagreement concerning Easter had broken out in Laodicea. Clement
of Alexandria replied to Melito, who had written in defence of the
Quartodeciman practice.[83]
In 198, when the difference between Asia and the rest of the Church
concerning Easter came under discussion, an exchange of letters took
place between the leading authorities of the Church, Pope Victor, Bishop
Narcissus of Jerusalem, Polycrates of Ephesus, Bacchylus of Corinth,
Irenæus, and others taking part. Irenæus composed a special treatise _De
Paschate_, sometimes called _De Schismate_, unfortunately lost. In the
fragments falsely attributed to him, Easter is referred to in the third
and seventh.
References to Easter are frequent in Tertullian. With regard to the name,
it is to be noticed that with him _pascha_ denotes, not the single day
of the Easter festival, but a longer period of time, in which a fast
was observed and baptism administered,[84] in other words, Passion-tide
and the Easter Octave.[85] Moreover, for the actual day of our Lord’s
death, he uses the word, _parasceve_.[86] The festival of Easter, as he
further relates, was kept in the first month (_i.e._ March),[87] and was
prefigured by the Jewish Passover.[88] We possess a treatise on Easter,
of the year 243 A.D., formerly attributed wrongly to St Cyprian, but,
probably, a translation of work of Theophilus of Cæsarea. It is entitled
_De Paschate Computus_, and was written elsewhere than at Rome, in the
interest of the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus. The
remarks of Hippolytus on the Quartodecimans afford us important evidence
for the Ante-Nicene period. “These,” he says, “agree with the Church
in preserving all the apostolic traditions, but differ from her in one
point, inasmuch as, out of contentiousness, wilfulness, and ignorance,
they maintain that the Christian feast must always be kept on the 14th
Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it falls.”[89]
If the Arabic Canons ascribed to Hippolytus, especially the
twenty-second, are really his, it would appear that he held Easter might
be kept in the same week as the Jewish Passover, but on the Sunday, and
should be preceded by a week’s fast on bread and water.[90] This date
coincides with the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus,
and which, after all, is only the Jewish cycle of eight years doubled.
The seventh and sixty-ninth of the so-called Apostolic Canons refer
to Easter and its preparatory fast. The seventh is also important on
account of what it says about the period within which Easter may fall:
“Whosoever keeps Easter with the Jews before the vernal equinox, let him
be anathema.” From which it appears that the Jewish Passover could fall
before the vernal equinox. The last day of Nisan alone must never precede
the equinox, and, consequently, the Passover must frequently have fallen
before the 21st March, and may have done so in the year of our Lord’s
death.
Of Eusebius’ treatise on Easter,[91] dedicated to the Emperor, only a
portion remains and this contains nothing either about Easter or its
date. Constantine gratefully accepted the dedication in a letter which
Eusebius, not without vanity, incorporated in his _Vita Constantini_ (4,
35). The Emperor’s encyclical,[92] communicating to the churches the
conclusions concerning Easter arrived at by the Nicene Council, would
have been more deserving of a place in the same work.
2. _The Connection of the Christian Festival with the Jewish_
The connection between the Christian and the Jewish feasts is both
historical and ideal—historical because our Lord’s death happened on the
15th Nisan, the first day of the Jewish feast; ideal, because what took
place had been prefigured in the Old Testament by types of which it was
itself the antitype.
The Jewish Passover was a repetition of what had taken place on the
evening of the exodus from Egypt. On that occasion, the children of
Israel had killed a lamb and marked their doorposts with its blood in
order that the destroying angel might pass over their houses. Then,
dressed for the journey, they had consumed the lamb at a ceremonial meal.
This last meal of which the Israelites partook in Egypt on the eve of
their departure, _i.e._ on the 14th Nisan, was of a religious character,
and was, on this account, to be repeated every year on the same day, and
at the same hour, as a memorial feast, at which each father of a family
had to instruct his household in the signification of the rites they were
performing.[93]
The manner of celebrating the feast was minutely prescribed. Each
householder, for example, had to choose a lamb without blemish of the
first year, on the 10th of the first month, _i.e._ Nisan, as it came to
be called later, or, if he had none in his own herd, he must procure one
from elsewhere and keep it in readiness for the feast on the evening of
the 14th Nisan. The lamb was to be killed, roasted, and eaten by the
household, who remained standing, along with unleavened bread, and bitter
herbs, nothing being allowed to remain over.[94] From this onwards to
the 21st Nisan inclusive, unleavened bread was alone to be eaten, and
hence the period from the 15th to the 21st Nisan was called the days
of unleavened bread. The first and last days, the 15th and the 21st,
were regarded as especially sacred, and servile work was forbidden on
them.[95] During the whole week, holocausts, meat offerings, and sin
offerings were offered daily in the Temple on behalf of the entire
people, as well as offerings presented by individual believers on their
own behalf. The 16th Nisan was marked by an offering of a special kind,
that of the first-fruits of harvest, consisting of the presentation of
a sheaf of ripe barley along with the offering of a yearling lamb.[96]
This offering of the first ripe fruits served also to mark the time when
the Passover was to be celebrated, for, owing to the fact that the Jewish
year did not begin on a fixed date, this had to be in some way determined
by a stated event in the order of nature. In Palestine the barley was
already ripe by March.
Several of the actions prescribed at the offering of this lamb pointed
forward to the atoning death of the Messias, such as the sprinkling of
the doorposts with its blood, in order that the destroying angel might
pass over the house, and the direction that none of the lamb’s bones
were to be broken. There were also several other small particulars which
emphasised and completed the ideal connection between the sacrifice of
the Passover and that of the Cross, as certain Fathers perceived at an
early date.
Isaias, speaking in his prophecy, of the sufferings of the Messias, calls
Him the Lamb chosen by God, who bears the iniquity of others.[97] St
John the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the
sins of the world, and by the writers of the New Testament the same idea
is frequently employed. St John the Evangelist expressly refers to the
typical character of the Passover rites, when he applies the passage, “A
bone of it shall not be broken,”[98] to Christ on the Cross, and sees
its fulfilment in the fact that the soldiers refrained from breaking
His limbs. St Paul declares in general that the sacrifice of Christ
replaces the Passover, and sees a typical signification in the unleavened
bread.[99] It appears, he had no objection to Christians holding a
Passover supper, although, elsewhere he expresses himself strongly
against their continuing to observe Jewish practices, such as Sabbaths
and new moons.[100] As to the Fathers, it is sufficient, to quote Justin
and Tertullian,[101] who in particular see in the fact that the Passover
lamb was transfixed in two pieces of wood arranged cross-wise, a figure
of the Cross in which Christ was stretched. Speaking generally, there
is no doubt the Jewish Passover was taken over into Christianity, and
thereby its typical ceremonies found their true fulfilment.
Apart from the relation of the sacrifice of Christ’s death to the Jewish
Passover, and its dogmatic signification, sentiment and mere human
feeling would have led Christians to regard with reverence the day on
which our Lord, the Founder of the Church, died, and to keep the day
sacred in each succeeded year on which He had offered the sacrifice of
Himself. But for this it was necessary, in the first place, to know on
what day exactly His death had taken place.
For the Jews, this was easy; it was the 15th Nisan in their Calendar,
but for Christians of other countries, it was very difficult. In the
Roman Empire, to which they all belonged, different methods of reckoning
time and different calendars were in use. Since 45 B.C., the Romans
themselves used the revised Julian Calendar, leaving at the same time
perfect freedom to subject nations either to adopt it, or continue their
own methods.[102] Chief among the existing systems were the Egyptian,
the Syro-Macedonian, and the Semitic, each with its own way of dating
the year. The two first systems admitted of being brought into agreement
with the Roman Calendar, with more or less difficulty, since, according
to them, the year began on a fixed date, but with the Jewish Calendar it
was not so, for its was based on the lunar year, and never synchronised
with the solar year as to the beginning of months and years. The Egyptian
year, at the commencement of the Christian era, began on the 29th August,
and consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and five additional
days (ἐπαγόμεναι) belonging to no month. Every fourth year was a
leap-year, namely the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth year, according
to the Julian reckoning. The Syro-Macedonian Calendar commenced with the
autumnal equinox. The Syrians, however, later on, partially adopted the
Julian Calendar in a somewhat modified form.[103] The Egyptian system
of introducing additional days was essentially the same as the Roman,
except that their leap-year was always one year in advance of the Roman
leap-year. To their usual five additional days, they added yet one more,
making a total of six. Consequently the next year, _i.e._ the fourth,
eighth, twelfth, sixteenth, etc., began on the 30th instead of the 29th
August.[104] For reckoning years, the Egyptians made use of the years of
the sovereign’s reign, but as they began the year with the 1st Thoth,
preceding the proclamation of the sovereign’s accession, it often
happened that more years than he was entitled to were set down to one
sovereign, while another who had reigned for less than a year was simply
passed over.[105]
It was extremely difficult for those nations, whose Calendars were
arranged on a different system, to fix the day of Christ’s death by their
own chronology, for the Jewish 15th Nisan might fall on widely different
days, sometimes in March, sometimes in April. How difficult it was to
discover, the days on which the death and resurrection of Christ ought to
be commemorated, will become more obvious from what follows.
3. _The circumstances which led to Easter being a movable Feast_
To the real and historical connection between the Christian Easter and
the Jewish Passover, is due the explanation of a striking peculiarity
in the Church’s year, viz., the movable feasts, of which Easter is the
starting-point. Easter falls on no fixed date, because the Jewish 15th
Nisan, unlike the dates of the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, varied
year by year. The extent and nature of this discrepancy are caused by the
Semitic Calendar. At the commencement of the Christian era, this Calendar
was not only used by the Jews, but also extensively followed in Syria,
Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Armenia, Osrhoëne, and in a great part of
Asia Minor, although other nationalities in these countries kept each to
its own Calendar. Thus, for example, the Greeks in Antioch followed the
Syro-Macedonian Calendar, and so on. Where a mixed population existed in
any place, different Calendars would be found in use.
The special features of the Semitic, or Jewish Calendar, which concern us
in this connection are the following:—
1. The Jewish day ended at sunset, and so the evening hours, from about
six p.m. belonged to the following day. This caused difference in dates,
for what happened according to Roman ideas at ten p.m. for example, was
regarded by the Jews as happening on the following day.
2. The Jewish year was a variable lunar year, _i.e._ it consisted of
twelve months, each of which began with the new moon, the full moon
consequently falling on the 14th of each month. The moon completes her
orbit round the earth in twenty-nine and a half days, or two orbits in
fifty-nine days. The Jewish months, accordingly, varied from twenty-nine
to thirty days alternately (Tischri and Nisan having thirty days), it
being impossible to commence a month in the middle of a day. Thus the
twelve months of the Jewish year make up 354 days. Eleven and a quarter
days were required to make up the length of a solar year. Had this
discrepancy not been rectified in some way, every Jewish month, and the
new year as well, would, in the course of thirty years, have made the
circle of the year. For, if in one year, the 1st Nisan coincided with the
1st March, in the next it would fall on the 12th, and so on.
The Semites brought about the necessary adjustment, not by leap-years,
but by the insertion of an additional month. For example, eight solar
years have a total of 2920 days, not counting the addition days of leap
years. The same number of days make up ninety-nine lunar months, or, in
other words, eight lunar years and three intercalary months, are equal to
eight solar years. Thus, in eight years, three additional months must be
introduced, making the number of days almost equal with the days of eight
solar years, except for a small discrepancy, caused by the additional
day in leap year. When these additional days had reached the number of
thirty, they could be accounted for by the introduction of a further
additional month. In regulating these points, the equinoxes were of the
utmost importance, and, in the second place, the ceremonial oblation of
the first fruits.
If it was evident that the month Nisan would terminate before the vernal
equinox—its beginning and middle had to precede the equinox, as well as
the _quarta decima lunæ_—and if the barley was not in ear by the 14th,
then it was considered the discrepancy had to be set right. This was done
by prolonging the last month of the expiring year, Adar, for twenty-nine
days longer than usual. In other words, an additional month was added to
the year, designated merely as Veadar. This was the intercalary month.
This, happening thrice in eight years, brought the lunar and solar
years into agreement by a very simple expedient. The equinox could be
controlled by help of the Zodiac, for, on the 20th March, the sun enters
Aries, and, on the 23rd September, Libra.
Had the Jews followed out this method scientifically, _i.e._, had the
introduction of the intercalary months followed fixed laws and been
ruled by astronomical observations and calculations, then, though still
difficult, it would have been possible to make the Jewish Calendar
synchronise with others. But the introduction of these additional days
was, so to speak, arbitrary and dependent upon the good pleasure of the
priests. Thus we can never say for certain that such and such a year was
a leap year with the Jews, and accordingly no date in the past can with
certainty be made to synchronise with a date in the Julian or any other
Calendar.[106]
Until their dispersion after the Jewish war in A.D. 70, and even much
later, the Jews reckoned their new moons and leap years, and also the
beginning of each year, not by strictly astronomical data, but by the
method just described. The rule was that the month began with the day on
the evening of which the new moon first became visible, and also that
the passover should be kept when the sun was in Aries.[107] Maimonides,
agreeing with what we have said above, informs us that a second Adar
was interposed if the vernal equinox fell on the 16th Nisan or later.
But it would be a great mistake to think that a scientifically accurate
system, founded on these principles, was employed for calculating the
new moons and leap years, such as would make it possible to bring the
dates of the Jewish year into certain correspondence with the Julian
Calendar. Still we must not think no attempts were made to reduce the
Calendar to order on the basis of some cyclic system, but the caprice of
the Sanhedrin always succeeded in rendering these attempts unavailing.
Ideler (i. 512) shows how the new moons were treated, and Maimonides
tells us that the Sanhedrin was influenced by many considerations in the
choice of leap years. The Talmud preserves a remarkable letter written by
Rabbi Gamaliel, the teacher of St Paul, to the Jews of Babylon and Media,
which may appositely be quoted here. “We herewith inform you that we, in
conjunction with our colleagues, have deemed it necessary to add thirty
days to the year, since the doves (to be offered in sacrifice) are still
too tender, and the lambs (for the passover) too young, and the time of
Abib (the barley harvest) has not arrived.”
This passage may well serve as a warning to those who, whenever they
find a fixed date in ancient Jewish writings, forthwith, with the aid of
lunar tables, transpose it into a date according to the Julian method of
reckoning, and possibly flatter themselves they have found a fixed point
which will form a basis for further calculations.
In consequence of what we have said, it seems natural that Jewish
converts to Christianity in apostolic times in the East should have fixed
the date of Easter by Jewish methods, without departing, in this respect,
from Jewish customs, especially as they formed the majority in the
Church. This was all the more natural since in Syria and in many parts
of Asia Minor, a Calendar drawn up on similar principles to the Semitic,
was in use alongside the Greek (_i.e._ Roman) Calendar. This custom,
however, although retained by the Quartodecimans, was never widespread,
and did not long survive. The principal consideration, which demanded
a departure from Jewish methods, was, that from the Christian point of
view, the Resurrection, and not the day of Christ’s death, formed the
chief feature of the commemoration; the latter, although a day to be had
in remembrance, could not well be kept as a joyous festival. But the
Resurrection took place on the Sunday after the 15th Nisan, and so this
Sunday came to be the chief day of the Christians’ feast.
Through the gradual spread of Christianity in non-Semitic lands in the
West, the necessity must soon have arisen of fixing the day of the
Resurrection by the Julian Calendar, and of deciding according to it the
day on which Easter had to be celebrated. But, as we have said, it is
very difficult to transfer a date from the Jewish to the Julian Calendar,
and, in most cases, quite impossible when the date is that of an event
already long past.
Let us apply all this to the point in question.
If it was asked, “On what day did Christ die?” the answer was, “On the
15th Nisan.” But if it was asked again, “On which day of the Roman
Calendar does the 15th Nisan fall?” the reply must be, “Who can tell? In
one year it may fall in March, in another in April; sometimes on one day
of our Calendar, sometimes on another.”
The reply, “On the 15th Nisan,” conveyed nothing either to the Romans or
to the Egyptians; it was intelligible to the Semites alone. Thus, where
the Semitic Calendar was not understood, it was necessary to fix the day
by some other method. In the choice of methods, the Church of Alexandria,
and, most of all, the Church of Rome, took the lead. The simplest plan
would have been to discover on which day of March or April the 15th Nisan
had fallen in the year of Christ’s death, _i.e._ 782 U.C. But it was
impossible to do this with certainty after a few decades had elapsed.
Another starting-point had to be sought, and this was naturally given by
the spring full moon, _i.e._ the full moon nearest to the vernal equinox,
for the 15th Nisan must fall either on this full moon or thereabouts.
Thus in Rome and Alexandria, all the principles which are in force at the
present day were gradually adopted, _i.e._ Easter is to be celebrated on
the Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. There is
evidence that this rule for determining the date of Easter was followed
in Rome from the time of Pope Sixtus I., possibly even earlier. The
further developments do not concern us here.
Here and there in the West, there was a tendency to commemorate the death
and resurrection of Christ on fixed days in the Julian Calendar—on the
25th and 27th of March, for example—but it never became general. For
the most part, the data for the calculation of Easter were the same as
those employed for calculating the Jewish passover; that is to say, the
full moon on the one hand, and the vernal equinox on the other, Sunday
being introduced as an additional factor in the calculation, since our
Lord had risen on that day of the week. In this way the above rule was
established, and so, in the date of Easter as determined at the present
day, the variable Jewish lunar year has left a trace behind it, and,
also, the connection in which Christianity stands to Judaism receives a
practical expression deserving of being preserved to the end of time.[108]
4. _The Final Settlement of the date of Easter and the Attempts made to
commemorate the day of the Month on which Christ died_
The manner in which the commemoration of our Lord’s passion and death
admitted of being celebrated in agreement with the Jewish Calendar, is
due to the minuteness with which the fourth Evangelist describes the
events of Holy Week.
On the 9th Nisan our Lord arrived at Bethania. The next day, the 10th,
took place the triumphal entry into Jerusalem[109]—Palm Sunday.
11th Nisan, Monday. Curse pronounced on the barren fig-tree,
and second, cleansing of the Temple.
12th Nisan, Tuesday. Conferences between our Lord and the
Pharisees and Sadducees; the widow’s mite; attempts of the
Greeks to see our Lord.
13th Nisan, Wednesday. Judas betrays our Lord to the Chief
Priests.
14th Nisan, Thursday. The Last Supper and the Betrayal.
15th Nisan, Friday. Condemnation and Death of Jesus.[110]
16th Nisan, Sabbath. The body of Jesus in the sepulchre.
17th Nisan, Sunday. The Resurrection.
In this way, these events could be annually commemorated on the same
days in the Jewish Calendar, the day of the week, however, varying, as
it does in the case of the Jewish passover. That this was actually done
is recognised by Isidore of Seville, when he says,[111] “Formerly the
Church kept Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth day of moon, no matter
on what day of the week it fell.” But where the Julian, or even the
Egyptian, Calendar was in force, if a man wished to proceed accurately
in this way, without being tied down to fixed days of the week (_i.e._
Friday for the day of our Lord’s death, and Sunday for the Resurrection),
he would nevertheless have to learn on what day of his own Calendar the
15th Nisan of the Jews fell in the year of our Lord’s death. For it was
quite impossible for him to look for it at one time in March, at another
time in April, according to his own Calendar.
Hence arose a striking divergence at the very beginning, which did not
admit of being adjusted. Obviously, another method for fixing the date
of Easter had to be devised for Gentile converts and for those districts
where the Julian, or, at any rate, a non-Jewish, Calendar was in force.
At the same time, it is also quite credible, because resting on clear
proof, that in Syria and Asia Minor, the Apostles fixed the date of
Easter on Quartodeciman principles, while at Rome and Alexandria another
method obtained from the beginning. Granted that the Roman Church, during
the Apostle’s lifetime, consisted only of converts from Judaism, still
the Jews as a whole were such a small minority in Rome that they must
have conformed to the Roman method of reckoning time, and were probably,
most of them, unfamiliar with the Jewish Calendar. It was different in
Asia Minor where the Jews were very numerous and free to follow their own
customs, and where a Calendar closely allied to the Jewish was used by
the native population.
When the Christians of Asia Minor claimed for this practice the
ordinance of the Apostles, especially St John and St Philip,[112] their
appeal is as much deserving of credit as the claim of the Romans to base
_their_ practice on the ordinance of St Peter. That they actually did so,
we learn from the Festal Letters of St Athanasius,[113] who says: “The
Romans lay claim to a tradition from the Apostle Peter, forbidding to go
beyond the 26th Pharmuthi (the 21st April), on the one hand, and the 30th
Phamenoth (the 26th March), on the other.” Here we have also the limits
of the period within which Easter at that time fell, the 25th March being
reckoned as the day of the vernal equinox.
The Churches which had never followed the Quartodeciman practice,
surpassed the others in number and influence, so much the more as Egypt,
where the Church had been organised by a disciple of St Peter, and also
Greece, were among their number. When strife arose over this point, the
numerically weaker party ought to have yielded, but rather than this,
they separated from the Catholic Church under the form of Ebionitism.
Irenæus traces the opposition of the Roman Church to the Quartodeciman
Easter back to Sixtus I. (116-125). “The Roman Bishops,” he says
according to Eusebius,[114] “neither observed the Passover in this way
themselves, nor allowed those under their authority so to observe it.”
Should the thought here arise in the mind that the Roman practice came
into existence first under Sixtus, it is contradicted by the letter of
Polycrates to Pope Victor where it is said that Rome appealed to the
Apostles Peter and Paul in support of her custom.
The chief reason why the Jewish Quartodeciman practice of the other
Churches finally succumbed, was that Christians desired to commemorate
not merely the day of our Lord’s death alone, which was linked to the
15th Nisan, but also His Resurrection. The Resurrection had a close
connection with His death in point of time, and its commemoration was
already firmly established in apostolic times in the form of Sunday (see
above, p. 5). It was thus impossible to pass over the Sunday, and so
practically an entire week was occupied by the commemoration. The events
of Holy Week given above could not be separated from each other; they
must be kept in connection. The Jews, as Epiphanius[115] remarks in his
polemic against the Audians, keep their passover on a single day, while
the Christians required a whole week for their Easter commemorations. And
so, although they took the date of the Jewish passover as the basis of
their calculations, they nevertheless did not limit the duration of their
feast to that one day. Finally, another point which had weight, was that
the Christians of the fourth century had a fixed idea that the 14th Nisan
must not fall before the vernal equinox.[116]
Along with this generally observed custom of commemorating in the Church
the passion and death of our Lord, repeated attempts were made to
discover and establish a fixed date for the solemnity. Already in the
third century it was thought this had been successfully achieved, and in
Tertullian we find 782 U.C. given as the year of Christ’s death, and the
15th Nisan identified with the 25th March. This date would be incorrect
in any case, even if 782 were really the year of Christ’s death, for in
that year, the Jewish passover could only have fallen on either the 19th
March or the 17th April of the Julian Calendar. Nevertheless the 25th
March met with no small acceptance, being accepted, amongst others, by
Hippolytus, Augustine, and Perpetuus of Tours, who accordingly marked
the 27th March in his Calendar as the true day of the Resurrection. It
appears also in the spurious acts of Pilate. In the Carolingian period
this date constantly occurs in the martyrologies, as, for instance, in
the _Gellonense_ of 804, in that of Corbie of 826, in Wandelbert of Prüm,
in the different recensions of the so-called martyrology of Jerome, and
others. Whether this day was liturgically observed, or had merely an
historic interest, cannot be decided from the Calendars, but the former
is probable.
Finally, it may not be without interest to observe how in subsequent
centuries attempts were made to explain the fact that Easter, unlike
other festivals, was movable. It is conceivable that in course of time,
the true explanation, viz., the connection of the Christian with the
Jewish feast and its consequent dependence on the Jewish Calendar, was
forgotten, and attempts began to be made to account for the fact on other
grounds, typical or otherwise.
After the observance had everywhere become well established, it must
have struck people that the day of our Lord’s death was very differently
commemorated in the Church from the day of His birth, viz. as a movable
feast. Among the questions which Januarius submitted to St Augustine,
there was one bearing on this point. Augustine[117] replied that our
Lord’s birthday was merely a commemorative festival, while Easter had a
mystical connection with the Jewish passover, as also its name is of
Hebrew, not Greek, origin. Easter is the fulfilment of our redemption
which consists in an inward renewal of mankind, and with this idea
of renewal, the first month of the Jewish and ancient Roman year
corresponds. Afterwards, however, Augustine forsakes this safe path and
loses himself in the symbolism of numbers and in forced astronomical
interpretations.
Shorter and more to the point is the explanation given by Martin, Bishop
of Dumio (561-572), who died Bishop of Braga in 580. In his treatise
_De Paschate_,[118] he says many people only add to the confusion by
their unsuccessful attempts to explain why the date of Easter is fixed
by the moon, after the Jewish custom. So, too, the attempts recently
made by many bishops of Gaul to celebrate the Resurrection on a fixed
day (the 25th March) cannot be approved. Now the passion of Christ is
the redemption of the creature. The creation of the world took place in
Spring (c. 4), and, consequently, the renewal of the world must also take
place in Spring, in the first month of the year. Two things had to be
taken into consideration with regard to this festival—the day of the week
and the phase of the moon. In order to be right in both, ecclesiastical
antiquity had appointed that Easter should not be kept before the 23rd
March or after the 21st April (c. 7).
The most important passage in this treatise bearing upon the history of
Easter is the remark that many Gallic bishops about 570 commenced their
celebration of the festival on the 25th March as an immovable feast. This
is also confirmed by Bede,[119] who had a distinctly clearer insight
into the nature of the question, and thus expresses himself concerning
the dispute about Easter. “Originally the Apostles kept Easter on the
full moon in March, on whatever day it fell. After their death different
customs prevailed in different provinces. The Gauls kept the festival
on the 25th of March. In Italy, some fasted twenty days, others seven,
but the Easterns remained faithful to the custom of the Apostles.” To
remedy this state of things, Pope Victor put himself in communication
with Theophilus of Cæsarea, who held a Synod which decided that the
Resurrection should be commemorated on a Sunday, so fixing the day of the
week on which it was to be kept.
5. _The Liturgical Celebration of Holy Week and Easter_
The Christian passover, as originally limited to Holy Week and Easter
Week, was consecrated in the first place to the remembrances of Christ’s
passion, death, and resurrection, and to this the religious ceremonies,
in so far as they differed from the ordinary services, owed their special
character. But, in the second place, it is to be observed that so long
as the Catechumenate remained in existence, and even to some extent
afterwards, Easter was the only season regularly appointed for baptism.
At Easter, the labours of the Catechists came to an end, the course of
preparation was finished, the Catechumens received the sacraments of
baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. To this fact, in the
second place, the Easter services owe much of their special character,
and even now, long after the practice of the Church has changed, rites
connected with the administration of baptism are to be found in the
ritual of the Easter festival. Thus, the consecration of the font on Holy
Saturday, first of all, and then the consecration of the Holy Oils on
Maundy Thursday, must be owing to the fact that they were required for
the administration of Baptism and Confirmation. On this ground, as well
as because of the importance of the feast in itself, it is obvious that
Easter, from the liturgical point of view, is conspicuous among all the
other festivals, and that a number of rites are then performed which are
not repeated in the course of the whole year.[120]
To these rites belong the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday, and
on the Tuesday and Wednesday in Holy Week, the procession on Palm
Sunday, the Consecration of the Holy Oils on Maundy Thursday, the _missa
præsanctificatorum_ on Good Friday. More than the others, Holy Saturday
is conspicuous for a number of rites peculiar to itself, viz.:—
1. The blessing of the fire from which the other lights in the
Church are lit, and the blessing of the five grains of incense
for the pascal candle: both ceremonies being performed outside
before the door of the Church.
2. The procession thence into the Church.
3. The blessing of the pascal candle by the singing of the
_Exsultet_ or _præconium paschale_.
4. The reading of the prophecies from the Old Testament.
5. The blessing of the baptismal font, in which the pascal
candle is employed.
6. The baptism of catechumens, if there are any.
7. The chanting of the Litany of the Saints during the _humi
prostratio_.
8. The mass of Holy Saturday without introit, and with the
threefold Alleluia, _i.e._, instead of Vespers.
9. In many places Easter festivities take place on the evening
of Holy Saturday, but these are not liturgical.
10. On Easter morning, the lifting up of the Crucifix from the
sepulchre; procession, opening of the doors, and entry into the
church. The gospel being St Mark xvi. 1-7.
In the Middle Ages other special ceremonies and forms of rejoicing took
place.
That Easter was the special season for the baptism of those catechumens
whose preparation had extended over the whole of the preceding year,
is made prominent only at a comparatively later date, in special laws,
when the catechumenate was already dying out, as, for example, in the
seventh canon of the Roman Synod of 402, the fourth Canon of Gerunda,
the eighteenth Canon of Auxerre, where it is expressly laid down that
outside the Easter season, baptism must be given to none save the sick.
By the time of the Second Synod of Maçon (585), the custom of baptising
all the year round on any day had already become very common. This Synod,
however, endeavoured to reinstate the ancient custom and also prescribed
rest from work for the whole Easter week.[121] However, as late as the
seventh and eighth centuries, Easter continued to be the regular season
for baptism, at least in Rome, as the so-called scrutinies[122] show,
and even the Synod of Neuching (772), in its eighteenth canon, wished to
restrict baptism to only two dates in the year.[123]
At an early date, Holy Week had already received a special name,
_septimana major_, which appears already in the fourth century,[124] and
which it still retains in liturgical books. The German name (Karwoche)
comes from the old German _chara_ or _kara_, sadness or lamentation, and
served to mark the character of the time, always and everywhere regarded
in the Church as a time of sadness.
The description of the liturgical ceremonies of Holy Week is best
introduced by the account of a pilgrim from Gaul in the fourth century.
To the account of her travels, written between 383 and 394, at the end of
a pilgrimage extending over three years, she added a description of all
that took place during Holy Week in Jerusalem at that period. There, the
Holy places themselves suggested devotional practices which were imitated
throughout the Church, and have partially survived to the present day,
as, for example, the procession of palms and the _adoratio crucis_.
Liturgical scholars, being ignorant of this source of information,
formerly sought the origin of these practices in a wrong quarter: it is
now beyond doubt that they originated in Jerusalem.
To begin with, students of the liturgy used to be divided over the
question when and where the palm procession originated, and various
conjectures were put forth. Binterim thought Bishop Peter introduced
the blessing of palms at Edessa in 397, while Martène, attributed its
origin to the eighth or ninth century. As a matter of fact, not a trace
of the blessing of palms is found in the Gregorian sacramentary.[125] We
shall certainly not be mistaken if we look for the origin of the palm
procession in Jerusalem, for the Gallic pilgrim gives us the following
account: On the Sunday, at the beginning of Holy Week, the usual Sunday
morning services were held in the larger church on Golgotha, then called
the _Martyrium_, but at the seventh hour of the day (about one P.M.) all
the people assembled on the Mount of Olives, where was the cave in which
the Lord used to teach. There for two hours, hymns and antiphons were
sung and lections from the Scriptures were read. At the ninth hour, they
ascended to the summit, whence the Lord ascended to heaven. Here again,
hymns were sung, lections suitable to the place and day were read, and
prayers were offered up. At the seventh hour, when the gospel account
of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem had been read, all rose up, and with
branches of palm or olive in their hands, and, singing _Benedictus qui
venit_, proceeded from the hill down into the city, and continued their
procession until they reached the Church of the Anastasis where vespers
were sung, and an _oratio ad crucem_ offered up.[126]
It was quite in keeping with the dramatic character of Catholic worship
to represent, in some marked way, Christ’s memorable entry into Jerusalem
at the last passover. On the very scene of the event especially, one
was, so to speak, drawn on to do so without any special exercise of the
inventive faculty being required.
However, we must follow the pilgrim’s description to the end. On Tuesday,
there was another procession to the Mount of Olives, where the Bishop
read the gospel, St Mark xxv. 3 _et seqq._ On Wednesday, the account of
the treason of Judas was read as the gospel, and during it, the people
wept and lamented. On Maundy Thursday, the psalmody began at cock-crow;
at four P.M.,[127] mass was said in the _Martyrium_ by the Bishop, at
which the people communicated. Towards seven o’clock in the evening, the
people assembled in the Eleona, as the church which then stood on the
Mount of Olives was called, and, towards eleven o’clock, ascended to the
summit of the mount, praying and singing. This lasted until cock-crow the
following day. Then, about three A.M., the assembly broke up and a start
was made for the Garden of Gethsemani, where they found the beautiful
church lit up by two hundred lamps. Here the bishop said a prayer; a
suitable psalm followed, and then the reading of the gospel, St Matt.
xxvi. 41 _et seqq._, which narrates the capture of Christ in Gethsemani.
Then the procession slowly descended the mount into the city, and passed
on until it reached the place of the crucifixion. Here the gospel
narrative of Christ’s trial was read: the bishop addressed the people
and dismissed them with an exhortation to return about seven o’clock,
for the adoration of the Holy Cross. Whereupon, the people proceeded to
Mount Sion to pray at the column of the flagellation, and then returned
to their homes.
At seven o’clock, the bishop took his seat on his throne in the chapel of
the Holy Cross. Before him was placed a table covered with a white linen
cloth, round which the deacons took up their position. Then the silver
shrine containing the wood of the Holy Cross was brought in. It was
opened and the Holy Cross itself, along with the inscription (_titulus_)
laid upon the table. The faithful and catechumens approached, knelt,
kissed the Cross, and touched it with their forehead and eyes, but
not with their hands. In this way, they passed by, one by one, while
the deacons kept watch. Then the deacons exhibited also to the people
Solomon’s ring and the horn with which the Jewish kings used to be
anointed: these also were kissed.
At the sixth hour, noon, the service proceeded in the following manner.
The people assembled in the open court between the chapel of the Holy
Cross and the Church of the Anastasis; the bishop took his seat on the
throne, and then lections from the Scriptures were read continuously,
until the ninth hour. These related to the passion, and were taken from
the Old Testament, from the psalms and prophets, as well as from the New
Testament. At the ninth hour, the passage from St John xix. 30, which
speaks of the death of Jesus, was read and the assembly was dismissed.
The service was then immediately resumed in the chief church (the
_Martyrium_), and continued until the reading of the passage (St John
xix. 38), describing the descent from the Cross, and then again a prayer
was recited and the blessing of the catechumens took place. With this,
the service for the day concluded and the people were dismissed. The
younger clerics, however, remained throughout the night watching in the
church.
With regard to the liturgy for Good Friday, the pilgrim found that the
ceremonies she saw in Jerusalem differed not at all from what she was
familiar with in her own country. She only observes that the baptised
children were conducted by the bishop first to the Church of the
Resurrection and then to the principal church (the _Martyrium_).[128]
This is the earliest complete description of the ceremonies of Holy Week
which we possess. We now pass to the usages of a later date.
PALM SUNDAY
The Sunday next before Easter is commonly called Palm Sunday (_Dominica
in ramis palmarum_, Gr. κυριακὴ τῶν βαΐον). At an earlier date it was
also called _Dominica competentium_, because on it catechumens requested
baptism. In some sacramentaries it is called _in capitilavio_,[129] from
the washing and shaving of the head in preparation for baptism.
Among the characteristic ceremonies of this day, is the procession, at
which branches of palm, or of some other similar tree, are carried. In
the Middle Ages, this was fairly common; not so, however, the blessing
of the palms.[130] In the Roman ritual, this blessing is performed with
much ceremony. It resembles in form the _ordo missæ_, consisting of an
introit, collect, epistle, gospel, another prayer and a preface, followed
by the actual blessing comprising five more prayers, sprinkling with holy
water and incensation. Upon this, the procession starts, which passes out
of the church, the doors of which are then closed. They are reopened when
the deacon has knocked with the staff of the processional cross, and the
procession enters, recalling the entry of our Lord through the gates of
Jerusalem. In the Mass which follows, the Passion according to St Matthew
is read or sung.
In the oldest Roman sacramentaries, however, nothing is found relating
to the blessing and procession of palms, but the ritual for them is
minutely described in the Ordos, xii. c. 9 (of Cencio Savelli), and
xv. c. 53 _et seq._ These clearly belong to the Middle Ages. The first
trace of the practice of holding palm-branches during divine service,
as far as the rituals of the Roman Church are concerned, is found in
the later recension of the Gregorian sacramentary used in Gaul in the
ninth and tenth centuries. Among the prayers for the day is found one
for the blessing, not of the palms, but of those who carried them. In
the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries, the Sunday is at any rate
called _Dominica in Palmas_, but only in the title. It seems as if people
were satisfied at first with holding palms during the Mass, and that the
palm procession only took shape later. In the Gotho-Gallican missal,
the Sunday has no special name and no mention is made of palms. On the
other hand, the name appears in the lectionaries of Silos and Luxeuil.
Everything points to the blessing of the palms, and, probably, also the
procession, having become customary in the second half of the ninth
century.[131] Isidore of Seville[132] is familiar with the name _dies
palmarum_, but not with the procession. Amalarius,[133] on the contrary,
mentions the custom of carrying palm branches through the church and of
shouting Hosanna.
There was, however, a rite, universally observed on Palm Sunday, which
had reference to the administration of baptism. As is well known, the
catechumens in primitive times were instructed in Christian doctrine
during Lent, and even for a longer period. The instruction of catechumens
and the solemn administration of baptism took place only once a year.
The former began eight weeks before Easter, and ended with the baptism
which was administered on Easter Eve. The concluding part of this course
of instruction was composed of the so-called mystagogical instructions
treating of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the three sacraments of
baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. The words of the Creed,
so the _disciplina arcani_ enjoined, were the last, not the first thing
to be imparted. The catechumens learnt the Creed for the first time on
Palm Sunday. This was the custom in Spain,[134] Gaul,[135] Milan,[136]
probably also in Rome. There seems, however, to have been divergences
as to the choice of the day, for it was necessary, at any rate in Gaul,
to enjoin uniformity, since the Synod of Agde (506) prescribes in its
thirteenth canon: In every diocese, the Creed shall be imparted in church
to the catechumens on one and the same day, _i.e._ eight days before
Easter Sunday. This ceremony was called the _traditio symboli_.
The manner in which this was done is fully described in the Gelasian
sacramentary, although at that date the catechumenate, strictly speaking,
no longer existed. After some introductory remarks from the priest, an
acolyte rehearsed the Creed to the candidates for baptism, who were
exhorted to impress it on their minds and hearts.[137] The rite, at all
events, was the same as in earlier times. In the Gregorian sacramentary
these practices are already omitted. A similar practice was followed with
regard to the Our Father. It was first taught _verbatim_ to the baptised
after their baptism.[138] This ceremony formed the chief characteristic
of the Sunday next before Easter, in service-books in which the name Palm
Sunday was as yet unknown. Accordingly, in the Gallican missal the Mass
for the day is called, _Missa in Traditio Symboli_.
During the Middle Ages, in various places, and especially in Germany,
Christ’s entry into Jerusalem was represented in a somewhat naïve manner
by carrying round in the procession a wooden figure representing the
Saviour seated on an ass. Afterwards it was brought into the Church and
placed in a conspicuous position. While suitable hymns were being sung,
the clergy and people venerated it on their knees, and there it remained
for the rest of the day. Figures of the so-called “Palmesel” are still
numerous in museums, as, for example, at Basel, Zurich, Munich, Nürnberg,
etc.
MAUNDY THURSDAY
The fifth day of Holy Week, the day on which Christ partook of the last
Passover with His disciples and instituted the memorial of His Passion,
is generally called _Cœna Domini_ in service-books. The Greeks, however,
call it merely ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη πέμπτη, the Great and Holy Thursday.
In the Calendar of Polemius Silvius is found, under the 24th March, the
remarkable note _Natalis Calicis_. This is owing to the fact that at that
period the 25th March was regarded as the day of Christ’s death, and the
27th as the day of His resurrection. The day of the institution of the
Holy Eucharist and of the Sacrifice of the Mass was not passed over in
even such an imperfect list of the Church’s festivals as that contained
in this Calendar. The day had something of a festival character belonging
to itself. Indeed, among the Copts it appears as a regular festival.
The name _Natalis Calicis_ seems to have been common in southern and
western Gaul, for it is found in Avitus of Vienne, and in Eligius of
Noyon, in the sixth and seventh centuries. The same writers mark the day
as a festival, _sollemnitas_, on which those who had been put to public
penance were everywhere received back into the Church, and on which the
Chrism was consecrated.[139]
The most unlikely of the many attempts to explain the German name for the
day is that which connects it with St Luke xxiii. 31, and makes the name,
Green Thursday, signify that the withered branches, sinners, by their
reception again into the bosom of the Church once more grow green.[140]
Apart from the fact that this interpretation is far-fetched, it savours
too much of the study to have ever given rise to the name among the
common people. The fact is that red vestments were worn at the reception
of the penitents on Maundy Thursday, but green vestments at the Mass,
and this gave rise to the name.[141] The older service-books, however,
drawn up before liturgical colours had been introduced and their use
had become regulated, do not specify the colour for the vestments, but
content themselves with prescribing the use of festal vestments (_vestes
sollemniores_) in general. Later on, the Roman custom of wearing white
vestments on this day became general.[142]
It was only to be expected that the Church should keep with special
solemnity the day on which Christ had celebrated the last passover with
His apostles, and had instituted the mystery of His Body and Blood. In
fact, Holy Saturday alone of the days of Holy Week can vie with it in
this respect. It frequently ranks as a Church festival, and is expressly
called a _sollemnitas_.[143]
The ritual directions for Maundy Thursday, of which we possess a
considerable number dating from the Middle Ages, naturally begin with
the Psalmody. This began at midnight, and its distinguishing feature
was, that the lights lit at its commencement did not remain burning,
but were extinguished, one at a time, after each psalm, until, at the
concluding prayers, the church was in total darkness. The number of
candles varied in different places, between fifteen, twenty-four, thirty,
and thirty-four.[144] Such was the “dark mattins,” _tenebræ_.
The second characteristic ceremony of the day was the reconciliation of
the penitents. These had to remain prostrate on the ground while the
Miserere and other prayers were recited over them and their absolution
pronounced. On this occasion, as we have remarked above, red vestments
were worn. The reconciled penitents were admitted to communion with the
rest of the congregation at the Mass which followed.
This Mass was of a festal character, and, in many places, in primitive
times, two Masses were celebrated, one at the usual hour in the morning,
and the other towards evening at the time of vespers. In other places,
on the contrary, there was only one Mass, at which all the faithful
communicated.[145] These different customs in course of time became a
cause of astonishment and offence, and so Bishop Januarius enquired of
St Augustine what ought to be done. The reply was, that each ought to
follow the custom of his own diocese. In Rome also, at the period when
the Gelasian sacramentary was in use, two Masses were still celebrated,
for the sacramentary gives a _Missa ad Vesperum_.[146] The same authority
notices only the reconciliation of penitents and the consecration of
the Holy Oils among the other ceremonies performed on Maundy Thursday.
The Gregorian sacramentary gives only the latter, as also does Ordo I.,
the earliest of the sixteen ancient Roman ordos.[147] In liturgical
writings relating to our subject which belong to the Middle Ages,
especially in the pseudo-Alcuin, the consecration of the Holy Oils is
given at considerable length.[148] St Cyprian had already spoken of the
consecration of oil required for ritual purposes without saying on what
day it took place.[149]
At the conclusion of the Mass, the altar was washed by the bishop or
officiating priest, and, in the afternoon, the washing of the feet was
performed, at which the Superior washed the feet of his subjects, or the
bishop the feet of twelve old men representing the twelve apostles. In
the Middle Ages, the usual name for this ceremony was _Mandatum_.[150]
The washing of the altar and the consecration of the Chrism is spoken of
by Isidore of Seville.[151] In the later Middle Ages, to these ceremonies
was added the reading of the Bull in _Cœna Domini_, containing a list of
errors condemned by the Church under pain of excommunication. The reading
of this Bull continued from the fourteenth to the end of the eighteenth
century.
Finally, in some countries, the public ceremonial recitation of the
Creed by the catechumens (_redditio symboli_) was prescribed for Maundy
Thursday, as by the forty-sixth canon of the Synod of Laodicea, and by
the sixty-eighth Trullan canon. This, however, in Rome, was done on
Holy Saturday by each person in turn from some conspicuous place in the
church.[152]
GOOD FRIDAY
The day of our Lord’s Passion was universally regarded as a day of
mourning—“_dies amaritudinis_,” St Ambrose calls it, “on which we
fast.”[153] A fast day, on liturgical principles, can never be a
festival, though, _vice versâ_, a festival can fall on a fixed day of
fasting or abstinence, as, for example, the Annunciation.
When, at an early date, the Roman emperor made a law forbidding the
Courts to sit on Good Friday, this did not make it a festival. On the
contrary, the Church Order of the period of Constantine expressly
declares that “both it and Holy Saturday are days of sorrow, and not
feasts.”[154] Accordingly, there was enjoined upon all whose health
enabled them to observe it, an unbroken fast lasting over the two days,
directly based upon St Mark ii. 20. For, as the eighth canon of the
fourth Synod of Toledo says, “The whole Church is wont to spend Good
Friday in fasting and sorrow, on account of our Lord’s Passion.” There
is scarcely any other point on which such liturgical agreement exists
in all lands and in all periods of Christian antiquity as on this. The
above-named Synod mentions with reprobation a mistaken expression of
grief, _i.e._ in many places the churches were shut up for the whole day,
and no services, neither divine office nor sermon, were held (seventh
canon). The Synod does not blame the omission of Mass, for this was
universal. This sentiment of sorrow was outwardly manifested, after the
introduction of liturgical colours, by the fact that on Good Friday,
black vestments were worn.[155] In the Middle Ages, discussion arose over
the question why the days of the saints’ deaths were kept as festivals,
but Good Friday as a day of mourning. The monk Helperich, who lived at St
Gall at the end of the ninth century, replied; Christ, unlike the saints,
attained to no higher degree of glory through His death. He died not for
His own sake but for us. The Jews, His enemies, rejoiced over His death,
but the apostles bewailed and lamented.[156]
It may be observed here that in Würtemburg, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Reuss ä.
L., Altenburg, and Lippe, Good Friday is one of the days of penitence and
prayer, but, on the other hand, wherever Calvinism is in the ascendent,
the dogmatic significant of the day, as the day of our redemption has
been partially changed. There it ranks as a Church festival, and in other
respects is given up to excursions and entertainments, just as if someone
would pass the day of his father’s death in rejoicings, because a rich
inheritance had fallen to him.
The Good Friday services began at night with mattins, at which the lights
were extinguished in the same manner as on the previous day. In addition,
the low tone in which the devotions were pitched, and the omission of the
_Gloria Patri_ at the end of the psalms, gave outward expression to the
sentiment of sorrow.
The liturgy proper to Good Friday, according to the rite now in use,
begins with the prostration (_humi prostratio_) of the celebrant on the
steps of the altar. Then, without their title being given out, follow
lections from the prophets, in which the death of the Messias and its
virtue were foretold. These sufferings themselves are described in
the words of the Passion according to St John, which are said or sung
immediately afterwards. Then follow the general intercessions, at the
conclusion of which, the Host, consecrated on the previous day, is
brought to the altar from the place where it has been reserved. The
paternoster is then sung followed by the elevation of the Host and the
communion of the celebrant. This _missa præsanctificatorum_ is nothing
more than an elaborate rite of communion. It is preceded by the _Adoratio
Crucis_, and followed by the laying of the Cross in the sepulchre, which
dates from about the tenth century.
At an earlier period, the ceremonies were simpler, and even restricted
to psalmody, for Innocent I., says,[157] that in his time, generally
speaking, Mass was not celebrated on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.
This is still the custom among the Greeks and Russians. Their Good
Friday service consists of the singing of psalms and the veneration of
a representation of our Lord on the Cross, similar to our _adoratio
crucis_. At the evening service, that is, a painted, not carved,
representation of the dead Christ is brought in and venerated.[158]
These expressions must be taken quite literally, in the sense that on
Good Friday not even the _missa præsanctificatorum_ was celebrated, nor
the now usual Mass on the morning of Holy Saturday. For the Gelasian
sacramentary gives no Mass for either of these days but only the
various prayers, so too the old Gallic missal,[159] and the same must
be understood when we hear of the Churches in parts of Spain not being
opened on Good Friday. Sermons, however, were preached on Good Friday,
for we possess several of Leo I., and Gregory the Great preached on this
day. It is difficult to say what was the custom as to Holy Communion.
In France, the people seem to have communicated, but not in Rome or in
Germany; at least Rabanus Maurus is silent on the point.[160]
According to the evidence afforded by the ancient service-books, it may
be conjectured that the adoption of the _missa præsanctificatorum_, as
well as the striking insertion of the Greek passages in the Reproaches,
is due to Greek influence. That alterations were made at a considerably
later date in these parts of the rite will be noticed elsewhere.
With regard to the service-books of the Roman Church in particular, we
find a rubric in the Gelasian sacramentary, directing that the Holy
Cross be placed on the altar, and then that the priests and attendant
clerics take their position at the altar in silence and begin the solemn
intercessions for the whole Church, for all estates of men, etc.; the
intercessions being prefaced by the summons to kneel (_flectamus genua_).
The genuflection seems at that time to have been made also before the
prayer for the Jews, for the rubric directs the deacon to proceed “_ut
supra_.”[161] The prayers are the well-known Good Friday prayers.
There is no mention at this point of the _Adoratio Crucis_, but at the
conclusion of the intercessions, the sacred Species, in both kinds, which
had been consecrated the previous day were brought from the sacrarium by
the deacons and placed on the altar. The priest consumed them, having
first adored and kissed the Cross. Whereupon all present adored the Cross
and communicated. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that the
Gelasian sacramentary does not represent the Roman rite in its purity,
but embellished with numerous Gallican additions, which probably owe
their origin to Alcuin or his contemporaries. The same is true of the
edition of the Gregorian sacramentary employed in France.
In this last we find the general intercessions recurring twice in Holy
Week, on Wednesday and again on Good Friday,[162] but they are not
placed at the beginning of the liturgy, as they are in the Gelasian
sacramentary. After the bishop has taken his seat, the tract, _Domine
audivi_, a lection from the Scriptures, and then another tract followed
in succession. The Passion according to St John came next, and then the
prayers in question. At their conclusion the altar was stripped. The
solemn adoration of the Cross before the altar by clergy and people
took place at the time of vespers, and, during it, the antiphon, _Ecce
lignum crucis_, was sung. The _missa præsanctificatorum_ proceeded in
essentially the same manner as at present, except that the elevation is
not expressly mentioned. The altar remained bare from the afternoon of
Maundy Thursday until Good Friday morning. The Gregorian sacramentary in
its original form knew nothing of these rites. It proscribed nothing more
for Good Friday than the nine prayers still in use and a blessing of the
catechumens.
A full description of the whole ritual for Holy Week is to be found in
the first of the ancient Roman Ordos edited by Mabillon, which gives
both the psalmody and the special ceremonies. Mabillon attributes
this ordo to the ninth century.[163] According to it, the psalmody
began at midnight. As on the previous day, the candles were gradually
extinguished, and the sad character of the service was indicated by
the low tone taken for the prayers and by the omission of the _Gloria
Patri_. The consecrated Host was brought back from the place where it
had been reserved the day before, and the _missa præsanctificatorum_
commenced. This consisted of preface, Our Father, the prayer _Libera
me_, the pax, and communion of the people. This last is omitted from the
existing Roman rite. The adoration of the Cross preceded the Mass, as at
present. In monasteries a procession took place within the cloister. The
ceremonies of the Mass here described agree in all essential points with
the Frankish edition of the Gregorian sacramentary, as, for instance,
in the recitation of the _orationes sollemnes_ on both Wednesday and
Good Friday. Thus the earlier liturgical services for Good Friday were
replaced in the ninth century by an elaborate ritual, which agrees in all
important respects with that in use at the present day.[164]
HOLY SATURDAY
This too is a day of mourning, as appears also from the fact that, in the
Eastern Church, it is numbered among the fast days, although originally
in the East no Saturday was kept as a fast. But the sadness of the day is
already modified by the approach of the Resurrection, and the Alleluia,
which has not been heard since Septuagesima, is sung again at the
Mass.[165]
The solemnity begins, as on the preceding days, with the night office,
at which the lights are again extinguished. This custom is very ancient,
but the use of the triangle with the _lumen Christi_ is of later
introduction.[166]
Mediæval writers begin their description of the other ceremonies with
the blessing of the fire, which, even then, was performed early in the
morning. Concerning the origin of this rite, it has been held that it
took place not only on Holy Saturday, but every evening at Vespers.[167]
Still the evidence for this is not sufficiently strong, and, on the other
hand, this rite harmonises in an especial way with Holy Saturday as the
appointed date for the administration of baptism, for which a favourite
name was illumination (_illuminatio_, φωτισμός). The name _illuminandi_
was common also for those about to be baptised.
To the same association of ideas, the Paschal candle certainly owes
its origin. It is not yet clear where we are to look for the origin of
this custom. In Spain, there is evidence to show that the blessing of a
candle or lamp (_lucerna_) on Easter night was common. The fourth synod
of Toledo (633), in its ninth canon, recommends the adoption of this
practice to the churches of Galicia. The Paschal candle is a symbol of
Christ, and is blessed through the chanting of the _præconium paschale_
or _Exsultet_, a grand song of triumph, said to have been composed by St
Augustine. This candle, placed in its own candlestick near the altar, is
lit at High Mass throughout Eastertide. Two prefaces for its blessing are
found in the writings of Bishop Ennodius of Pavia († 521), and mediæval
liturgical writers generally attribute the blessing of the Paschal candle
to Pope Zosimus.[168]
At an earlier period, the special ceremonies of Holy Saturday commenced
in the afternoon, the forenoon being devoted to decorating the church
and preparing for the festival.[169] These ceremonies are, the blessing
of the Paschal candle, the lections from the Old Testament, and the
blessing of the baptismal font, all of which are only preparatory to the
solemn administration of baptism. As has been said, these ceremonies
only commenced towards evening and continued into the night, which was
observed as a vigil (_pervigilium paschale_). When they were concluded,
the neophytes were baptised, and then, also in the night, followed the
Mass of the day. To this the newly baptised, along with the people and
clergy, proceeded in a solemn procession from the baptistery, when there
was one, to the principal church. The Emperor Constantine allowed the
streets and squares of the capital to be illuminated on this night.
He himself as a catechumen passed the night in prayer in his private
chapel, and hallowed the Easter festival by the bestowal of rich alms.
The Mass is entitled in the service-books, _in vigilia paschæ_. Since it
came after midnight, the Alleluia could be sung at it. This arrangement
as regards the time of the Mass still held good in the eleventh century,
for Rupert of Deutz (_De div. Off._, 7, 11) still speaks of it as being
the established practice, and only later on were the above-mentioned
ceremonies and the Mass transferred to the afternoon of Saturday, the
Alleluia thus coming before its time. Upon this followed the psalmody
of Easter, which had to be made as short as possible on account of the
length of these ceremonies. Sermons also were usually short at Easter,
for the same reason.[170]
In the early centuries, the Roman rite was much simpler. The festival
commenced with the recitation of the creed by the candidates for baptism
and a prayer by the Pope over them. Then followed the other preparations
for baptism, the renunciations, four lessons from the Old Testament,
the singing of Psalm xli., two prayers, the blessing of the baptismal
water, the baptism itself, and the confirmation of the baptised. The Mass
concluded the function.[171]
We must now see what special features the other liturgical documents
contained. In the _missale Gallicanum_,[172] we find, after the prayers
for each of the hours, the _Exsultet_, and the blessing of the Paschal
candle, then the general intercessions for all estates of Christian
men, concluding with intercessions for the neophytes and _competentes_.
Upon this follows the baptismal rite (_opus ad baptizandum_), viz., the
exorcisms, the blessing of the baptismal water, the washing of the feet,
and the baptism itself. Then come the prayers for the Mass. The rite in
the _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_ is exactly the same.[173]
The Gelasian sacramentary prescribes the following rite for Holy
Saturday: Early in the morning, the exorcisms shall be made over the
catechumens, and, after they have made their solemn renunciations, they
shall repeat the creed (_redditio symboli_). About the eighth hour, the
clergy shall assemble in the _sacrarium_, commence the litanies there,
and proceed to the altar; at the _Agnus Dei_, the Paschal candle is to
be lighted and blessed, but without the chanting of the _Exsultet_. Then
the lections from the Old Testament are read, each with a prayer, and
after them takes place the blessing of the font and the baptism of the
neophytes.
According to the edition of the Gregorian sacramentary used in France,
the clergy and people assemble in the church about the eighth hour,
_i.e._ about 2 P.M., according to present reckoning. Two candles were
then lit, which were held by notaries, one on the right, the other on
the left of the altar; while a lector from the pulpit read the Old
Testament lections, each of which concluded with a prayer. Thereupon the
clergy and the bishop proceeded in procession, the notaries with the
candles leading the way, to the baptistery, where the baptismal water was
blessed. After the blessing of the water, which was the same as that now
in use, the baptism followed, at which it is to be observed a distinction
is made between children and those who are grown up. The former were
confirmed also immediately after baptism, the ritual and significance
of confirmation being here clearly shown.[174] After the baptism, the
litanies are sung in the church by singers, who then intoned the _Gloria
in Excelsis_. The Mass of the day brought the function to a close.
Just as the Church marked the anniversary of the dedication of a church
and of ordination by a special festival, so was the anniversary of their
baptism a day of joy and thanksgiving for the baptised. It was also a
day for renewing their baptismal vows, and for serious self-examination.
The Church provided for this inasmuch as she was accustomed to celebrate
this anniversary, and appointed a special Mass for it. It was called the
_pascha annotina_.[175] A festival of this nature had a _raison d’être_
only so long as it was customary to baptise people when they were grown
up. When it became general to baptise little children immediately after
their birth, this festival fell out of use. The _pascha annotina_,
however, appears in the _Homilarium_ compiled by Paul the Deacon by
command of Charlemagne, about 785-90, and in the Sacramentary of Essen,
composed between 850 and 874.
EASTER AND THE EASTER OCTAVE
If one wishes to form a correct idea of the festival of Easter, one must
always bear in mind its close connection with the solemn administration
of baptism. The preliminary ceremonies began on Saturday afternoon and
lasted throughout the night. When the number to be baptised was very
large, the administration of baptism and the Easter festival could be
combined. This connection was lost at only quite a late date, in days
when all remembrance of the grounds for it had died out, and people had
no longer any idea of the catechumenate. The chief and most striking
ceremonies were then transferred to the forenoon, and it is much to be
regretted that, in those centuries, no creative force was forthcoming
to form something in keeping with the altered conditions of the time.
Owing to the alteration in the hour, many of the ceremonies are rendered
meaningless.
The interval thus produced was occupied by the festival commemoration of
the Resurrection, and by a great procession. The latter can easily be
traced back to the solemn procession of the catechumens and clergy from
the baptistery to the cathedral, which took place in primitive times
after baptism. It was probably ignorance of this custom which led later
writers to trace the origin of this procession to the words of Christ to
His disciples: “I will go before you into Galilee” (St Matt. xxvi. 32;
xxviii. 16),[176] directing them to go to Galilee after His resurrection.
The Easter ceremonies varied in different countries and in different
dioceses. The earliest mention of them appears in the _Ordo Romanus_
belonging to the thirteenth century which goes by the name of Cardinal
James Cajetan.[177] It would lead us too far from our subject to describe
them and the other customs formerly observed on Easter Day; besides,
such special points of ritual are better dealt with in connection with
the liturgy itself. We shall here only mention the blessing of food,
especially those kinds of food which, after having been forbidden in
Lent, again become lawful, such as flesh meat in particular, eggs,
cheese, butter, and other things as well. The original object of this
blessing of food was plainly to check the tendency to over-indulgence
which might assert itself after a prolonged period of self-denial.[178]
We must now return to the account of the Gallic pilgrim. She speaks of
processions to the different churches and to the Mount of Olives as
having taken place in Jerusalem not only on Easter Day, but on the other
days of the octave as well. She finds no other points to notice in which
the customs at Jerusalem differed from those observed at her own home.
On the Saturday and Sunday after Easter, the narrative of St Thomas’s
unbelief formed the Gospel, as at the present day.[179]
With regard to the Easter octave, the two first days rank as festivals
of the first class. On Monday, the supper at Emmaus is commemorated, the
Gospel being St Luke xxiv. 13-35; on Tuesday, the appearance of our Lord
and His apostles, narrated in St Luke xxiv. 36-47; on Wednesday, His
appearance by the Sea of Tiberias to Peter and the others, as they were
fishing, St John xxi. 1-14; on Thursday, His appearance in the garden
to Mary Magdalen, St John xx. 11-18; on Friday, His appearance on the
mountain in Galilee, St Matt. xxviii. 16-20; on Saturday, the Gospel
contains the account of the first appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalen
immediately after His resurrection, St John xx. 1-9.
The following Sunday forms the conclusion of the Easter octave, and,
accordingly, was formerly called simply _octava paschæ_, or _pascha
clausum_, later it was called White Sunday, _dominica in albis_, _scil._
_deponendis_, because the neophytes wore their white baptismal garments
until this day. When Easter ceased to be the day for baptisms, it was
appointed, as being in harmony with White Sunday, that children should
receive their first communion, and renew their baptismal vows. Rabanus
Maurus[180] further observes that in his time confirmation was given on
White Sunday. The prayers during the Easter octave contain references
to the two great sources of festal gladness, the resurrection of our
Lord and the increase in the number of the faithful. The prayers for the
third, fifth, and sixth ferias are specially concerned with the latter,
while the Gospels throughout are occupied with the appearances of our
Lord after His resurrection to His disciples. The Epistles, however, are
either for the most part taken from the Acts, or describe that spiritual
renewal of mankind which follows upon the work of redemption. The prayers
for the whole octave, with the exception of two on Monday, are the same
at the present day as those in the Gregorian sacramentary.[181] For
the following Sundays, until Whitsunday, they only occasionally agree
with the prayers of this sacramentary, being taken bodily, with two
unimportant exceptions, from the Gelasian. The Sundays lead up to the
fulfilment of Christ’s redemptive work and His return to the Father.
The Gospels from the third to the fifth are accordingly taken from the
sixteenth chapter of St John.
Right in the middle of the period anciently called _quinquagesima_, that
is to say on the twenty-fifth day after Easter, or, in other words, on
the Wednesday of the fourth week after Easter, the event recorded in St
John vii. 1 was formerly commemorated in certain churches. In the midst
of the feast of Tabernacles, Christ went up into the Temple and taught
(St John vii. 14). On the last day of the feast, He stood in the Temple
and cried, referring to the usual libation of the Jews on this day,[182]
“If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink” (v. 37). On this day,
in the Eastern Churches, the rite of blessing the waters still takes
place, which is not to be confused with that which is performed on the
6th January, in honour of the baptism of Jesus in Jordan (_missa aquæ_).
This commemoration is called by the Greeks μεσοπεντεκοστή, _festum mediæ
pentecostes_. The name, as we have already observed, belongs to the
oldest ecclesiastical terminology, according to which Pentecost meant not
Whitsunday but the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday.[183]
6. _The Preparation for Easter—Quadragesima and the Fast_
The chief festivals are usually preceded by a time of preparation,
consisting in many cases of only a single day, the vigil, but the
preparation for Easter extends over nine weeks, and is composed of two
parts, Lent, the more immediate preparation, and the three preceding
Sundays, as a more distant and merely liturgical preparation.
In Lent, it is the fast which plays the chief part, and presents itself
as the essential feature of the whole time of preparation. From it, also,
the other developments take their rise.[184]
There are indications that, in the earliest times, Christians fasted on
all Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. This pious custom seems
to have been so generally observed that, without having been enjoined
by any formal enactment, it had, so to speak, the force of law. It is
mentioned in the Didaché, in Hermas, and by Tertullian.[185] The latter
calls these fasts “station-fasts,” and mentions that the fast lasted
until 3 P.M. The custom had possibly been adopted from the Jews, for the
Pharisees and Jewish ascetics in the time of Christ were wont to fast
twice a week, on Monday and Thursday.[186]
With regard to the East, Clement of Alexandria mentions[187] Wednesday
and Friday as fast days, and, which is especially remarkable, these days
were also so observed in the period after Constantine, at least for a
great part of the year. The _Didascalia_ enjoins that these days be kept
as fasts in the time after Whitsunday. The preceding season, the fifty
days between Easter and Whitsunday, was a season of unmixed gladness, and
so, according to the _Didascalia_, in Whitsun Week, these days were not
fasts. We are led to the conjecture that this custom fell out of use in
proportion as fasting became otherwise regulated, and the fast of forty
days before Easter became a general law.
That fasting should form an essential feature in the commemoration of
Passion-tide had already been indicated in our Lord’s words (St Matt.
ix. 15): “Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the
bridegroom is with them?” To which question He Himself replied, “The days
will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then
shall they fast.” The days when the Bridegroom was taken away were held
from the first to be those in which He lay in the grave, Good Friday and
Holy Saturday. In the earliest times, these days were everywhere kept as
fasts, and were observed by all, with exception of the quartodecimans, as
obligatory fasts of the strictest kind.[188]
This fact is supported by a remark of St Irenæus, in an official letter
addressed to Pope Victor (189-99), on the occasion of the second dispute
about Easter. It is given, for the most part, by Eusebius in his history
of the Church.[189] This is the earliest evidence for the fast before
Easter. It shows that the practice had not yet received a fixed and
special form. Some, for instance, thought only one day ought to be kept
as a fast, Good Friday; others fasted for two days, Good Friday and Holy
Saturday—the two days, as Tertullian says, on which the Bridegroom was
taken away. Others again fasted for more than two days (unfortunately, it
is not said for how many), and others reckoned as their fast day, forty
consecutive hours. That is to say, they kept a continuous fast for forty
hours night and day, and regarded this as their fast day.[190] Which
these forty hours were is easy to say, for our Lord lay in the grave
for about forty hours, from the afternoon of Good Friday until Easter
morning, or from Good Friday morning to the evening of Saturday.
Irenæus and Tertullian know nothing as yet of the fast of forty days,
although in their days it was the universal custom to fast, and that
very strictly, on the two last days of Holy Week. About the middle of
the third century, a week’s fast was customary in many places—the entire
Holy Week being fasted on water and bread and salt, while on the last
two days nothing whatever was eaten. The _Didascalia_ describes the fast
in the same way, and also the Apostolic Constitutions (5, 15). After
this manner, accordingly, the fast was observed in Syria, and Dionysius
witnesses to the same practice in Alexandria.[191]
However the words, “The fast shall be broken when a Sunday
intervenes,”[192] found on the well-known statue of Hippolytus in Rome,
show that already, by the middle of the third century, the fast extended
over several weeks. The fast here alluded to must have extended over
fourteen days at least. The disputed canons of Hippolytus (the twentieth
and twenty-second) receive some confirmation from this passage.
In the fourth century, many witnesses to the fast of forty days are
forthcoming, both writers, such as Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Ambrose, etc., as well as ecclesiastical enactments, _e.g._, the
sixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons. The Fifth canon of the First
Council of Nicæa, in particular, mentions Lent as an observance already
established. Nevertheless it clearly was not as yet uniformly observed
in all parts of the Church, as the Festal Letters of St Athanasius bear
witness.
These letters are in any case the most important evidence for the fast
of forty days before Easter. The first of them, for the year 329, is
satisfied with appointing “a holy fast of six days” from the Monday to
the Saturday in Holy Week;[193] the second, however, for 330, and all the
following require a fast of forty days, beginning on the Monday of the
sixth complete week before Easter.[194] The Festal Letters give no direct
explanation of how, and for what reason, the six days’ fast was changed
into a fast of forty days.
However, the covering letter which Athanasius sent along with his
eleventh Festal Letter, written from Rome in 339, throws some light upon
the process. He writes, namely, to Serapion, first Abbot and then Bishop
of Thmuis, that he may announce the fast of forty days to his brethren
and impress upon them the necessity of the fast, “lest, when all the
world fasts, we only who live in Egypt be derided for not fasting.”
This warning is repeated with still greater emphasis: Serapion is to
instruct those under him that they must fast forty days,[195] which seems
to show that the custom of fasting for forty days was not yet in force
in Egypt, though elsewhere it was universally observed, and especially
in Rome. At the conclusion of the nineteenth Festal Letter is found a
sharp reproof of those who disregarded the fast.[196] This is the forty
days’ discipline (ἄσκησις) observed during the six weeks before Easter
according to Eusebius.[197]
The Gallic pilgrim, already so often quoted, gives the following minute
information concerning the manner in which the fasts were observed in
Jerusalem in the fourth century. The preparatory period before Easter
lasted eight weeks, not forty days, as in Gaul, and all the days of
the week, Saturday and Sunday excepted, were fasted. Holy Saturday was
an exception to this rule, being kept as a fast. Thus there were in
all forty-one fast days, which were called in Greek ἑορταί; in Latin,
_feriæ_. On Wednesday in Lent, the Psalmody was performed as on Sunday,
and the bishop read the appointed Gospel, but the Mass (_oblatio_) was
offered only on Saturday and Sunday. On certain days processions were
also made to different churches which lasted until eleven o’clock.
The fare on fast days consisted of water and broth made with flour;
fruit and oil and bread were also eaten. The catechumens also fasted
on Wednesdays and Fridays. Among the faithful, there were some who ate
nothing from their repast on Sunday until the following Saturday, _i.e._
for five days, and who all the year round took only one meal a day.
Others abstained in Lent from all food for two consecutive days, but
others fasted by taking nothing to eat all day until the evening.[198]
This last recalls the practice described by Irenæus. Here one may observe
that the custom of not fasting on the Saturdays in Lent existed also in
Milan in the time of St Ambrose.[199] The fast must have commenced on
the Monday after Sexagesima Sunday, since it had to extend over forty
days.
With this agrees the directions given in the so-called Apostolic
Constitutions (5, 13-20). In these, the fast of Holy Week is called
distinctively the fast of Easter (νηστεία τοῦ πάσχα), and is
distinguished from the fast of Lent.[200] From Monday to Friday in Holy
Week, the fast is to be kept on bread, salt, vegetables and water, flesh
meat and wine being forbidden. On Good Friday and Holy Saturday, the days
when the Bridegroom was taken away, those who are able are to eat nothing
whatever until early on Easter Sunday, while the usual fast lasted until
3 P.M., or sunset.[201] On Saturday, people are not to fast, because it
is the day on which the Creation was complete, with the exception of the
Saturday on which the Lord lay in the earth.[202]
Leo the Great in his sermons teaches us the objects and significance
of the fast before Easter. According to him, Lent was appointed in
order to prepare souls for a fruitful commemoration of the mystery of
Easter. It was to be a time for inner purification and sanctification;
a time, first of all, of penance for past sins, and of breaking off
sinful habits, a time also for the exercise of all virtues, especially
almsgiving, reconciliation, and the laying aside of enmities. It was
in correspondence with the spirit of Lent that the Christian emperors
pardoned criminals.[203] Fasting was to form only a part of this penance
and preparation, though the most essential part, and Leo declares it
to be incumbent upon all, not only the clergy, but all the faithful as
well.[204] Leo regarded this fast of forty days before Easter as an
apostolic institution.[205]
When the duration of the fast became generally fixed at forty days, a
reason for this was not far to seek—the length of the fast of Jesus.
From the beginning, however, a difference became apparent, according as
Holy Week was either included in Lent or regarded as something distinct
in itself. The ante-Nicene practice afforded a precedent for this. The
latter practice is adopted in particular in the Apostolic Constitutions,
and prevailed in a great part of the East. But in the East, Saturday was
exempt from fasting, and so the number of fast days was, as a matter of
fact, not greater than in the West, where the other practice obtained.
Later, it was expressly set forth that Lent should be a _quadragesima_,
not a _quinquagesima_, as by the first and fourth councils of Orleans in
the sixth century.[206] In some quarters, our informant unfortunately
does not say where, Thursday was also exempted from fasting.[207]
Originally, it appears, the fast of forty days, _quadragesima_, was
taken to mean the days before Easter as a whole, Sundays included. This
gave for a period of six weeks only thirty-six fasting days, and, where
Saturday was not kept as a fast day, only thirty. To rectify this, the
number of fast days was increased actually to forty, with the result
that in the West, the beginning of Lent (_caput jejunii_) was put back
four days; but in the East, where only five days in each week were
fasted, it was put back further still. In the West, especially in Rome,
this alteration, by which the fast began on the Wednesday before the
sixth Sunday before Easter, had not yet been accomplished by the time of
Gregory the Great.
In the East, too, the tendency to make up the full number of fast days to
forty was apparent also at an early date. There, owing to Saturday not
being a fast day, the beginning of Lent had to be thrown further back
than in the West, and Lent began eight weeks before Easter, and since the
Saturdays, Holy Saturday excepted, were not fast days, extended actually
over forty-one days instead of forty. Abstinence from flesh meat began on
the Monday after the eighth Sunday before Easter, corresponding to the
Latin _dominica sexagesima_, which is called the Sunday of Abstinence
from Flesh Meat (κυριακὴ ἀπόκρεως). From the following Sunday, called
the Sunday for Eating Cheese (κυριακὴ τοῦ τυροφάγου), _lacticinia_ are
forbidden. The following Sundays are reckoned as merely the first to the
fifth Sundays in Lent, and only the first of them has the additional
designation of Orthodox Sunday, in commemoration of the settlement of
the Iconoclastic controversy. Later on, the Easterns attached great
importance to the question whether Saturday ought or ought not to be
kept as a fast day. As early, indeed, as the Apostolic Canons, it is
expressly forbidden to fast on Saturday under threat of ecclesiastical
penalties.[208] At a later date this difference became one of the points
of dispute between the Greeks and Latins.
The assertion of Socrates[209] that in Rome the fast lasted only three
weeks is now regarded on all hands as erroneous, all the more so as
Socrates adds—also incorrectly—“Saturdays and Sundays excepted.” In
Rome, Saturday was always kept as a fast. His statement cannot be
accepted against the clear evidence of Leo I. concerning Lent, even
although Valesius and Baillet wish to defend it.
That the fast of forty days was not originally observed in all parts of
the Church, and only gradually came into force, can probably be explained
by the fact that there were already fast days enough. There are, for
instance, many indications that the custom of fasting on Wednesdays and
Fridays all the year through—the period between Easter and Pentecost
excepted—was fairly generally observed. Wednesday was kept as a fast,
because on that day our Lord had been betrayed to the Jews; Friday,
because it was the day of His Passion. At Carthage, where we find
reliable evidence for the practice, they were called the fasts of the
stations.[210] Even in the East, the custom was apparently general.[211]
The Apostolic Constitutions are acquainted with it; the so-called
Apostolic Canons prescribe it;[212] the Canons of Hippolytus[213] refer
to the fast of the fourth and sixth _feria_ as well as the fast of Lent.
As these fasts are never mentioned in the literature of a later date, and
altogether disappeared from practice, one is driven to the conclusion
that, as the Lenten fast became more widely observed, these others fell
out of use. However, the weekly fast-days continued to be observed for
a long time together with the Lenten fast, and, among the Greeks, are
observed even to the present day.[214] Not only Augustine mentions that,
at the end of the fourth century, in Rome, Wednesdays, Fridays, and also
Saturdays were fasted, but Innocent I. regarded it as a duty to fast on
Saturday all the year round, and Prudentius also alludes to it.[215] In
the Syrian Church the three weekly fasts appear to have been obligatory
on Bishops and Priests alone.[216]
After the adoption of the fast of forty days, attempts were made, in the
West, to further regulate fasting, but these were confined to certain
districts and in course of time ceased. For example, Bishop Perpetuus
of Tours introduced a special practice into his diocese, which lasted
until on in the sixth century, _i.e._ from Whitsunday to St John, and
also from 1st September to St Martin, two fast-days were observed in
each week; from then until Christmas, three; from St Hilary’s Day (14th
January) until the middle of February two again. The second canon of
the fourth council of Orleans (A.D. 541) opposed the attempts of some
bishops to extend the fast over fifty, or even sixty days. Amalarius
mentions other divergences from the Roman custom, such as keeping three
Lents in the year, one before Christmas, the second before Easter, and
the third before Whitsunday, and, again, fasting on the days before
the Ascension.[217] In Germany, too, there were peculiarities in the
discipline observed with regard to fasting during the eighth and ninth
centuries.[218]
The essence of fasting consists in abstinence from meat and drink during
a specified time. This in itself is not sufficient, for fasting entails
moreover that the food taken after the lapse of this time be of a
plainer kind, _i.e._ abstinence from the better sorts of food and drink,
which is now called abstinence in the strict sense. The prohibition of
certain meats in the Old Testament must be regarded as of a disciplinary
nature, and not as a merely dietary regulation.
In ecclesiastical antiquity, along with abstinence from the usual daily
meals, we find certain viands also forbidden—flesh and wine. To this
period belong the _xerophagiæ_ spoken of by Tertullian,[219] at which
people abstained not only from flesh and wine but from liquid food and
fruit as well. These, however, seem to have gone beyond the abstinence
then usual throughout the Church. The Montanists held these _xerophagiæ_
twice a year for fourteen days.[220]
Among Catholics also abstinence was pushed to great lengths. The canons
of Hippolytus[221] prescribe for Holy Week only bread and salt. The
Apostolic Constitutions will only permit bread, vegetables, salt and
water, in Lent, flesh and wine being forbidden; and, on the last two days
of Holy Week, nothing whatsoever is to be eaten.[222] The ascetics, whose
acquaintance the Gallic pilgrim made in Jerusalem, never touched bread in
Lent, but lived on flour and water.[223] Only a few could keep so strict
a fast, and generally speaking people were satisfied with abstaining
from flesh and wine. But this lasted throughout the entire Lent, and
Chrysostom[224] tells us that in Antioch no flesh was eaten during the
whole of Lent. Abstinence from milk and eggs (the so-called _lacticinia_)
was also the general rule.
Thus abstinence from flesh meat (_i.e._ abstinence in the strict sense)
was combined with the diminution of the quantity of food taken. It
was also voluntarily practised by itself, without being accompanied by
fasting (_jejunium a carne et sanguine_), by pious persons and ascetics,
and was prescribed as a duty on certain days in monasteries and other
religious communities, as, for instance, among the Canons of Chrodegang.
Throughout the early ages, abstinence was merely a pious custom. It was
not until a later date that it was enjoined by law, as, for instance,
by the fifty-sixth Trullan Canon, the Decree of Nicholas I. for the
Bulgarians, the fourth and eighth councils of Toledo, the seventh canon
of the council of Quedlinburg (1085), and the decretal of Gratian.[225]
The custom of abstinence was then recognised and prescribed by
ecclesiastical law for the whole of Lent, for all Fridays and Saturdays
throughout the year, for the Ember Day, and a number of vigils.[226] No
authentic document of antiquity is forthcoming to show that abstinence
by itself, without an accompanying fast, had been prescribed by the
Church.[227]
7. _The Season of Preparation as an Integral Part of the Church’s Year_
The division of this season of preparation into two parts, with special
names for the Sundays, does not appear in the sermons of Augustine or
Leo the Great. But in the ancient Gallic sacramentary—the _missale
Gothico-Gallicanum_—five Masses, entitled simply _missa jejunii_ or
_in quadragesima_, are found assigned to the five Sundays before Palm
Sunday. The names _sexagesima_ and _quinquagesima_ appear already in
the canons of the fourth council of Orleans (541), but, as generally
recognised titles for the Sundays before Easter, they begin to appear in
service-books dating from the eighth century and onwards. The Gregorian
Sacramentary is familiar with the names for the Sundays from Septuagesima
to Quinquagesima, and then numbers five Sundays in Quadragesima until
Palm Sunday.
In the ancient Spanish Mozarabic Sacramentary, the names Septuagesima,
etc., do not yet appear, but the Sundays after Epiphany are numbered
from one to eight, although the entire number was not always required,
according as Easter fell early or late. After them follows the _Dominica
ante diem Cineris_, then the five Sundays in Lent, and, finally, the
_Dominica in Ramis Palmarum_.
The recently published Lectionary of Silos, belonging to the ancient rite
of Toledo and compiled about 650, represents a much simpler form of the
Church’s year. It enumerates neither the Sundays after Epiphany nor those
after Pentecost, but merely those in Lent, and then is satisfied with
twenty-four Masses for the remaining Sundays of the year.
A trace of the original length of Lent—six weeks, or forty-two
days—exists still in the present missal, inasmuch as the _secreta_ for
the First Sunday in Lent runs: _Sacrificium quadragesimalis initii
solemniter immolamus_.[228] Sundays, as we know, were never kept as
fasts, and so the Western Church in reality kept only thirty-six fast
days, a proof that the word _quadragesima_ originally merely denoted the
number of days over which the period of preparation extended. Since,
however, our Lord had fasted forty days, the Church felt moved to keep
to this number exactly, and so added the four missing days to the
beginning of Lent. This alternation was first accomplished at the end
of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century, and appears for the
first time in the so-called Gelasian sacramentary,[229] while Gregory
I.[230] himself still counted the days actually fasted as thirty-six. The
three preceding Sundays were now included in the season of preparation
and received the names of Quinquagesima, Sexagesima, and Septuagesima.
The actual commencement of the fast fell on the Wednesday before
Quadragesima, which appears in the Gregorian Sacramentary with a Mass
of its own, but without its present name of Ash Wednesday (_Feria IV.
Cinerum_).
This name comes from the sprinkling of ashes. Sprinkling ashes upon
the heads of penitents, in token of sorrow, formed part of the ancient
ceremonies connected with ecclesiastical penance. Since public penance
usually began and ended with Lent, this custom was associated with this
particular day. It soon became a general custom no longer restricted
to penitents, although the Council of Benevento (1091) prescribes it
principally for clerics. The ashes were prepared from the palms of the
previous Palm Sunday. At the present time they are blessed in addition.
It is to be observed further that Lent is not devoted to consideration
of Christ’s sufferings. This occupies the mind during Holy Week. The
aim of Lent is not to move the faithful to dwell upon the passion of
Christ, but only to prepare them for keeping Easter worthily through
fasting, penance, and abstinence. The liturgical prayers in Lent contain
no reference to the Redeemer’s sufferings, but speak of fasting and
mortification alone. It is the same with the Epistles and Gospels. On
Palm Sunday for the first time, our thoughts are directed to the Passion
in the collect for the day, while in the prayers for the so-called
Passion Sunday it is not mentioned.
Those weeks of Lent had an exceptional character in which, in the sixth
and following centuries, the scrutinies took place, _i.e._ the services
designed for the examination of candidates in preparation for baptism.
These began on the Wednesday of the third week in Lent, and lasted until
Holy Saturday. Originally seven, they were reduced in course of time to
three, owing to the adoption of the Gelasian sacramentary. Accordingly,
the Masses for the third, fourth, and fifth Sunday and for the Saturday
before Passion Sunday speak of baptism and not of the Passion.[231] In
the present Roman Missal scarcely a trace of this is to be found.[232]
The prayers of the Masses both for Sundays and week-days, for by far
the greater part, are still identical with those of the Gregorian
Sacramentary, while the lections from Scripture are in some instances
much older. The Gospel for the First Sunday in Lent, which narrates the
fast of Jesus and His temptation by the devil, was read on this day
already in the time of Leo the Great. The Gospel for the second Sunday
treats of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, the Gospels for the two
following Sundays, the healing of the dumb man, and the casting out of
the devil, and the miracle of the loaves. The Gospel for Passion Sunday
contains the account of our Lord’s encounter with the Jews and their
attempt to stone Him.
In the Middle Ages, the commencement and beginning of Lent was marked in
a way visible to all by hanging a curtain between the nave of the church
and the choir on Ash Wednesday, or, according to Durandus, on the First
Sunday in Lent. This was called the Lenten Veil, or, in common parlance,
the “Hunger-veil.” It remained hanging until Good Friday, but in many
places was drawn aside on Sundays, obviously because Sundays were not
fast days. The veil was usually quite plain, but sometimes it was adorned
with pictorial representations from sacred history. It is first referred
to in writings of the ninth century, but was in use much earlier. In
some places in Westphalia and Hanover it exists to the present day.
These Lenten-veils are still to be frequently seen in museums and church
lumber-rooms, where not infrequently they are erroneously mistaken for
carpets. They were practical in their object—the ordinary man who had no
calendar was put in remembrance by them that it was the season of Lent.
Allegorical interpretations were naturally not lacking, and are to be
found in Rupert of Deutz.[233] A similar custom also exists in Russia,
where, on the first Sunday in Lent, the altar curtains are drawn together
and so remain until Palm Sunday.
During the first six centuries, it was taken for granted that saints’
days must not be observed during Lent. The Trullan synod introduced the
first exception to this rule in favour of the Annunciation. In the West,
this rule was soon entirely set aside, but, on the other hand, in token
of sorrow, the Allelujah ceases during the entire Lent, a custom of which
the Greek Church knows nothing. The Lenten prayers have a particularly
earnest tone, and Lent from quite an early date appears richly provided
from a liturgical point of view, each week-day having its own special
Mass. In old days in Rome, there was a procession every day, for the Pope
and clergy proceeded from the papal palace in solemn array to some church
in the city where a halt (_statio_) was made, and Mass was sung.
8. _The Transfiguration_
In the existing calendar, the Transfiguration of our Lord is commemorated
by a special festival, the _festum Transfigurationis_, which, as it
is kept on a fixed date, is excluded from the proper sequence of the
ecclesiastical year and treated in the same manner as the saints’ days.
From quite an early date, this festival had been celebrated in divers
churches, both East and West, on different days. The date now observed,
the 6th August, was appointed for the festival by Calixtus III. in 1457,
in memory of the victory over the Turks, gained by John Capistran and
George Hunyadi, at Belgrade. In the choice of a day, he seems to have
been influenced by the Greek calendar, where the festival had already
been kept on this day. It appears in the Synaxaria of the Copts in Selden
and Mai, in the menology of Constantinople belonging to the eighth
century, and, later, in the _Neapolitanum_, and among the orthodox
Syrians. In the East it was commonly observed. Sermons on the event are
found among those of St Augustine and Leo the Great.[234] The tendency to
transfer to another period of the year the commemoration of those events
which fell within Lent, is also perceptible in the case of the feast of
the Seven Dolours. More will be said on this point in the second part.
9. _The Ascension_
A special festival in commemoration of the return of the Redeemer to
heaven does not indeed appear in the earliest lists of Church festivals
given by Tertullian and Origen in the third century. Still, the terms
in which the earliest witnesses refer to it, prove that this day was
kept as a festival in quite early times. The first witness for it is
Eusebius, who calls it a high festival in the treatise he composed
on the discussions concerning Easter at the first General Council in
325. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates speaks of it as a general
festival.[235] With regard to documents of an official character, the
church-order contained in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions,[236]
gives it the name of The Taking Up [into Heaven] (ἀνάλεψις, St Luke ix.
51, where the form ἁνάλημψις occurs). Numerous sermons among the works
of the Fathers afford further evidence for the existence of the feast.
Augustine[237] is inclined to attribute the appointment of the festival
to an ordinance of the Apostles or to the injunction of a general
council. The latter cannot be proved as certain. As soon as persecution
ceased, the feast of the Ascension made its way naturally in all parts
of the Church, unassisted by any authoritative enactment, for it was
impossible that the concluding act of our Saviour’s earthly life should
remain unnoticed among festivals and in the Liturgy. This was all the
more unlikely, as the spot from which our Lord returned to the Father
at once became the object of reverence. The Empress Helena had already
ordered a splendid basilica to be built on the Mount of Olives, which,
unfortunately, was destroyed by the Saracens, and has never been rebuilt.
At the present day, a small unimposing church marks the spot which was a
place of pilgrimage as early as the fourth century,[238] and where it is
believed one of our Lord’s footprints in still visible.
With regard to the liturgical observance of the day, its chief
characteristic until well on in the Middle Ages was a procession. At the
time of the Gallic pilgrim’s visit to Jerusalem, this was observed in
a striking manner. The people proceeded in solemn procession after the
sixth hour (towards 12 o’clock) on Wednesday from Jerusalem to Bethlehem,
there to celebrate the Vigil in the church built over the grotto where
Christ was born. The next day, divine service, with a sermon, was
performed in the accustomed manner, and, in the evening, the procession
returned to Jerusalem.[239] The question which naturally presents itself,
why the service was not rather held on the Mount of Olives, as it was
in the eighth century,[240] remains unanswered. It is to be further
observed that the name Ascension (_ascensa_) is not used to designate the
festival. The pilgrim simply speaks of the fortieth day (_quadragesima_)
after Easter.
Elsewhere in the East, it was customary to observe the Festival of the
Ascension outside the city, as, for example, in Constantinople and
Antioch. In the latter place, the people went to the small town of
Romanesia, where Chrysostom delivered his sermon on the feast.[241] In
the Middle Ages, processions were wont to take place on this day in Gaul
and Germany, and this custom shows how deeply people were moved by the
desire to imitate as far as possible, in the introduction of liturgical
practices, the actions of our Lord. In this case, the determinating
factor was that our Lord had led the Apostles out of the city to the
Mount of Olives.[242]
Another custom peculiar to this festival is that, after the reading of
the Gospel at the High Mass, the Paschal candle, which up till then has
been burnt at all High Masses, is extinguished and put aside. In earlier
times, the event of the day was represented by hanging up a figure of our
Lord, which was made to disappear through an opening in the roof. The
festival has an octave since the fifteenth century, and, in consequence,
the following Sunday, formerly called simply _Dominica post Ascensionem_,
is now called _Dominica infra Octavam_. The Mass of the feast forms one
of the rare exceptions where the event commemorated is described in the
Epistle, Acts i. 1-11. The Gospel for the day is taken from St Mark xvi.
14-20, where, in verse 19, the Ascension is briefly alluded to. As a
matter of fact, verses 10-20 are wanting in the oldest Alexandrian MSS.
Still they are in other respects well supported, and must be regarded as
genuine.[243]
The introduction of the festival of the Ascension was rendered all the
easier since Scripture distinctly specifies the day on which the event
took place.[244]
10. _Whitsunday_
Whitsunday is of equal rank with the two other chief festivals, but has
no special season either preceding or following it, and is unattended
by any lesser festivals depending upon it. Whitsunday is the close of
the whole period which began with Easter, called in the early centuries
_Quinquagesima_, because it extended over fifty days. This entire period
is festal in character, and therefore so long as it lasted people in
ancient days prayed standing upright, and no fasting was practised.[245]
The ascetics did not observe a single fast during this time,[246] and it
seems that even the day before Whitsunday was not a fast in the earliest
ages, any more than it is now among the Greeks. A number of ascetics
were of opinion that this period of joy should last only forty days,
because our Lord appeared to His disciples for only forty days, and that
the following ten days, as far as fasting, prayer, and kneeling were
concerned, should be like the rest of the year—an opinion which Cassian,
among others (Coll. 20, 21), strongly opposed.[247] This divergence
of opinion, which was rather widespread, seems to have resulted in
Whitsunday being passed over and ignored. So, for example, it is entirely
omitted from the oldest Gallican Sacramentaries, the series of festivals
ending with the Ascension.[248] In the later service-books, it appears
simply under the name _Quinquagesima_.
Pentecost meant originally the entire period from Easter to Whitsunday,
and this terminology had been already in use among the Jews, and is
employed by St Luke in Acts ii. 1 (_cum complerentur dies pentecostes_).
The Greek word Pentecost was gladly adopted by the Latins in early times,
and more especially, later on, since the Latin term _quinquagesima_ might
easily be confused with the Sunday of the same name.
Whitsunday, of course, commemorates the descent of the Holy Ghost
upon the Apostles and disciples. This happened fifty days after the
Resurrection, on an ancient Jewish festival called in the Pentateuch the
Feast of Weeks,[249] because it was celebrated exactly seven weeks after
the Passover. As it fell on the fiftieth day after the Passover, it was
also called Pentecost, even in pre-Christian times.[250]
The Jewish Pentecost was originally only a festival of thanksgiving
for harvest, and, although the Law was given on Mount Sinai and the
Mosaic Church came into existence on the same day, yet the feast was not
devoted to the commemoration of this event. This purpose was served by
the festival of the Simchah Thorah in October, which owed its institution
to the Rabbis. On the other hand, the fact that the descent of the Holy
Ghost implied the foundation of the Christian Church, afforded the
Fathers a parallel which they were not slow to make the most of.[251] The
Feast of Weeks was to the Jews only the conclusion of the harvest, in
thanksgiving for which, bread, made from the newly gathered wheat, was
presented to Jehovah as a sacrifice.
The festival of Whitsunday reaches back to the commencement of the
Church, although there is no evidence for it, as there is in the case of
Easter, it being uncertain whether the passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, refers to
the Jewish or to the Christian Pentecost. This is not astonishing, for,
on the one hand the feast, originally of only one day’s duration, fell on
a Sunday, and, on the other, it is so closely bound up with Easter that
the one entails the other. That the festival of Whitsunday belongs to
Apostolic times is stated in the seventh of the fragments attributed to
Irenæus, but these are admitted to be interpolated. In Tertullian, the
festival, along with Easter, appears as already well established, so that
it must have been in existence for some time. As at Easter, prayer was
made standing, and it was the second and last date for the solemn baptism
of catechumens.[252] Tertullian, moreover, in accordance with the usage
already in use, gives the name of Pentecost, not merely to the day of the
festival, but to the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday—a use of the
term which appears here and there at a later date,[253] and points out
the period as a time of joy.[254] The last day, however, was clearly held
in Tertullian’s time to be a festival in an especial sense.[255] Origen
and the Canons of Hippolytus make references in passing to the festival
of Whitsunday.[256] The Apostolic Constitutions say Whitsunday is to be
regarded as a high festival, because on it the Lord Jesus sent down the
Holy Ghost.
The Gallic pilgrim gives a detailed and circumstantial account of
the manner in which the feast was observed in Jerusalem.[257] On the
night before Whitsunday, the vigil was celebrated in the Church of
the Anastasis, at which the bishop, according to the usual custom in
Jerusalem on Sundays, read the Gospel of the Resurrection, and the
customary psalmody was performed. At dawn, all the people proceeded to
the principal church (_Martyrium_), where a sermon was preached and Mass
celebrated. About the third hour, when the psalmody was finished, the
people accompanied the bishop with singing to Sion. There, the passage
from the Acts of the Apostles, describing the descent of the Holy Ghost,
was read, and a second Mass was celebrated, after which the psalmody was
resumed. Afterwards the archdeacon invited the people to assemble in the
“Eleona,” from whence a procession was made to the summit of the Mount
of Olives. Here psalms and antiphons were sung, the Gospel was read,
and the blessing given. After this, the people descended again into the
“Eleona,” where Vespers were sung, and then, with the bishop at their
head, proceeded in a solemn procession with singing back to the principal
church, which was reached towards 8 P.M. At the city gate, the procession
was met by torch-bearers who accompanied it to the _Martyrium_. Here, as
well as in the Anastasis, to which the people proceeded in turn, and in
the Chapel of the Holy Cross, the usual prayers, hymns, and blessings
took place, so that the festival did not conclude until midnight.
The Pilgrim makes no mention of rites or preparations connected with the
administration of baptism. It seems, then, that in Jerusalem, Whitsunday
was not observed as a second or supplementary time for baptism, or may
not have been required as such. Nevertheless, this feature appears in the
Western liturgies, and had much to do, for instance, in the determining
the manner in which the vigil of the feast was observed.
According to the more ancient service-books, the catechumens were to
assemble at midday on Saturday. Lections from Scripture, less numerous
than on Holy Saturday, were read, and then, after suitable prayers, took
place the blessing of the baptismal water, the baptism, and, during the
night, the Mass of the vigil.[258] St Augustine shows that, in Africa
as well, the people assembled in the afternoon, and that the Mass was
celebrated during the night. He thus addresses the newly baptised on
Whitsunday: “What you here see before you on the altar, you have already
seen during the past night.”[259]
In order to complete the resemblance to Easter, a large candle was, in
some churches, blessed and set up during the singing of the _Exsultet_
in a slightly altered form.[260] In monastic churches, in which baptism
was not administered, the baptismal ceremonies were omitted, though the
special celebration of the vigil still commenced in the afternoon.[261]
As far as the most ancient period is concerned, the so-called Leonine
Missal contains a Mass for Whitsunday, and the ceremonies for baptism.
The Gelasian Sacramentary also has numerous directions for the
administration of baptism on this day, but no form for the blessing
of a candle. It seems to imply that the candidates for baptism shall
be especially invalids, or such as for some reason or other had been
prevented from receiving baptism at Easter, or Energumens, etc. These
directions, however, are absent from the Gregorian Sacramentary, and only
two lections from the prophets are given. In the present Roman rite,
the function takes place in the forenoon; still the prophecies and the
blessing of the font remain as survivals of the ancient practice. The
litany of the saints is also sung, upon the last Kyrie of which the Mass
of the vigil follows immediately without an introit. The office of the
day until nones belongs to the Octave of the Ascension.
The Apostolic Constitutions[262] speak of the feast of Pentecost lasting
for eight days, but in the West it was not kept with an octave until
quite a late date, and the last day was never called _dies octava_, but
merely the first Sunday after Pentecost, and the days within the octave
were merely called the first or second day after Pentecost, and so on.
As appears from Berno of Reichenau,[263] it was a debatable point in
his day whether Whitsunday ought to be kept with, or without, a _dies
octava_. Berno relied upon the analogy of Easter, the special time for
baptisms, which was observed with an octave. Whitsunday was the day on
which the Apostles received their baptism of fire, and so it too ought
to have an octave. He had other reasons besides which would have no
weight at the present time. It is obvious that Whitsunday had at first no
octave, which can be inferred also from the whole scheme of the Church’s
feasts. Whitsunday was merely the fiftieth day after Easter, the end of
the period called Pentecost, and so in itself brought the season to a
conclusion.
The Mass for Whitsunday had a sequence which was repeated daily during
the week. Formerly the law-courts did not sit during the entire week, and
even servile work was forbidden as well.[264] A Council of Constance, in
1094, limited this to the first three days of the week. With us, at the
present time, only the second day is observed _in foro_, but not even
this is observed any longer in Rome.
In earlier times it was customary in many places to scatter roses
from the roof of the church to recall the miracle of Pentecost. Hence
in Sicily, Whitsunday is called _pascha rosatum_. The Italian name,
_pasqua rossa_, however, comes from the colour of the vestments. In
many districts of France it was usual to blow trombones or trumpets
during divine service in memory of the sound of the “mighty wind” which
accompanied the Holy Spirit’s descent.
11. _Trinity Sunday_
It was not until a late date that the first Sunday after Pentecost was
raised to a higher rank, for in the Gregorian Sacramentary it has no
special name, while in the Gelasian Sacramentary, and in the appendixes
to the Gregorian,[265] it is called merely the Sunday after the octave of
Pentecost, or the Sunday after Pentecost. In the Latin Church, it is now
a festival devoted to the honour of the Most Holy Trinity.
Concerning the introduction of this new feast into the Church’s year,
we learn from the Micrologus that, the Sunday after Pentecost being a
_dominica vacans_ without any special office of its own, many used on
this day the office of the Trinity drawn up by Bishop Stephen of Liège
(903-20). When Pope Alexander II. († 1073) was questioned on the point,
he replied that it was not the Roman custom to set apart any particular
day in honour of the Holy Trinity, since the Trinity was honoured every
day by the _Gloria Patri_ in the psalmody. It is to be noted, continues
the Micrologus,[266] that Alcuin, at the request of the Saint Boniface,
composed a Mass in honour of the Holy Trinity.
Binterim speaks sarcastically of this reference, because Boniface had
died long before the time when Alcuin flourished. The reference is not
to be passed over on this account, for the mistake arose merely from a
misunderstanding. Alcuin had put together from the missal employed in
his Abbey Church a number of Masses—votive Masses, as they would now be
called—for each day of the week, to be used under certain conditions,
and to these was added, amongst others, a Mass in honour of St Boniface
for the monks of Fulda.[267] This explains the misunderstanding in the
Micrologus. Alcuin had also arranged a collection of prayers drawn from
the Gregorian Sacramentary to form a prayer-book. This, by itself,
enables us now to appreciate Alcuin’s share in the matter.[268] It merely
means that he recommended the Mass of the Trinity should be said on
Sundays, in case a priest had not a complete missal, or through ignorance
was unable to use it properly.
The fact is plain. The later Frankish recension of the Gregorian
Sacramentary contained for the Sunday after Pentecost a Mass in honour
of the Holy Trinity, with the same preface which is still in use.[269]
In addition to this, Bishop Stephen of Liège drew up a suitable office,
and so all was in readiness for the institution of an especial feast
in honour of the Trinity, which, in the natural course of things, was
fixed for the first Sunday after Pentecost. The custom of regarding it
as a festival became more and more popular in the Netherlands, England,
Germany, and France. Several diocesan synods expressed themselves in
favour of it, _e.g._, that of Arles in 1260. As we have found in other
instances, so here, it was the monasteries which prepared the way for the
adoption of the festival. Thus, for example,[270] the Cistercians adopted
the festival in 1270, the Cluniacs still earlier. The introduction of the
festival into each diocese followed gradually in course of time, and it
belongs to local historians to investigate the circumstances in each case.
Although Alexander II. had officially declared the festival to be
superfluous,[271] it nevertheless continued to increase in popularity in
ever-widening circles. Its adoption did not follow any uniform law, for
in several places it was observed on the last Sunday after Pentecost,
as in several dioceses of France, until on in the seventeenth century,
and here and there we find it kept with an octave. Uniformity was at
length attained when the Roman Church under John XXII., in 1334, accepted
the festival and ordered it to be generally observed. The Franciscan,
John Peckham, Canon of Lyons, and, from 1278 to 1292, Archbishop of
Canterbury, composed a new office. The one actually in use dates from
the times of Pius V.,[272] and is one of the most beautiful in the
breviary, remarkable alike for sublimity of thought, depth, and elegance
of form. Although the first Sunday has thus been placed in a rank by
itself, the Roman rite still continues the older enumeration of the
Sundays from Pentecost. In Germany and elsewhere it was the custom to
reckon the Sundays from Trinity, and so each Sunday is one less than the
corresponding Sunday according to the Roman enumeration.
The Greeks on this Sunday commemorate All Saints, and on this account
call it All Saints’ Sunday (κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων πάντων).
12. _Corpus Christi. The Forty Hours’ Prayer. The Festival of the Sacred
Heart_
On Maundy Thursday, the consecration of the Holy Oils and other
ceremonies overshadow almost entirely the commemoration of the important
event which took place on that day—the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
It was this fact which suggested the introduction of a festival specially
intended to commemorate that event, as is expressly stated in the papal
constitution _Transiturus_. The introduction of this feast dates from
a comparatively late time, and its adoption is limited to the West,
although the Uniat Greeks have also partially accepted it. The earliest
trace of a special reference to the Holy Sacrament of the altar in the
public worship of the Church is probably the appearance of the name
_Natalis Calicis_, in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, on the 24th
March. In order to understand this entry, it must be remembered that
anciently the 25th March was often regarded as the day on which Christ
died (_vide ante_, p. 57).
Divine Providence made use of a humble nun to further the introduction of
this festival. Juliana,[273] born at Retinne, near Liège, in 1193, was
received as an orphan into the cloister, and became a nun of the order
of St Augustine. She was appointed prioress of the lazar-house of _Mons
Cornelii_ (Mont-Cornillon), near Liège, where she passed the greater
part of her life. When this institution received another prior who fell
out with the authorities of Liège over some matters of administration,
Juliana was obliged to leave the lazar-house in 1240. She took up her
abode in Liège, with a kindred spirit, the recluse Eve. She returned to
Mont-Cornillon after three years, but when fresh disagreements broke
out again, on the death of Bishop Robert († 1246), she was compelled to
leave Liège altogether. She found a refuge with the Cistercian nuns at
Salsinnes in the diocese of Namur. But this convent was destroyed in
the wars which then disturbed the country, and Juliana was once more
destitute. She ended her life on the 5th April 1258, as a recluse at
Fosses, where she had found a refuge, and was buried in the monastery of
Villiers, in the diocese of Namur.
Juliana of Retinne had been a zealous worshipper of the Blessed Sacrament
from her youth, and, from her sixteenth year, had repeatedly seen a
vision of the disc of the full moon from which as it were a part had
been broken off. A vision of our Lord enlightened her mind as to the
signification thereof. The moon’s disc represented the Church, which
still lacked a festival in honour of the Blessed Sacrament, and she was
to announce this want to the world and direct all her efforts towards the
introduction of such a festival. In 1230, she communicated her secret,
on account of which she had much to suffer, for the first time, to
John of Lausanne, Canon of St Martin at Liège, and to some other pious
and learned men, namely, Guyard, afterwards Bishop of Cambrai, Hugo,
afterwards Cardinal Legate, the Archdeacon of Liège, James Pantaleon of
Troyes, who became Bishop of Verdun, then Patriarch of Jerusalem, and,
finally, Pope.
Since in those days bishops exercised the right of appointing feasts
in their own dioceses, it was of the utmost importance that Robert de
Thorete, Bishop of Liège since 1240, was in favour of the introduction
of this festival. He gave a sympathetic hearing to the proposals of
those in favour of the feast, called a diocesan synod in 1246, which
decided in favour of its introduction,[274] and proscribed for his
clergy the recitation of an office composed by Canon John, but died on
the 16th October 1246, without having formally instituted the festival.
It was kept, however, as agreed upon, by the canons of St Martin’s in
the following year, and later on it was approved by the Papal Legates,
Cardinals Hugo and Peter Capocci.
When James Pantaleon ascended the papal throne in 1261 as Urban IV.,
he received from the Bishop of Liège a letter concerning the festival,
written at the request of the recluse Eve, who took an active part in the
introduction of the new feast. To this he wrote a favourable reply.
The general adoption of the feast of Corpus Christi seemed now assured.
Urban’s personal predilections in its favour were further increased by
the incident of the Bohemian priest at Bolsena in 1262, and, shortly
before his death, on the 8th September 1264, he addressed a bull[275]
to all bishops and prelates in which he directed a festival in honour
of the Blessed Sacrament should be held throughout Christendom, on
the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, and granted indulgences to all who
observed it. He commissioned moreover St Thomas Aquinas to compose a
special office, which speedily replaced the former one.[276] Owing to the
death of Urban, which followed closely on the promulgation of this bull,
the affair proceeded no further, and the spread of the festival came to
a standstill. The transference of the papal residence to Avignon caused
a further delay. Still in Liège the matter was not dropped, and the
diocesan synod of 1287 is the first which definitely ordered that this
festival should be observed.[277]
At length, after a long silence, Pope Clement V., Bertrand de Got, took
up the matter once more, and by his influence the Œcumenical Council,
which he had assembled at Vienne in 1311, authorised the festival and
enjoined its observance throughout Christendom. For this end, he renewed
the constitution of Urban IV. in his own bull _Si Dominum_. Neither in
this document, nor in the constitution of Urban, is there any mention of
a procession of the Blessed Sacrament, but only of a Mass and the office.
The procession was a later addition which, like the festival itself,
gradually spread throughout different dioceses and countries. It was
not, however, altogether a novelty, for already in the eleventh century,
the Benedictines in England carried the Blessed Sacrament on Palm Sunday
in procession outside the church.[278]
The Corpus Christi procession, more recent than the introduction of the
feast itself, was at first a much simpler affair than it is at present.
As early as the twelfth century, it was by no means unusual to carry the
Blessed Sacrament hidden from sight in a chalice or pyx round the church,
and a procession of this kind is specially provided for in the ritual
for Holy Week.[279] The _Ordinarium_ of the Church of Rouen contains
directions for the performance of such a procession, but unfortunately
the date of this document is uncertain.[280] According to this, the
Blessed Sacrament was carried round the church by two priests in white
chasubles, accompanied by four choristers carrying censers. Two other
clerics carried torches, and the remainder, vested in copes, sung various
versicles and responses. The shrine in which the Blessed Sacrament was
carried was placed in the middle of the choir, and the Sacrament was
censed by a priest accompanied by a deacon, while the singers remained
kneeling. They sang, _Ave, verum corpus natum, etc._, which the choir
repeated still kneeling, and then added other hymns. When this was
concluded, the archbishop was to give the blessing and commence the Mass.
The date at which the Corpus Christi procession was introduced varies
very much in different dioceses and countries. In Cologne, it was held,
for the first time, even earlier than 1279, in the monastery of St
Gereon, when red vestments were worn.[281] In 1308, it was ordered for
the parish churches of the archdiocese. The direction of John XXII.
was certainly in most cases the reason of the feast becoming general
throughout the universal Church. The procession took place for the first
time in Worms in 1315, in Aix-la-Chapelle in 1319. In Strassburg, Bishop
John I., on 22nd July 1318, ordered the adoption of the festival, and the
recitation of the office. The first official appearance of the festival
and procession in Treves was at the synod held under Archbishop Baldwin
in 1338; in Utrecht in 1347, in Prague in 1355. On the other hand, it
was introduced at Würtzburg as early as 1298, before the Council of
Vienne, as appears from the statutes of the synod for that year. At
Augsburg, already in 1305, a lady of rank, Katharina Ibsung, left all
her property to the cathedral for the due performance of the Corpus
Christi procession, and it would appear that the procession had taken
place at Augsburg as a usual thing before this.[282] In the fifteenth
century the Popes Martin V. and Eugenius IV.[283] encouraged the spread
of the procession by granting indulgences to those who took part—the
latter especially in his bull _Excellentissimus_, of the 26th May 1433.
In the fourteenth century, the four stations were added at which the
opening passages of the four Gospels were sung, and in the sixteenth
century these were finally authorised.[284] The _Liber Ordinarius_ of
the Monastery of Essen, belonging to the second half of the fourteenth
century, affords us some information concerning this change in
particular. It speaks of two processions—one composed of the canons and
without stations, which passed out of the church and then returned; the
second of the congregation, which had four stations, at each of which the
beginning of St John’s Gospel was read and benediction given.[285]
The Forty Hours’ Prayer, with exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, owes
its introduction to the Capuchin Joseph Plantanida of Fermo. In 1556-57
he urged the senate of Milan to take steps for observing this devotion in
all churches of Milan in turn, on account of the war with France which
was then threatening, and also with reference to the plague which twelve
years earlier had devastated the city. The custom of spending forty
hours in prayer for some special intention had arisen earlier than this,
for a priest of Grenoble, called Antony, for example, had established a
confraternity in Milan in 1527, the members of which met four times a
year for forty hours’ adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which, however,
was not exposed.[286]
At the conclusion of the octave of Corpus Christi comes the comparatively
modern festival of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As it is thus in point
of time closely connected with Corpus Christi, so also it resembles it
in many points. In the first place, it is essentially appointed for
the glorification of the Incarnation and the Person of the Incarnate,
and, secondly, its origin has many points in common with that of Corpus
Christi. Its introduction is connected with the visions of the Blessed
Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90), which she saw in the Convent of the
Visitation at Paray-le-Monial, during the years 1673-75. The cultus of
the Sacred Heart seems to have existed earlier as a form of private
devotion. In support of it certain passages are appealed to in the
writings of saints of earlier times, which contain its fundamental
principles. Among others, St Gertrude, and the Carthusian James of
Landsberg, are quoted. The Blessed Margaret Mary had much to suffer in
her attempts to establish the cultus, but finally it was introduced for
the first time in 1686 at Paray-le-Monial, or, according to others, in
the Convent of the Visitation at Moulins in 1674. The public cultus was
introduced by Charles François de Loménie, Bishop of Coutances, who,
in consequence of Margaret Mary’s revelations, consecrated a chapel
in honour of the Sacred Heart in his seminary in 1688, and erected a
confraternity under the same title. He was followed by Peter de Grammont,
Bishop of Besançon, who, in 1692, ordered a special Mass with the title
_Cordis Jesu_, to be printed in the missal for his diocese, for the
Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi. The Bishop of Langres adopted
this Mass in his diocese, and finally the Archbishop of Lyons, Primate
of Gaul, at the end of 1718 ordered the feast to be kept by the churches
under his jurisdiction. The authoritative recognition of the feast was
given by Clement XIII. in 1765.[287]
B. CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTMAS SEASON
1. _Christmas_
Christmas, or the feast of our Lord’s birth (_Nativitas Domini_, τὰ
γένεθλια, γέννησις Χριστοῦ), has this in common with Easter that it also
is the centre of other festivals which group themselves around it, but it
differs from Easter inasmuch as it is an immovable feast, and so falls
on a fixed day of the month. The whole Church, and all the sects, agree
in observing the 25th December as this date. As it has cost us already
some trouble to show how the determination of Easter was arrived at, so
the questions which arise in regard to the date of Christmas are by no
means few. The answer to these questions entails a special and critical
investigation into several points of history, which, though it may not
prove interesting to everyone, will nevertheless be full of information
to those who undertake to study it.
Formerly it was taken for granted that Christ had actually been born
on this day, and, accordingly, the learned were of opinion that the
Church had observed it from the beginning as the day of His birth.
Even at the present day, it will be difficult for many to give up this
idea. But there is no Christmas among the Christian feasts enumerated
by Tertullian, Origen, and the recently published _Testament of Jesus
Christ_. On the contrary, there is clear proof that even in the fourth
and fifth centuries it was unknown in some parts of the Church, where its
introduction, at a much later period, can be proved historically. To this
evidence we shall now turn our attention, beginning with Egypt.
At the beginning of the fifth century the learned monk, John Cassian,
betook himself to Egypt to study the observances of the monasteries
there, and later on, between 418 and 427, he wrote down the result of his
observations in his Collations. He informs us that the bishops of those
parts at that time regarded the Epiphany as our Lord’s birth-day, and
that there was no separate festival in honour of the latter. He calls
this the “ancient custom.”[288]
This old custom, although generally observed at that time in Egypt,
had soon to give place to a new one. For under Cyril, Patriarch of
Alexandria, Bishop Paul of Emesa, while on a visit to him, preached on
the festival of our Lord’s nativity, and the date on which this happened
was the 29th Chijak, or 25th December, in the year 432. Christmas, then,
had been introduced into Egypt before this time, that is to say, between
418 and 432,[289] and from then onwards it was firmly established, as the
existing Calendars of subsequent date show.
The learned Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis lived in Cyprus at the end of
the fourth century. In his answer to the Alogoi he gives the chronology
of our Lord’s life, according to which the 6th January is the day of our
Lord’s birth, and the 8th November the day of His baptism in Jordan. For
him the Epiphany was plainly the festival of Christ’s nativity.[290]
The old custom was still in force in Jerusalem about 385. Our Lord’s
birth was celebrated there with great rejoicings, not on the 25th
December, but on the 6th January. For according to the evidence of the
Pilgrim from Bordeaux, the festival on which the gospel was read, giving
the account of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and His meeting
with Simeon and Anna—Candlemas Day—was celebrated forty days after the
Epiphany and not forty days after Christmas.[291] Epiphany must then have
been the festival of the Nativity. In another passage, where the same
pilgrim has reason to name the chief festivals of the year, she mentions
as such only Epiphany and Easter.[292] And so at that time there was no
special festival of Christmas observed in Jerusalem.
Among the witnesses for the old custom, we find Ephrem Syrus, who
informs us that, in his time, the church of Mesopotamia commemorated the
Incarnation of the Son of God on the thirteenth day after the winter
solstice, in the month when the light begins to increase, _i.e._ on the
6th January.[293]
It is a well-known fact that the festival of the 25th December, as
Christ’s birth-day, was entirely unknown to the ancient churches of
Armenia and Mesopotamia, and remained so partially until on in the
fourteenth century.[294] In the most of the great churches of the East,
on the contrary, this feast was introduced during the last decades of the
fourth century, in others somewhat later. Most interesting particulars
concerning the introduction of Christmas in various localities are
extant, and, since they refer to its _introduction_, we are safe in
concluding, from the historical evidence before us, that these churches
had not celebrated Christmas until then. This is the case with regard to
Constantinople.
The second capital of the empire had long been a stronghold of Arianism,
so that the orthodox had dwindled down to a mere handful, and no longer
possessed a church of their own in the city. During this period Christmas
was certainly not celebrated in Constantinople. Not till after the death
of Valens, and the elevation of Theodosius the Great to the empire
(19th January 379), did the Catholics breathe freely once more. They
received as bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, formerly Bishop of Sasima, but
then living in retirement at Seleucia in Isauria. He began his labours
as a stranger and sojourner in a small private chapel which he called
the Anastasia. Here, on the 25th December 379 or 380, Christmas was
celebrated for the first time in Constantinople, as he himself informs
us, and on this occasion he delivered his thirty-eighth homily.[295]
Thus one of the first acts of the restorer of Catholicism in the capital
was the introduction of the new festival. In the above homily indeed
he says nothing about its being celebrated for the first time, but in
the following homily (c. 14), when speaking of the previous Christmas,
he calls himself its originator (ἔξαρχος). Gregory’s activity in the
capital was unfortunately of short duration. Soon after the meeting
of the second General Council, in 381, he was compelled through the
intrigues of his opponents to retire from his post.
It would not be impossible, and certainly would not be surprising, if
Gregory’s expulsion also imperilled his new institution, and that the
festival of Christ’s Nativity would have to be re-introduced. At any
rate, a late and not very reliable writer, though one not to be passed
over in this connection, speaks of the emperor Honorius as having been
the means of introducing the feast of Christmas at Constantinople. On the
occasion of a visit to Constantinople he persuaded his mother and his
brother Arcadius to celebrate the feast of Christmas, and in the Roman
manner.[296] This must have taken place after the year 395.
In Cappadocia the separation of the two feasts, Epiphany and Christmas,
had been effected in 380, at least as far as Nyssa was concerned. For
Gregory of Nyssa, in his funeral oration on Basil, speaks of the festival
of Christ’s birth as well established.[297] He says the same in his two
sermons for the feast of St Stephen.
With regard to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the
festival at Antioch, we are fully informed by St Chrysostom in a sermon
he preached there on the 20th December 386.[298]
The festival had been known in Antioch for about ten years already, and a
certain party there among the faithful were in the habit of celebrating
it publicly, but its official introduction was first effected by Bishop
Flavian, who was seconded in this by St John Chrysostom, recently
ordained priest in the February of the same year. Chrysostom began his
priestly activity with a course of sermons against the thorough-going
Arians—the Anomæans. These discourses treat of the nature of God, His
incomprehensibility, and triune personality, but the preacher had to
interrupt the course from time to time in order to deal with other
matters affecting the faithful themselves, such as their superstitious
respect for, and imitation of, the Jews and their customs. Some went so
far as to regard oaths taken in the synagogue as more sacred and binding
than those taken in the church. Many Christians observed the Jewish
festivals as well as their own. On this account Chrysostom departed from
his first subject and directed his first four sermons against the Jews.
Then his eloquence was directed to the task of winning over the faithful
of Antioch to the observance of Christmas.
It was on the festival of the Antiochene martyr Philogonius that he
announced to his hearers that on the following 25th December Christmas
would be celebrated for the first time in the Church of Antioch. The
day had been observed in the West from the beginning (ἄνωθεν), but only
during the last ten years had the knowledge of it penetrated to Antioch.
For his own part, he had for a long time made his prayer in secret
that the festival should be kept also in Antioch. He had found many,
especially of the lower orders, in favour of it, but many, on the other
hand, were opposed, and so the introduction of the festival had been
delayed.
The efforts of the great preacher were crowned with success. A very large
number of the faithful were present in the church when the new festival
was celebrated. The sermon which Chrysostom delivered on the occasion has
happily come down to us.[299] In the introduction he says he wished to
speak to them himself concerning the festival over which there had been
so much controversy in Antioch. Some considered it a mere innovation,
but others knew that it was observed in the West from Thrace to Cadiz.
This last assertion was an exaggeration, as the next words of Chrysostom
themselves show. He says he proposes to commend the feast to the
devotion of his hearers on three grounds: first, because the feast has
spread with remarkable rapidity, and has met with so much favour in all
directions;[300] secondly, because the time of the census taken in the
year of Christ’s birth can be determined by ancient documents preserved
in Rome; thirdly, the year of our Lord’s birth can be computed from the
time of the angel’s appearance to Zachary in the Temple. Zachary, as High
Priest, had entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.
The Jewish Day of Atonement fell in September. Six months afterwards
the angel came to Mary, and nine months later Christ was born, _i.e._
in December. Chrysostom concludes with an attack upon those who do not
believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.
All this, however, as far as the determination of the date is concerned,
rests upon an insecure foundation. Since Zachary was only an ordinary
priest, and not the High Priest, his entry into the Holy of Holies cannot
therefore be identified with that of the High Priest on the Day of
Atonement. But this is of little importance, if on independent grounds
these calculations could still point to the month of December, though the
25th need not on this account have been the precise day on which our Lord
was born.
When we consider the facts, we see that it was no mere accident that
Christmas began to be celebrated in the East just at this particular
period, and that its introduction was due to the influence of the great
men whom we have named.
It was the moment when Catholics began successfully to repel Arianism;
it was just those who attacked Arianism with most vigour and success
who promoted the spread of the new festival in the East. We must add
to this the evidence afforded by secular enactments. Neither the laws
of Valentinian II., nor the revisers of the _Codex Theodosianus_ in
438, nor the _Breviarium Alaricianum_ of 506, regard the 25th December
as a festival established by law. It was made to appear for the first
time as such by Tribonianus in the _Codex Justinianus_.[301] From these
additional facts, we gather that Christmas was of later introduction
in the Church than Easter or Whitsunday. In such matters secular law
generally follows the lead of ecclesiastical law. If Christmas had been
celebrated in the Church from the beginning, one can see no reason why
it should not have enjoyed equal privileges with Easter and Whitsunday.
Still there was a law of the Emperor Arcadius as early as 400 which
included Christmas among the days on which at least the games of the
circus were forbidden.[302]
Chrysostom, in the sermon referred to above, states plainly that, at the
time when the attempt was being made to introduce the festival in the
East, it was already celebrated in Rome. Our attention is thus naturally
directed to Rome, and it will be interesting to learn how long it had
been so observed there. This question we must now consider more fully.
John, Bishop of Nicæa, informs us that the Roman Church had begun under
Pope Julius I. (337-352) to celebrate the birth of our Lord on the
25th December.[303] This pope, with the assistance of the writings of
Josephus, had ascertained that Christ was born on the 25th December.
John of Nicæa then recurs substantially to the reckoning which we have
already produced from Chrysostom, according to which the appearance of
the angel to Zachary in the Temple happened on the 23rd September and the
Annunciation on the 25th March. From these data it followed as a matter
of course that the 25th December was the day of Christ’s birth. John had
gained this information from an alleged correspondence between Cyril of
Jerusalem and Julius, from which he quotes. But this correspondence is
certainly not authentic, as will appear from one of the facts quoted
from it further on.[304] But the fact that it cannot stand the test of
criticism does not prove the spuriousness of the treatise of John of
Nicæa in itself, nor the incorrectness of everything else contained in it.
When we turn to the authentic evidence for the practice of the Roman
Church on this point, our attention is at once arrested by one document
which is quoted under very different names—_Anonymus Cuspiniani_,
_Catalogus Bucherianus_, the Calendar of Furius Philocalus, or the
Chronographer of 354. These different ways of quoting the same document
are apt to lead to confusion. They are due to the fact that from time to
time different scholars have published larger or smaller portions of the
document, without ever placing it before the public in its entirety. The
different portions of which it is composed are of a rather heterogeneous
character, and, accordingly, as each student was interested in this or
that portion, he published as much of it as concerned his own studies,
leaving the remainder unnoticed. In order to form a correct judgment
of the evidential value of this document, and the importance of the
facts recorded in it, it will be well at this point to describe it more
particularly, although to do so may lead us away from our main subject.
Briefly, we have to do with a collection of chronological data belonging
to the time of Constantine, in which the unknown compiler collected
together from official sources all kinds of chronological and historical
notices, such as might be useful for people in official positions. His
object was to supply them with a compendium of all that might be of
practical assistance to them. John Cuspinianus (1473-1529) was the first
to make use of this work, because he recognised that the list of Roman
consuls contained in it is the most correct that has come down to us. In
his _Commentarius de Consulibus Romanis_, published at Basel after his
death, in 1552, a part of the work is printed.[305]
Other students then edited such portions as related to the special
studies they had in hand, such as Onuphrius Panvinius, Ægidius Boucher,
S.J.,[306] Lambeck, Henschen, Cardinal Noris, Eccard, Preller, and
especially Roncalli. Finally, in the transactions of the “Akademie der
Wissenschaften” of Saxony for 1850, Mommsen printed almost the whole
of it with the exception of the later portions. A collection of the
allegorical illustrations of the document, as far as they exist, has also
been published,[307] and thus at length this remarkable document has been
placed within the reach of all to whom it may be of interest.
The different sections therein contained are partly of ecclesiastical
and Christian origin, and partly secular and heathen. Of purely
ecclesiastical origin, in addition to the table for calculating Easter,
are the _Depositio Episcoporum_, the _Depositio Martyrum_, and the
list of popes. The remaining sections fall into two classes: they are
either entirely heathen, or they have interpolations of a Christian
and ecclesiastical character. This is especially the case with the
lists of consuls. Up to 753 U.C. they contain merely the names of the
consuls, with notices of the dictators; from 753 U.C. to 55 A.D. four
ecclesiastical notices have been interpolated, but none from thence
onwards. These four notices relate to the date of Christ’s birth and
death, the arrival of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and their
death there. These notices, naturally, did not originally form part of
the lists of consuls. Who added them? Philocalus himself or someone else?
Since the list of consuls contains ecclesiastical interpolations, it is
all the more remarkable that none have been added to the Calendar. Where
else would we more naturally look for them, and where could they have
been more easily introduced? Why did not Philocalus set down the birth
of Christ here under the 25th December, the _Natalis Invicti_, since he
considered it of sufficient importance to be interpolated into the lists
of consuls, with which it is out of keeping?
But if, it is objected, the date of Christ’s birth is also given in the
_Depositio Martyrum_, let us examine this document more closely. As
the title indicates, it contains only the days of the death and burial
of Roman martyrs and other martyrs venerated in Rome in the earliest
ages, _e.g._ Cyprian, Perpetua, Felicitas. To these there are added two
exceptions: VIII. Kal. Jan. (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem) and VIII.
Kal. Mart. (the feast of St Peter’s Chair). Neither of these belong in
any sense to a _Depositio Martyrum_, and on this account, De Rossi wished
to change the title of the document to _Feriale Ecclesiæ Romanæ_. But in
this he was mistaken. The MSS. have the title _Depositio Martyrum_ alone,
and to change it would be arbitrary. The two days mentioned above, the
25th December and the 22nd February, must rather be struck out as later
additions which do not belong to the document.
That such entries do not appear in the Calendar is explained, in my
opinion, by the fact that soon afterwards succeeding emperors forbade the
games of the circus and energetically suppressed heathen customs. When
this had been done, the Calendar would no longer be of any practical use,
and so it would not be worth while to make alterations in it. The other
chronological pieces, however, had a permanent value, and it naturally
occurred to those who used them later on to adapt them to the altered
circumstances of the time.
We must now examine more minutely the notice of Christ’s birth given us
in this document. It runs as follows: _I p. Chr. Cæsare et Paulo sat.
XIII. Hoc cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII. Kal. Jan. de ven. luna
XV._[308] Which means, Christ was born during the consulship of C. Cæsar
Augustus and L. Æmilius Paulus (754 U.C.), on the 25th December, which
was a Friday, on the fifteenth day of the new moon.
This notice gives rise to several questions. First of all the Epact is
not correct, as according to our tables it ought to be 11.[309] But this
need not detain us, as two or three peculiarities of this kind are to be
met with in this list of the consuls. The error concerning the day of
the week is more important. To expose this error we need only give the
dominical letters for the years in question:—
751 U.C., Dom. let. F = 25th Dec., Wednesday.
752 U.C., ” E = ” Thursday.
753 U.C., ” DG = ” Saturday.
754 U.C., ” B = ” Sunday.
The compiler of this chronology might have set down the birth of Christ
in either 754 or 753 U.C. 754 is a possible year, although the 25th
December 753 is more probable, yet in either case the day of the week
would be wrong. In 752, the 25th December fell on Thursday, but since 753
was a leap year, the dominical letter advances two places, and Friday is
passed over. At the same time, there has been a fairly constant tradition
that the 25th of December fell on a Wednesday in the year of Christ’s
birth. In any case, the notice that the 25th December fell, in this year,
on a Friday is based on a mistaken reckoning. This notice, then, does
not represent a tradition, but is merely the result of a calculation
which unfortunately is incorrect. Consequently the whole interpolation is
undeserving of credit. We now pass on to a second point.
While all writers before 354 fix the year of Christ’s birth by the year
of the Emperor’s reign, here, for the first time, it is fixed by the year
of the consuls. This is a marked departure from the original usage. The
forty-first or forty-second year of Augustus correctly converted into
a consular year would have run: _Augusto XIII. et Silvano conss._ or
_Lentulo et Messalino_, which would also be the year 751 or 752 U.C.,
according as the year of the emperor is taken as “_effektiv_” or not,
_i.e._ according as one places Christ’s birth in the first or second half
of the year.[310]
Moreover, when the chronographer dates the year of Christ’s birth in the
consulship of “Cæsar and Paulus” (754 U.C.), he anticipates the Dionysian
era some two hundred years before Dionysius, and, further, when, in
accordance with a very ancient tradition, he places the year of Christ’s
death in the consulship of the “_duo gemini_” (29 A.D.), he thus only
allows twenty-eight and a quarter years for Christ’s earthly life, while
St Luke (iii. 23) speaks of Him as having wellnigh thirty full years.
Whoever he may have been who inserted this notice under the consulship
of Cæsar and Paulus in the chronology, he certainly made a mistake. He
also stands alone in placing Christ’s birth in the year 754 U.C., for
the writers and annalists who wrote at a later date, such as Sulpicius
Severus, Orosius, Prosper, Hydatius, and even Cassiodorus, give other
dates.
The anonymous compiler of this chronology differs also, both as to
contents and form, from those who preceded him. While Irenæus, Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, the pseudo-Cyprian, etc., fix the year of
Christ’s birth by a year of the emperor, _i.e._ the forty-first or
forty-second of Augustus, it is given in this document in the form of a
consular year, and while the former give 751-752 U.C. as the year, the
latter gives 754. All this creates great difficulty in accepting the
evidence of the compiler.[311]
We must now deal with the day of the month given in the chronology,
the 25th December, which, strictly speaking, alone is of importance in
connection with the end we have in view, although it cannot well be
separated from the previous question as to the year. It has recently
been thought that Hippolytus afforded some very early evidence on this
point, owing to a passage in his commentary on Daniel bearing upon the
subject. However, this hope has proved deceptive,[312] since the passage
in Hippolytus proves to be the addition of a much later hand; we are thus
left with the chronology of 354 as the earliest evidence for placing the
birth of Christ on the 25th December.
The result of our investigation of this compilation, made up of
historical, chronological, and other materials, proves that the compiler,
in collecting his materials in 354, added to the lists of consuls, which
naturally he did not draw up himself, the notice that Christ was born
under these particular consuls on the 25th December, because it was at
that time the generally accepted date. It could only be widely accepted,
when the festival of Christ’s birth had already been celebrated on this
day, not recently but during a considerable period. It is very improbable
that it had just been introduced by any one person in particular, such
as the Bishop of Rome, for the first years of the reign of Liberius
were very troubled and ill suited for the introduction of so important
an innovation. Moreover, history shows that a thing like this cannot be
done all at once by a stroke of the pen, or at the will of an individual,
even though he be the Bishop of Rome, but is rather the outcome of a long
period of preparation.
The compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in
Rome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced
there, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December.
This statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage
in Hippolytus is an interpolation, the _Depositio Martyrum_ and the
_Depositio Episcoporum_ have been worked over by the hand of the same
compiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without
prejudice to their original contents.
Nevertheless attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other
grounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and
even in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt,
without falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They
reckoned as follows:—when the angel announced to Zachary his son’s
birth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing
the service of the Temple.[313] At the dedication of the Temple under
Solomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned
in 1 Paral. xxiv. 7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession
throughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for
a week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being
the eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were
re-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before,
so soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[314] According to the
assertion of Josephus,[315] this arrangement survived to his own time,
and was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian
era.
Since the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been
calculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year
of the Lord’s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season.
This was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the
destruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the
restoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by
the fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular
performance of divine service was interrupted.[316] In the time of the
Machabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three
years. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses
might be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or,
at the re-establishment of worship, that course might undertake duty
whose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or,
finally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these
cases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but
which of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is
not told us.
Even if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid
foundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year,
leaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to
be accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during
the week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at
once. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again
in autumn, St Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the
year the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during
the Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on
duty as well.
We are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of
Jerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[317]
for again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared.
If we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved.
Even if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on
account of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question
whether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they
ceased on the 8th Gorpiæos, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or
on the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[318]
It is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really
the day of Our Lord’s birth.[319]
It follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the
Redeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that
even when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times
when Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not
wanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is
the case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious
writings of St Jerome: “Whether our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized
to-day, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in
the world, and according to the different traditions different views are
maintained.”[320] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St
Jerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to
the gilded temples of Rome (_aurata capitolia_).
What then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning
the true day of Christ’s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to
answer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest
writers in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to
see that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain,
and that those who were interested in the question did not agree among
themselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second
century. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian
month Pachon (_i.e._ 20th May) as the day of our Lord’s birth. The
Basilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (_i.e._
10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings.
The majority celebrated Christ’s birth on the 11th Tybi (_i.e._ 6th
January).[321]
In a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St Cyprian,
which deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The
anonymous writer of this treatise (_De Pascha Computus_), which was
composed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the
true day of Christ’s birth,[322] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus
sets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct
interpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth
centuries, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th
December, and St Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of
this opinion.[323]
The four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates.
Their authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim
in writing was to give information concerning our Lord’s life, and,
even if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of
fixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning
time. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of
winter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered
it necessary that the inhabitants of Judæa should be enrolled each in
his own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the
census was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as
the late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical
tradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest
times it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which
commemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.
These are the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the 25th
December as the actual date of the Nativity, and they must be taken into
account by any one who desires to form a judgment for himself on this
matter. The other questions relating to the same point are more easily
disposed of.
Whether the accepted date is correct or not, we find it definitely set
down by the chronographer of 354, who directly states that Christ was
born on the 25th December (_natus est octavo Kalendas Januarias_), while
it follows indirectly from his words that this day was solemnly observed
as the day of His nativity. The Calendar ends with the year 354, and
accordingly Christmas was observed then in the same way as at present.
The year 354 brings us within the pontificate of Liberius, and it is just
in his pontificate that we find further authentic evidence concerning the
feast.
During his pontificate Liberius gave the veil to Marcellina, an elder
sister of St Ambrose. This took place on the day of our Lord’s birth
(_Natalis Salvatoris_), and on this occasion Liberius delivered a
sermon preserved for us by Ambrose in his _De Virginitate_. In this
work he recalls to his sister’s memory what the Pope had said: “When
thou sealedst thy vow of virginity in St Peter’s by changing thy habit
on the birth-day of the Redeemer—on what more fitting day could it have
taken place than that on which the Virgin (Mary) brought forth her
child—and in the presence of many of God’s hand-maidens who strove for
thy companionship, he (Liberius) said, ‘Thou hast desired excellent
espousals, my daughter. Thou seest what a crowd of people have come
together to celebrate the birth-day of thy Bridegroom, and that no one
goes away from hence unnourished. He it is who, when invited to the
marriage, changed water into wine. He will vouchsafe the true secrets
of virginity to thee, who until now hast been subject to the beggarly
elements of nature. He it is who, with five loaves and two fishes,
satisfied four thousand men in the wilderness.[324] He could have
satisfied more had more been there. Finally, He has invited still more
to thine espousals, not to give them barley-bread, but a Body from
heaven.’”[325]
Liberius here represents taking the vows of religion under the familiar
figure of a marriage. The marriage feast always forms part of every
marriage, and accordingly it was the duty of the Bridegroom whom
Marcellina had chosen to provide one. He had changed water into wine and
fed thousands with a few loaves, but now He feeds a still greater number
with His mystical Body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the thought running
through the Pope’s address.
St Ambrose does not inform us of the year in which the ceremony took
place at which Liberius spoke the above words. Liberius had been elected
bishop of Rome (17th May 352) in troublous times under the Emperor
Constantius, a strong Arian. As he refused to communicate with the
Eusebius and protected St Athanasius, he was banished to Berœa at the end
of 355, where he was compelled to remain until 357. The Archdeacon Felix,
relying on the Emperor’s support, allowed himself to be consecrated
bishop in his stead, but found no following in Rome. On this account,
Constantius consented to the recall of the lawful bishop, and Liberius
resided in Rome for the remainder of his pontificate, and died there in
366.
It is more probable that Marcellina’s clothing with the religious habit
took place during the latter part of this pontificate. For according to
the received opinion, St Ambrose was born about the year 340,[326] and
thus in 353 he would have been only thirteen years old, and although
his sister was older, yet in 353 she would not have been twenty-five,
the canonical age for taking the veil.[327] Still it is not impossible
that the ceremony and the address of Liberius took place between 352
and 354, and at any rate this much is certain that it took place on the
25th December and not on the Epiphany (6th January), according to the
view formerly held.[328] There is no evidence that the Epiphany was
observed in Rome, as it had been in the East, as the day of Christ’s
birth, and Liberius in this address does not say that the commemoration
of the miracles of the loaves and of the changing water into wine was
being celebrated precisely on the day of Marcellina’s taking the veil,
_i.e._ on the day of the Saviour’s birth (_Natalis Salvatoris_). These
things were alluded to only because of their connection with the train of
thought followed by Liberius in his address.
Nothing can be gathered from the words of Liberius as to when Christmas
was first observed in Rome on the 25th December. In any case, it did not
come into existence suddenly, but would require time, and, like other
festivals, a considerable period would have to elapse before it became
general and gained official recognition. Contemporary evidence on this
point is wanting; one ancient witness, unfortunately not altogether
reliable, speaks of Julius I. and not Liberius as the originator of
Christmas.
We must now conclude by giving the view we have arrived at. In Rome
a distinctive custom had arisen of celebrating Christ’s nativity on
the 25th December, while in other quarters it was celebrated on the
6th January. How this was brought about must remain a matter for
conjecture. It has been thought that in some places heathen festivals
of various kinds were kept in the month of December; in particular, the
Kikellia[329] was kept at Alexandria on the 25th December, in Bostra and
Pella, a festival of local observance,[330] and in Rome, the Saturnalia
began on the 17th December and lasted until the 23rd.[331] It is only
natural that the winter solstice should give rise to a festival, and find
its place marked in the Calendar of Feasts. Indeed, in the Roman Calendar
of much later date—that of Philocalus—the 25th December is marked as the
birth-day of the unconquerable Sun-God (_Natalis Solis Invicti_).
Since on the 21st December the sun reaches its lowest point, and then
begins once more to rise higher in the heavens, man, in his simplicity,
marked the day on which this change in the sun became perceptible as
the new birth or birth-day of the sun, the invincible Sun-God. What
was more natural for the Christians of that age than to connect this
obvious natural event with the thought of the nativity of Him who is
the Light of the World! Even if the Holy Scriptures had not suggested
this idea, it must have presented itself to the Christian mind. The
comparison of Christ with the sun, and of His work with the victory
of light over darkness, frequently appears in the writings of the
Fathers. St Cyprian[332] spoke of Christ as the true sun (_sol verus_).
St Ambrose[333] says precisely, “He is our new sun” (_Hic sol novus
noster_). Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeno of
Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc.[334]
Every child knows that Simeon addressed the new-born Messias as “a
light to the revelation of the Gentiles,” and, since the Messias is also
called by the Prophets the light in the darkness and the Sun of Justice,
it is easy to see how such expressions passed into the Church’s liturgy
for this festival.[335] It was natural for the Romans to set down the
birth-day of this new Sun on the day marked of old time in their Calendar
as a _Natalis Solis_, and observed as a festival by all the heathen
inhabitants of Rome.[336] The choice of the day cannot be due to the
desire to supplant the heathen festival, for it was not a festival of
any special importance. But the similarity between the natural fact (the
solstice) and the revolution in the spiritual sphere (Christ’s nativity),
was sufficient to suggest the idea. It was not necessary to wait for the
time of Constantine in order to hit upon this idea.
We must now return once more to the usages of the Church of Jerusalem
and the festival observed there. The 6th January, indeed, was called
in Jerusalem Epiphany, nevertheless the nativity of Christ formed an
especially prominent feature of the commemoration.
A detailed description of the function is given in Silvia’s diary.
Unfortunately the beginning is missing,[337] and the account opens
with the return of the great procession which took place annually from
Jerusalem to Bethlehem the evening before the feast. The next morning,
the procession returned to Jerusalem and proceeded to the Church of the
Anastasis, which was richly decorated. The monks remained all night in
the church at Bethlehem, which, all through the octave, remained in
festal array.[338] A procession to Bethlehem, on the Epiphany would have
no meaning, if the baptism of Christ was the only event commemorated at
that feast, for this, of course, took place in the Jordan. In Jerusalem,
as in the other Eastern Churches, no special Christmas festival had been
as yet instituted, still at the commencement of the fifth century there
were some who regarded the Epiphany as the day of Christ’s nativity in
the flesh, although, as St Jerome says,[339] the Son of God did not
reveal Himself in flesh but rather concealed Himself. Indeed, if we are
to believe Cosmas Indicopleustes, who lived in the middle of the sixth
century, the nativity of Christ was commemorated at Jerusalem, and there
only on the Epiphany—“a superstitious fancy,” as he calls it.[340]
On the other hand, it has been stated that Bishop Juvenal (425-458), who
obtained for the Church of Jerusalem patriarchal rank, introduced the
feast of Christ’s birth.[341]
Perhaps it was specially difficult to establish this festival in
Jerusalem on the 25th December because another festival was already
observed there on that day—the commemoration of David and the Apostle St
James.[342] Their commemoration, along with that of St Joseph, is kept
both by the Greek Church and the Church of Jerusalem on the Sunday before
Christmas.[343]
A document already referred to, dating from the end of the ninth or
beginning of the tenth century, affords an interesting proof of the
manner in which these matters which we have placed before the reader
were regarded at a later date. John, Bishop of Nicæa, who flourished
about the year 900, endeavoured to induce the Armenians to adopt the
25th December as the day of Christ’s birth, and set down in an elaborate
treatise the reasons he thought calculated to influence them. This
composition is especially interesting because in it the introduction of
Christmas is ascribed to a particular individual, none other than Pope
Julius I. (337-352). Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) is said to have
corresponded with him on this question. Even if, from point of view of
dates, this were not impossible, the letter of Cyril would in itself
give rise to suspicion.[344] For Cyril would have been more likely to
introduce or establish the feast on another day, while it is historically
certain it was not yet observed in Jerusalem in 385.
In this pretended letter, Cyril alleges as a reason for transferring the
feast to a different day from the Epiphany, that it is impossible for
the inhabitants of Jerusalem to keep both feasts on the same day with
befitting solemnity. Bethlehem lies three miles west, and the Jordan
fifteen miles east of Jerusalem. It is stated in this letter that a
procession went to both places on the same day, and so it was impossible
for the clergy to accompany both. The often quoted diary of the Gallic
Pilgrim[345] shows us that the procession to Bethlehem actually took
place, but she is silent about a procession to the Jordan. This is first
mentioned by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century.[346] It only was
possible when the Nativity had been transferred to another day. The
writer of the letter has antedated a later practice and certainly was not
Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem.
The manner in which this letter brings forth evidence in favour
of choosing the 25th December for the Nativity of Christ is also
interesting. Titus, says the supposed Cyril in this letter to Pope
Julius, had carried off all the books of the Jews to Rome after
the destruction of Jerusalem. There they still remain, and Julius
might make a search to see if the true birth-day of Christ cannot be
discovered.[347] Julius then discovered from the writings of Josephus
that Zachary had seen the vision of the angel in the Temple in the
seventh month, on the Day of Atonement, which on that occasion had fallen
on the 23rd September. On that day his son, St John the Baptist, was
conceived, who was born on the 24th June following, but Christ, according
to St Luke i. 36, was born six months later, on the 25th December.
As regards the liturgical celebration of the feast, the oldest sermons
on the _Nativitas Domini_ which have come down to us, are those of Zeno
of Verona († 380).[348] They are purely moral exhortations, and throw no
light upon the date of the feast. He has no sermon for the Epiphany, and
it may be inferred he did not observe it or that it was identified with
the Nativity.
The representation of the crib on a side-altar or some other conspicuous
place in the church is a special feature of the Christmas festival at
the present day. This remains in the church until Epiphany, or even to
the 2nd February. The Christmas crib dates back to St Francis of Assisi,
who, with the permission of the Pope, set up in 1223 for the first time a
representation of the child Jesus in the manger.
It is also the custom to celebrate three Masses, of which the first,
according to the ancient use, commenced at midnight. As the words of the
Mass show, this first Mass commemorates the eternal generation of the Son
from the Father, the second commemorates His Incarnation and birth into
this world, the third His birth through grace, in the hearts of sinners.
The Gelasian sacramentary mentions the _trina celebratio_. The custom
is one which reaches back to early Christian times. Gregory the Great
mentions it in _Hom. viii._ in _Evang._ The Leonine sacramentary contains
nine different formularies for Christmas, but the other western rites,
including the Mozarabic, have only one Mass for the feast. The Menology
of Basil Porphyrogenitus gives the flight of Mary into Egypt on the 26th
December, and St Stephen only on the following day.
Since the 25th December was only chosen for reasons of a more or less
accidental and external character, so too the days which immediately
follow—St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents—have
no real connection with Christmas, although they are of very ancient
institution. The 26th December was already a special festival in the
fourth century, as appears from the sermons of St Augustine (_Sermo_
314, c. 1), though he knows nothing of the two following days. The 220th
sermon, which celebrates the Holy Innocents, is spurious.[349] They
appear, however, in the African Calendar of the sixth century. On the
Innocents’ Day in the Middle Ages the schoolboys used to elect a bishop
who was nothing more than their leader, and the ceremony was quite
harmless. For this ceremony, as well as for the crib and other popular
customs still practised, the reader is referred to Heuser’s elaborate
articles in the _Kirchenlexikon_, iv²., 1395-1436.
The introduction of Christmas and its appointment on the 25th December
brought about the establishment of three other festivals: 1. the feast
of the _Circumcisio Domini_, eight days after the Nativity, according to
St Luke ii. 21, (_postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur
puer, vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus_). 2. The Annunciation on the 25th
March, which is also the day of Christ’s conception, and so is placed
nine months before the 25th December. The historical evidence for this
day is on a par with that for Christmas. 3. The Nativity of St John the
Baptist, on the 24th June. Another consequence was that the festival of
the _Occursus Domini_ (ὑπαπάτη), _i.e._ the meeting of our Lord with
Simeon in the Temple, on Candlemas Day, which was observed in Jerusalem
before the introduction of Christmas, had to be transferred to another
day. According to the regulations of the Jewish Law in Lev. xii. 6, the
period of uncleanness after birth lasted forty days. And according to St
Luke ii. 22, Mary submitted to the Law in this respect. So long as our
Lord’s birth was commemorated at Epiphany on the 6th January, the 15th
February was the fortieth day after the Nativity, and so, as a matter of
fact, the festival of the _Occursus Domini_ was celebrated in Jerusalem
on this day in 385.[350] But when the Nativity came to be celebrated on
the 25th December, the other festival had to be placed thirteen days
earlier, on the 2nd February, as it is at the present time.[351]
2. _Advent and the Sundays until Septuagesima_
Christmas, like Easter, besides its Vigil and Octave, has also a
considerable period of preparation. This, naturally, could only come into
existence after the institution of the festival, and indeed a certain
time had to elapse before it was organised. Since Christmas itself was
first observed in the middle of the fourth century, it is not remarkable
that the earliest clear reference to Advent, from an official source,
dates from the end of the sixth century.
Some sort of preparatory season to Christmas, however, existed before
this. As in the case of Easter, this preparatory season was marked by a
fast commencing on St Martin’s Day (11th November), and lasting until
Christmas. All Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were fasted as in Lent.
Such was the preparation observed in Gaul since the appointment of the
festival by Bishop Perpetuus of Tours († 491). The same observance
existed in other parts of Gaul, for the first Council of Maçon (581)
prescribes exactly the same order, and also that from St Martin’s Day
to Christmas the Mass shall be the same as during Lent—the first sign
of the liturgy for Advent. In the province of Tours there was a similar
enactment, although affecting the monks alone, ordering them to fast
through the whole of December.[352] The Roman Church did not observe the
fast, although she treated Advent as a liturgical portion of the Church’s
year and incorporated it therein.
Although the Greek Church has not marked the preparation for Christmas in
her liturgy, still she has observed the fast since the eighth century.
This begins on St Philip’s day (the 14th November), and continues for six
weeks until Christmas. According to the Mozarabic and Milanese rites,
this is the length of Advent. The Copts observe an Advent fast beginning
on the 19th Athyr (15th November).[353]
Once the observance of Advent had been established in Rome, it spread
throughout the entire West. In Spain we find it extended over five
Sundays according to the Lectionary of Silos, dating from about 650.
It took longer to make its way in France, although the way had already
been prepared for it by Perpetuus of Tours. The service-books of the
seventh century, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, and the so-called _Missale
Gothico-Gallicanum_, edited by Mabillon, commence with the _Vigilia
Natalis Domini_, without Advent. In Rome, the institution of Advent
cannot be traced further back than to the sixth century, for the sermons
of St Augustine and Leo I. make no mention of it. Unmistakable evidence
for its observance is found for the first time in the homilies of Gregory
the Great.[354]
The want of uniformity in the duration of Advent in different parts
of the Church is due to the fact that local Churches, conformably to
the ancient discipline, acted independently of each other. Thus, in
Rome Advent lasted only four weeks, as we gather from the Gregorian
sacramentary, which provides three Sundays in December with collects _de
adventu Domini_, and a _dominica vacans_; in the Appendix, however, five
Sundays are reckoned before Christmas.[355] The first traces of Advent
are to be sought for in the lectionaries, as, for instance, in that drawn
up by Bishop Victor of Capua (546-547), and used by St Boniface.[356]
This contains four Epistles for the Sundays before Christmas (de
Adventu). The Gelasian sacramentary has five Sundays in Advent, but it
has obviously been revised for the use of the Frankish Churches. All
service-books containing only four Sundays in Advent belong to the Roman
rite.
In course of time the divergence between the Roman and Frankish uses
became noticeable and gave rise to confusion. Amalarius remarks: In all
missals and lectionaries there are five Sundays in Advent, but in the
Antiphoner there are only three offices and a _Dominica vacans_, and the
Gregorian missal has only four Sundays in Advent. In support of five
Sundays, it was urged that from the beginning of the world until the
Christian era five of the seven ages of the world had passed. Even in
the tenth century, opinions were expressed in favour of five weeks. It
was urged that, according to the other practice, if Christmas fell on a
Monday, Advent strictly speaking lasted only three weeks. Abbo of Fleury
(† 1004) is witness to the existence of a twofold practice in a later
period.[357] In the eighth century, an Advent of four weeks was observed
in France wherever Roman influence extended. Berno of Reichenau in his
writings on Advent is only occupied with the question how to deal with
the vigil of Christmas when the 25th December falls on a Monday. The
Micrologus does not mention an Advent season of five weeks, nor does
Beleth.[358] A deviation from this custom appears in the Milanese and
Mozarabic rites which prescribe a duration of six weeks for Advent, thus
bringing it into conformity in this respect with Lent.
At first Advent was regarded merely as a time for penance and
mortification in the same way as Lent. On this account, it was widely
observed as a time of fasting, although the Church had nowhere so ordered
it. Later on, again, Advent was regarded as a type or memorial of the
Old Testament or the time before Christ. However, the view that the four
weeks of Advent typify the four thousand years from Adam to Christ,
impressive as it is, finds no support from the Liturgy. On the contrary,
the lections from Genesis in the Breviary begin in Septuagesima, while
during Advent the lections are taken from the Prophet Isaias.
As far as the lections from Scripture are concerned, the Gospel for
the second Sunday in Advent recounts our Lord’s Messianic labours,
while His birth is only commemorated some two or three weeks later. The
Gospel for the first Sunday speaks of the end of the world, not, as one
would expect, of its creation. The mediæval lectionaries, moreover,
replace St Luke xxi. 25 _et seqq._ on this Sunday with the Gospel _Cum
appropinquasset Jerusalem_, etc. (St Matthew xxi. 1 _et seqq._),[359]
and the preceding Sunday is sometimes called _Dominica in præparatione
Adventus_, or _Dominica Quinta ante Natalem Domini_, in which we see a
remnant of the more ancient reckoning. The collects of the Mass express
the hope of the Messias and the longing for His appearance.
We must also consider Christmas in connection with the festivals which
follow in the course of the year, such as the Circumcision of our Lord,
which, of course, falls on the eighth day after Christmas, the _Octava
Domini_, the Epiphany, and Candlemas Day. Thus quite naturally, as it
were, a cycle of festivals has grown up round Christmas Day.
We may also mention the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas with its
Gospel giving the account of the meeting of Jesus and His parents with
Simeon and Anna. The Gospel for the Sunday after New Year’s Day records
the flight into Egypt. The Sundays after Epiphany form connecting links
between Christmas and Easter, varying from two to six, according as
Easter falls earlier or later. Only the two first Sundays have any
distinctive character, the first commemorating the visit of our Lord to
the Temple at the age of twelve years, and the second His first miracle
at Cana of Galilee.[360] The remaining Sundays, along with Septuagesima
and Sexagesima, do not commemorate any historical event in their lections
from Scripture; Quinquagesima and the Sundays in Lent direct our
attention to the approaching Passion. In the case of the Sundays three
to six after Epiphany, this is intentional, since they are liable to be
transferred from their proper place to the end of the year when necessary.
The Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, or, as it was formerly called, the
Sunday after Christmas, has as its Gospel St Luke ii. 33-40, which gives
the account of Simeon’s prophecy. Chronologically speaking, this passage
comes before its time, for, in St Luke’s Gospel, it comes after the
passage chosen as the Gospel for Candlemas (St Luke ii. 22-32), of which
it forms the continuation. In the last verse (ii. 39), mention is made of
the return from Jerusalem or Bethlehem to Nazareth. The events, however,
which follow in the course of the Church’s year—the circumcision and the
arrival of the Wise Men—must have happened before the return to Galilee.
3. _The Octave of Christmas. The Circumcision. The New Year_
Since Easter, after the example given by the Synagogue, was from the
first observed with an octave, and, since Epiphany had its octave already
in the eighth century, it was inevitable that Christmas should be
provided with one also. Accordingly, the eighth day after Christmas bears
the name _Octava Domini_ (In Octavas Domini) in the Gelasian[361] and
Gregorian sacramentaries, whence it may be inferred that it was not yet
regarded as an independent festival and passed unnoticed if it fell on a
week-day.
On the other hand, it was partially observed as a popular holiday, at
least it gave occasion in many places for popular rejoicings,[362] being
the day on which the Roman Calendar began a new year. In Ravenna it
was marked by dancing and masquerades, against which Peter Chrysologus
inveighed in his 155th Sermon. Since he forbids Christians to put in
even an appearance at these entertainments, they must have been of
an objectionable nature. It was the same in Gaul even in the sixth
century and later. The second Council of Tours, and the Councils of
Auxerre and Rouen (650) were compelled to forbid these rejoicings.
With a view to counteracting their influence, the bishops exhorted the
faithful to attend divine service on this day, and appointed somewhat
earlier penitential processions (_litaniæ_) to be privately performed
in atonement for the sins committed at this season.[363] In Spain, the
eleventh canon of the fourth Council of Toledo commanded a strict fast
and abstinence for the same object, and the Allelujah was omitted from
the psalmody. In 650, a law of the Kings Recceswinth and Erwig made
the Kalends of January a festival of obligation.[364] In Rome, in the
eighth century, the people spent the nights dancing in the streets
to the scandal of pilgrims from the north, as Boniface informed Pope
Zacharias. These abuses lingered longest in France though divested of
their heathen character. Late on in the Middle Ages, we find a remnant
of them in the so-called Feast of Fools, at which ecclesiastical customs
were travestied by the election of a Bishop of Fools and by all sorts
of misconduct in the churches. Things became so bad that the papal
legate, Cardinal Peter, felt compelled to order Odo, Bishop of Paris, to
pronounce excommunication on all who took part in such proceedings. The
bishop prohibited the abuse in the strongest manner in 1199, but in spite
of repeated ecclesiastical censures, it continued on into the fifteenth
century, as appears from a report of the theological faculty of Paris in
1444.[365]
The 1st January appears as an ecclesiastical festival at Rome for the
first time at the beginning of the ninth century, where it is called from
the first _Circumcisio Domini_, the name which it bears among the Greeks,
Syrians, and Copts.
We have already observed that in the Gregorian sacramentary the 1st
January is simply called _Octava Domini_. The same is also the case in
the Calendar of St Geneviève, edited by Fronteau, which was written
between 714 and 731.[366] In the _Homiliarium_ of Charlemagne compiled
by Paul the Deacon between 786 and 797, the day is still called _in
octavas Domini_, i.e. _Calendas Januarias_.[367] The change of name
must have been effected shortly after this. Although among the sermons
of Zeno of Verona,[368] there is one on the circumcision of our Lord,
this only proves that he treated of this subject in his discourse, and
affords no evidence for the existence of the festival. In the Calendar
of Charlemagne, edited by Piper, dating from between 731 and 781, the
name _Circumcisio_ occurs, so too in the list of Festivals of Sonnatius.
On the other hand, the Gregorian sacramentary written, under Archbishop
Otgar, about 840 for the monastery of St Alban near Mainz, has only
_Octava Domini_.
The idea and date of this festival are derived from St Luke ii. 21, since
eight days after birth our Lord was circumcised and received His human
name, which, according to Jewish usage, was given at the same time.
Later on, a special feast in honour of the Holy Name was instituted and
appointed for the second Sunday after Epiphany. Its celebration was
permitted to the Franciscans by Clement VII. in 1530, but the cultus of
the Holy Name is due in a great measure to the influence of St Bernardine
of Siena. On 20th December 1721, Innocent XIII. appointed this feast to
be observed by the whole Church.
The Liturgy makes no reference to the commencement of the civil year,
although in the lectionary of Silos this day is called _Caput Anni_.
4. _The Epiphany_
As the name Epiphany implies, the origin and early celebration of this
festival is to be sought in the East. Among the Syrians, it is called
_denho_, or “Going forth,” in the sense of “_oriens ex alto_” (St Luke i.
78). Among the Greeks, it goes by the name of τά ἐπιφάνια or ἡ ἐπιφάνιος
sc. ἡμέρα, and θεοφάνεια. For the most part, the Latins employed the
Greek name, or an equivalent, such as _Festivitas Declarationis_, used
by Leo the Great, _manifestatio_, by Fulgentius, or _apparitio_ by
others.[369] The root, from which the Greek ἐπιφαίνω is derived, was
employed to describe the dawn, and the adjective ἐπιφανής was applied to
the appearances of the gods bringing help to men.
These names sufficiently disclose the idea commemorated by the feast—the
commemoration of the appearance of the Son of God on earth in general,
with special reference to those occasions in His life on which His divine
sonship was revealed in some distinctive manner. Prominent among those
occasions were His Nativity, the worship of the three wise men from the
East, the baptism in Jordan with its accompanying theophany, and the
miracles through which He manifested His divine power, especially the
first miracle at the marriage in Cana. Accordingly people spoke of divine
manifestations, in the plural, for the name _dies epiphaniarum sive
manifestationum_ was known to the heathen.[370]
The feast was kept on the 6th January. The first indication that this
day was marked in some special way in the Christian Calendar is given
by Clement of Alexandria, who says that some of the orthodox in his day
regarded it as the birth-day of Christ, while the Basilidians observed
the 10th January.[371] This of course does not prove that the 6th January
was observed at that time in Alexandria as a festival. Origen omits it
from the list of festivals he gives in _C. Cels._, 8, 22. It appears,
however, among the writings of Hippolytus, in an earnest exhortation
which he addressed to a candidate for baptism shortly before the day of
the “Divine Manifestations” (εἰς τὰ ἅγια ἐπιφάνεια), when baptism was to
be received. He starts with the baptism of Jesus, and then treats of the
effects of baptism, and of worthy preparation for its reception.[372] A
much later writer, who is however not to be quite disregarded, Bishop
John of Nicæa in the ninth century, traces back the institution of the
festival to disciples of St John.
Epiphany commemorates several events in the life of Jesus by which He
manifested His divinity. One of these is His baptism by St John in
Jordan,[373] for, according to the scriptural narrative, at the time of
His baptism a voice from heaven was heard proclaiming Jesus to be the
Son of God, and the Holy Ghost visibly appeared in bodily shape as a
dove. The baptism in Jordan is the special event commemorated by Epiphany
among the Easterns, _e.g._, in the oldest Coptic Calendar Epiphany
is called _Dies Baptismi Sanctificati_, and in a later one _Immersio
Domini_.[374] The earliest existing sermon on the day—the homily of
Hippolytus—treats exclusively of the baptism of Jesus. Chrysostom, in
addition to the baptism, speaks of our Lord’s second coming in Judgment
as an event commemorated by the festival. On account of its connection
with the baptism, this festival has among the Greeks the secondary title
of “Feast of Lights,” (ἑορτὴ τῶν φώτων);[375] and in Ireland, contrary to
the ancient custom of the Church, solemn baptism was administered on this
day.[376]
The second event commemorated on the 6th January is the visit of the
three Wise Men who, by their gifts, recognised Christ as God and Man and
Redeemer, and worshipped Him as the long expected King of the Jews. The
Wise Men found the divine Child still in Bethlehem, though no longer
in the stable, as artists usually represent the scene, but in a roofed
house[377] where His parents were temporarily lodged. The evangelists
give no indication how long after the Nativity this took place.
The visit of the Magi appears as the sole event commemorated by Epiphany
in the six sermons of Augustine delivered on the feast (Sermons 199-204).
Fulgentius in his four sermons on Epiphany treats only of this event and
of the slaughter of the innocents.
The Mass in the Gelasian sacramentary refers in the collects and preface
only to these mysteries, and not to the two others, and the Gospel[378]
relates the visit of the Magi.
The third event commemorated is the first miracle performed at the
marriage in Cana, by which our Lord manifested His divine power. This
threefold commemoration is still recognised in the present Roman liturgy,
and finds expression in the antiphon to the _Benedictus_, which runs: “On
this day the Church is joined to her celestial Bridegroom, because Christ
washed away her sins in Jordan, the Magi hasten with gifts to the royal
espousals and the guests are gladdened with water changed into wine.”
Polemius Silvius notices the three events in his Calendar on this day.
Paulinus of Nola[379] expressly mentions them. They are especially dwelt
upon and distinguished in a sermon of Sedatus, Bishop of Béziers, in the
sixth century.[380] Maximus of Turin was acquainted with the threefold
commemoration, but doubts if they all actually happened on the same day,
the 6th January.
Later on, in mediæval times, there was a tendency to include under the
Epiphany other manifestations of Christ’s divine power, such as the
miracle of the loaves, and the resurrection of Lazarus.[381]
There is hardly any trace in the West of Epiphany as the festival of our
Lord’s birth,[382] and even in the East this significance of the feast
was forgotten after the institution of Christmas. Lingering traces of the
earlier conception which had not quite died out in the East, may perhaps
have been the occasion of a polemic from St Jerome,[383] when he declared
that the Epiphany had never been regarded as a festival of Christ’s
nativity.
By the introduction of Christmas, Epiphany naturally lost its character
as the day of Christ’s birth, even in those parts of the Church where
it had originally been regarded as such. It is not, therefore, to be
wondered at that Chrysostom, as introducer of Christmas, felt compelled
to explain to his hearers more particularly the difference between the
feasts. Christ, he says, did not appear at His birth openly and to all,
but only to a few persons, and so little was His divinity manifested
thereby that St John the Baptist was able to say: “There hath stood one
in the midst of you, whom you know not.” From the moment of His baptism,
His divinity was evident to all, and consequently the festival instituted
in honour of the baptism of Jesus bears the name of Epiphany. Moreover,
there is yet another and a fuller appearance of the Lord which will take
place at the end of the world. Hence the necessity, according to St
Chrysostom, of celebrating in addition to the Epiphany a special festival
in honour of Christ’s birth.[384]
Epiphany first appears with an octave in the Calendars of the eighth
century. In the Gregorian sacramentary it is without an octave, but has a
vigil. In the Calendar of Fronteau the festival is kept up for three days.
One of the special observances connected with the feast was the
publication on the 6th January of the annual pastoral letter of the
Patriarchs of Alexandria—the _epistola festalis_—announcing the date of
Easter for the current year. In 541, the fourth Council of Orleans (can.
1) ordered the same thing for the West, also the Councils of Auxerre in
578 and 585 (can. 2). In the Middle Ages the dates of the other movable
feasts were added to the date of Easter (Pontif. Rom.), as is still done
in some places, as for example, Turin, at the present day.
The festival was kept with special solemnity at Jerusalem, as we learn
from the description of it given by the Gallic Pilgrim. Unfortunately,
the beginning with the special account of the feast is missing, but there
is no doubt that the foregoing paragraph described the Epiphany, for the
succeeding festival is spoken of as _quadragesima de Epiphania_ (c. 26).
According to this document a procession from Jerusalem to Bethlehem
took place on the eve, returning in the early morning. After a time for
rest, the service commenced about the second hour of the day in the
great church on Golgotha, which was richly decorated. At the conclusion
of the function the faithful proceeded to the church of the Anastasis,
and, about the sixth hour, or twelve o’clock, the festival was at an
end. In the evening vespers (_lucernare_) were sung. On the second and
third days service was held in the same church, on the fourth day in the
church called Eleona on the Mount of Olives, on the fifth day in the
_Lazarium_, the grave of Lazarus in Bethania, on the sixth day in Sion,
on the seventh day in the church of the Anastasis, on the eighth day in
the church of the Holy Cross. Thus both in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem the
feast lasted eight days—a kind of octave.
In the Eastern Churches the day is further distinguished by the solemn
blessing of the water, mentioned by Chrysostom and intended to recall the
miracle at Cana. This is a very popular festival, but in many places has
been stripped of its religious character; it is performed by the clergy
going in procession to the sea or to a river, reciting a prayer, and then
throwing a crucifix into the water which is fetched out again by swimmers
and takes place on the 18th January (old style).
With regard to the antiquity and spread of the feast, it was unknown in
North Africa during the third century, for Tertullian makes no reference
to it, and even in the time of St Augustine it was rejected by the
Donatists as an Oriental novelty.[385] In Origen’s time, at least, it
was not generally observed as a festival in Alexandria, since he does
not reckon it as such. For Rome, evidence is wanting for the earliest
times, but since the daughter Church of North Africa knew nothing of the
festival at first, it may be inferred that originally it was not kept at
Rome but was introduced there in the course of time. In Spain, it was a
feast-day in 380, in Gaul, in 361, and there is evidence of its existence
in Thrace as early as 304.[386] In the East it generally held the place
of Christmas as our Lord’s birth-day,[387] and as such it had already,
as early as the first half of the third century, become domiciled in
the Church, as is shown by the recently published _Testamentum Jesu
Christi_, where it is twice named as a high festival along with Easter
and Pentecost.[388] In the Roman Empire, as early as A.D. 400, Epiphany
was one of the days on which games in the circus were forbidden by law.
Not until Justinian’s[389] time were the law courts closed[390] on this
day also.
5. _The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary_
(CANDLEMAS)
By the mosaic law, every mother, after giving birth to a son, remained
unclean for seven days, in the first instance, and then, for thirty-three
days longer, was excluded from participation in public worship. After
the birth of a daughter the period of ceremonial uncleanness was twice
as long. Thus the whole period lasted for forty or eighty days, and at
its conclusion the woman had to bring a yearling lamb for a holocaust and
a pigeon for a sin-offering. In case of poverty, two young pigeons or
turtle-doves sufficed as an offering (Lev. xii. 2-8). According to the
narrative in the Gospels, Mary, after the birth of Jesus, fulfilled the
commands of this law and brought the prescribed offering to the Temple on
the fortieth day, on which occasion the meeting with Simeon and Anna took
place (St Luke ii. 22 _et seqq._).
Our Blessed Lady and her divine Son, in the first place, and,
secondarily, Simeon and Anna are the actors in this scene, and it would
have been strange had this event not been commemorated very early among
the Church’s festivals.
The first reference to such a commemoration belongs to the last decades
of the fourth century and comes from Jerusalem. It is contained in
the diary of the so-called Silvia. The day was ushered in by a solemn
procession, followed by a sermon on St Luke ii. 22 _seqq._, and a Mass.
It had as yet no special name, but was known merely as the fortieth day
after the Epiphany. This goes to prove that at that time the Epiphany
was regarded in Jerusalem as the day of the Lord’s birth, and it follows
indirectly from the expressions used (_hic_) that the festival was not
yet known in the Pilgrim’s home.[391]
It seems probable that the festival was first of all observed in
Jerusalem from whence it spread through out the whole Church. The person
by whom, and the time when it was first introduced into Constantinople
and the Byzantine empire, are known to us. A plague having caused
frightful mortality, the Emperor Justinian, as soon as it had passed
away, ordered the Purification to be observed for the first time
in 542.[392] The contradictory evidence in Georgius Hamartolus and
Nicephorus[393] that it was the Emperor Justin, Justinian’s predecessor,
who introduced the festival and ordered it to be observed throughout the
world, seems due simply to a confusion between the two emperors. In any
case the spread of the feast throughout a wider area dates from this time.
The name by which the festival was known, now that it was widely adopted
in different districts, was “The Meeting,” in Greek _Hypapante_, in Latin
_Occursus Domini_, in reference to the meeting between the Child Jesus
and Simeon and Anna; it may be that this festival was introduced at Rome
in consequence of Justinian’s commands, but no evidence to that effect
is extant. As far as Rome is concerned, it appears in the Gelasian
sacramentary with the new name of _Purificatio_, and as a feast of our
Blessed Lady, without any mention of a procession.[394] Pope Sergius
I. (687-701) ordained, however, a procession on this as on the other
principal festivals of Our Lady. In the passage in question of the _Liber
Pontificalis_, the festival has the remarkable name of St Simeon’s Day,
“which the Greeks call Hypapante,” which seems to show that the festival
had not yet been well established in Rome. Moreover, the 2nd February was
observed among the Greeks as the actual day of Simeon’s death, because
in his canticle he had said, “_Now_ Thou dost dismiss Thy servant ...
in peace.”[395] That the festival was only introduced at a late date in
many places in the West is proved by the fact that in the Lectionary of
Silos, the oldest belonging to the Spanish Church, and dating about 650,
it does not appear. The same is the case with regard to the Calendar of
St Geneviève in Paris (731-741) published by Fronteau.
Formerly the general opinion was that it had been introduced in Rome by
Pope Gelasius I. in order that he might replace the heathen _Lupercalia_,
with their midnight torch processions and disorderly proceedings, by a
popular Christian festivity. This opinion[396] cannot be maintained in
the face of the facts referred to above. The _Lupercalia_ indeed fell
on the 15th February, which also happened to be the day on which this
festival was originally kept in Jerusalem, but the Gallic pilgrim makes
no mention of lights carried in the procession. Again, processions, with
or without lights, were so common both among the Christians and heathen
of the early Christian era, that any connection between the procession on
Candlemas Day and the _Lupercalia_ cannot be inferred.
The _Invitatorium_ (_Gaude et lætare, Jerusalem, occurrens Deo tuo_), and
the preface, which is that for Christmas, show that originally the feast
was rather a festival of Our Lord than of Our Lady. The collect for the
day speaks of the presentation of the Lord in the Temple alone, and the
antiphons for the most part refer to the same event, while the psalms are
those of Our Lady’s feasts. The Gospel for the day (St Luke ii. 22-23),
the same now as in the fourth century, chronologically speaking, precedes
the Gospel for the previous Sunday. For the Sunday after Christmas has
St Luke ii. 33-40 for its Gospel, which relates the return of the Holy
Family from Judæa to Galilee.
6. _The Sundays of the Church’s Year as forming connecting-links between
the principal Feasts_
During the age of the persecutions it was scarcely possible for
Christians to observe any other festival than Sunday, and so it is not
surprising that the two writers, who have occasion to speak of the
institution of the festivals of the Church, mention only Easter and
Pentecost, both of which fall on Sundays. To these Christmas was added in
the fourth century, and Epiphany somewhat earlier. These chief festivals,
along with others soon added to their number, formed the elements for the
organisation of a festal system in the Church, as centres round which the
lesser festivals grouped themselves.
The last step of importance, however, in this development of the Church’s
year was to connect these chief festivals with one another, so as to
make them parts of a whole. The Sundays afforded a convenient means
for effecting this. They were associated with the festal character
of the nearest feast and were connected with it as links in a chain.
The way for this development had been prepared by the season of
preparation before Easter, and by the relation in which Easter stood to
Pentecost. The Sundays of Lent had their own character as a preparation
for Easter, and the Sundays in the fifty days between Easter and
Pentecost—Quinquagesima—were marked by the festal character with which
antiquity invested the whole period. All that was needed was, first of
all, to connect Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and, in the second
place, the institution of a season of preparation before Christmas. This
was accomplished between the sixth and the eighth centuries.
During the first six centuries, the ordinary Sundays of the year had
neither liturgical position or character, since they were not even
enumerated. There was a sort of _commune dominicarum_, _i.e._, a number
of masses existed from which one could be chosen at will for each Sunday.
To these Sundays, which were called simply _dominicæ quotidianæ_, those
after Epiphany and Pentecost belonged.
They numbered altogether twenty-nine or thirty, according as the Calendar
gave fifty-two or fifty-three Sundays in the year. For the sum of the
days of the year, 365, divided by seven makes fifty-two and one over,
and so the year which commences on a Sunday has fifty-three Sundays,
the others only fifty-two. The smaller number of these, six at most,
come between Epiphany and Septuagesima, but the larger, twenty-three
to twenty-eight, between Whitsunday and Advent. The variation depends
upon the date of Easter. There is no historical circumstance forthcoming
to give these Sundays a specially festal character. With Pentecost the
commemoration of Our Lord’s redemptive acts concludes, and it was not the
custom in the West to include events from Church history in the cycle of
feasts, although the East celebrated a few, as, for example, the General
Councils.
With regard to the Roman rite in particular, there are no special masses
for the Sundays after Easter and Pentecost in the Leonine sacramentary.
A further development appears in the Gelasian sacramentary, where the
Sundays in Lent and those between Easter and Pentecost alone have a
clearly defined liturgical character, and keep their special place in
the Calendar. For the remaining Sundays of the year, there was a choice
of only sixteen masses, which are not in the first book of the Gelasian
sacramentary containing the course for the year (_anni circulus_, i.e.,
_Proprium de tempore_), but at the commencement of the third book. Along
with the masses for week-days and masses for special occasions, they form
the contents of this volume. The masses for Advent, however, strange to
say, are contained in the second book, thus out of chronological order.
In the Gregorian sacramentary, at the end of the eighth century, the
Church’s year has the same form as at the present day, with the sole
exception that the Sundays in Advent come at the end, instead of, as at
the present time, at the beginning of the Missal. This is due to the fact
that Christmas was then usually regarded as the commencement of the year.
In the construction of the ecclesiastical year, the Gallic and Spanish
Churches followed the Roman. The Mozarabic breviary has five Sundays in
Advent, but they stand at the beginning. They are in the same position
in the _Liber Responsalis sive Antiphonarius_, contained in a Codex of
Compiègne belonging to the ninth century, and falsely attributed to
Gregory the Great.[397]
The Gregorian sacramentary simply numbers the Sundays consecutively
after Pentecost, but in the Frankish lectionaries there are signs of an
attempt to separate the Sundays after Pentecost into groups—Sundays after
SS. Peter and Paul, Sundays after St Lawrence, etc.—but the custom was
afterwards abandoned.
In France, this division of the Sundays after Pentecost seems to have
been general in the eighth century. The _Homilarium_ of Charlemagne
divides them as follows:—
{ Four Sundays after Epiphany.
{ Three Sundays after Pentecost.
{ Seven Sundays after SS. Peter and Paul (Post Natale Apostolorum).
22 { Five Sundays after St Lawrence.
{ The September Ember Week (Feria iv., vi., et sabb. et Dominica).
{ Six Sundays after St Michael, 29th Sept. (Post S. Angeli).
The _Kalendarium Frontonis_ divides them thus:—
{ Two Sundays after Pentecost.
{ Six Sundays after SS. Peter and Paul (Post Natale Apostolorum).
19 { Four Sundays after St Lawrence.
{ Seven Sundays after St Cyprian (Post S. Cypriani).
This gives only nineteen after Pentecost, and so the _Kalendarium
Frontonis_ has ten Sundays after Epiphany until Septuagesima, which must
clearly have helped to fill up, when necessary, what was wanting at the
end of the year.
The _Comes Albini_ in Ranke (App. iv.) gives:—
Five Sundays after Epiphany.
{ Four Sundays _post Pentecosten_.
{ Five Sundays _post natale SS. Apostolorum_.
21 { Five Sundays _post natale S. Laurentii_.
{ One _Dominica mensis septimi_.
{ Six Sundays _post S. Angeli_ _scil._ _dedicationem basilicæ S.
Archangeli_ (_Michælis_).
Four Sundays in Advent.
The Gregorian sacramentary, written for Mainz under Archbishop Otgar
about 840, has six Sundays after Epiphany, four _post Pentecosten_, then
six _post natale Apostolorum_, six more _post natale S. Laurentii_ and
eight _post S. Archangeli_—in all, twenty-four.
The Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century stands alone in giving
merely two Sundays _post Theophaniam_, and three _post Cathedram S.
Petri_. The Sundays in Lent as well as Septuagesima are not marked in
any special way. The first of these peculiarities is less remarkable
since, even in the Gelasian sacramentary, the Sundays after Epiphany are
not given a distinctive name. All these attempts to split up the Sundays
into small groups were subsequently abandoned, and the simple manner
of enumeration found in the Roman rite was adopted. A careful observer
will have noticed that the year is divided into two very unequal parts.
The movable feasts all fall in the first half, leaving the second half
devoid of festivals. Even the week-days in Lent, and in the octaves
of Easter and Pentecost, are each provided with special lections and
masses. Without doubt this is due to the fact that in the earliest times
the entire season before Easter was occupied with the instruction of
Catechumens. The necessity of providing them with as much instruction as
possible led to this increased liturgical activity. It appears almost as
if the abandonment of the Catechumenate resulted in a decrease of this
activity, and brought matters to a standstill. A long period elapsed
before any fresh efforts were made in the direction of completing the
course of the ecclesiastical year.
The Greeks have stopped short with their ecclesiastical year only half
made. They have a fairly complete cycle of Easter festivals, and they
have adopted Christmas, but without its proper setting since they have no
Advent. But their manner of enumerating the Sundays after Pentecost is
very different from that adopted in the West. That is to say, they name
the Sundays after the passages of Scripture read in the Gospel for the
day.
From Easter to Whitsunday, the Gospels for Sundays and other days are
taken from St John; from the Sunday after Pentecost to the exaltation of
the Holy Cross (14th September), from St Matthew; and for the following
fifteen weeks from St Luke. The former Sundays are called Sundays after
St Matthew, the latter, Sundays after St Luke. The latter extend over the
New Year and Epiphany—for no notice is taken of Advent in the lections.
St Mark’s Gospel supplies lections for most of the Saturdays and Sundays
of Lent, as well as for a number of week-days throughout the course of
the year. But the Sundays in question are not called Sundays after St
Mark, any more than the Sundays between Easter and Pentecost are called
Sundays after St John; but they take their names partly from their
position as Sundays in Lent and partly from the incidents related in the
Gospel for the day. In the Eastern system the connection between the
Sundays and the festivals is purely external and not organic.[398]
In speaking of the ecclesiastical year of the Greeks and Orientals, it
must be borne in mind that they do not possess the same quantity of
formularies for the Mass as we do, but, throughout the course of the
year, they employ only two or three. The result is monotony, and it is
practically only the Gospel for the day in which the festal character of
the celebration finds expression. Among the Latins, on the other hand,
the introit, collect, etc., all emphasise the character of the feast, and
still more clearly the lections from Scripture. On this account, a few
remarks as to their origin and that of the lections in the Breviary may
not be out of place.
Evidence for the earliest period is lacking, but there is no doubt the
choice of what was to be read rested with the bishop and that he also
fixed the length of the lections. In certain cases, and for many days,
the choice presented no difficulty, the lections being determined by
the character of the feast itself. We can, for example, determine the
lections for a number of days used in the fourth century in Jerusalem.
Several of them agree with those now in use.[399] Very early, a series
of lections for the canonical hours must have been drawn up for use
in monasteries, and then this in its turn influenced the lections in
the liturgy. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that St Jerome was the
originator of such a series of lections, and accordingly the lectionary
was called by his name. It is certain that a lectionary existed as early
as the fifth century, for which the so-called _Carta Cornutiana_ affords
proof.[400]
When we examine more closely the order of lections, we notice they do
not harmonise with the ideas presented by the different parts of the
ecclesiastical year, as now existing, but they do agree with the form
which it took in the earliest stages of its development. The consequence
is that the lections are appropriately chosen for the pascal season and
for Whitsuntide, but do not fit in with the festal character of Advent
and the Christmas cycle. As we have said, the ecclesiastical year began
originally with the preparation for Easter, _i.e._ Lent. The lections
from the five books of Moses which start with Septuagesima were then in
their proper place, treating as they do of the fall and the divine scheme
for man’s restoration.
C. OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE CHURCH’S YEAR
1. _The Embertides_
The Embertides[401] are peculiar to the Western or Roman Church. In
Rome they have been observed from the earliest times, and so Leo the
Great was inclined to ascribe to them an apostolic origin. This Pope
connects them with the four seasons of the year,[402] and gives them
a special signification in as much as we then give God due honour and
praise for the gifts He gives us to support our bodily life. Again, they
move us to make a good use of the gifts thus bestowed, to abstain from
superfluities, and to impart our gifts generously to those in need. We
must neither murmur over the fewness of some gifts, nor be discontented
with the excess of others, as may even sometimes happen. God’s will
should be our will.[403] The Embertides in general, but especially that
of December, he directly connects with agriculture and the harvest (_ut
omnium fructum collectione conclusa_, etc., _Sermo 16_, c. 2); and the
earliest liturgies[404] contain prayers for the same purpose; such
indications as these give us the clue to the origin of these fasts. By
them practices originally heathen have assumed a Christian form and
character. The Romans, originally, were compelled to be an agricultural
people, and their gods were for the most part deities who presided over
agriculture, as Tertullian early remarked (Sterculus, Epona, Mutunus,
etc.), and their worship was closely connected with the stages of
cultivation. The chief incidents were accompanied by religious ceremonies
and usages. A blessing was asked on the sowing of the seed at the _feriæ
sementivæ_, observed between the end of November and the Winter solstice,
_i.e._ in December. At the time of harvest, the _feriæ messis_ were
celebrated, and at the vintage, the _feriæ vindemiales_.[405]
With the fact that the heathen worship of Rome recognised three sorts
of such _feriæ_ observed thrice in the year (no evidence of a fourth
being forthcoming), agrees a passage in the _Liber Pontificalis_, which
has long been regarded as the earliest evidence for the observance of
Embertides, though it fell short of absolute proof. The passage states
that Calixtus (217-222) ordained a fast on three Saturdays in the
year.[406] The number corresponds well with the three sets of heathen
_feriæ_ mentioned above. As St Leo speaks of four fasts of this kind
yearly in the fifth century, the fourth fast, corresponding to the
fourfold division of the year, must have been added in the course of the
fourth century. It may be that the passage, Zacharias viii. 19, referring
to a Jewish custom of sanctifying by a fast the four seasons of the year,
helped to bring this about.
All four Embertides are mentioned in the sermon of Leo the Great, and
both the Leonine and Gelasian sacramentaries agree in marking Wednesday,
Friday, and Saturday as the days to be observed as fasts.[407] Pope
Gelasius[408] appointed that ordinations of priests and deacons were to
be held on all Embertides, and in the middle of Lent, whereas in St Leo’s
time the ordination of priests took place at Easter only.[409]
The Ember fasts were called _jejunium primi, quarti, septimi et decimi
mensis_, in the earliest service-books, and fell in March, June,
September, and December. The week in each of the aforesaid months,
in which the Ember fast was to be observed, appears not to have been
definitely fixed in earlier days.
If the opinion of Morin is correct, this would agree with the fact that
the harvest feast was not fixed for any day in particular, but was
determined by the pontiffs in each case. However, it remained for a
long period undetermined whether the first Embertide should be observed
before or during the course of Lent, and also in which week of Advent
the last Embertide should fall. The present arrangement, according to
the Micrologus[410] was first made by Gregory VII., _i.e._, the first
Embertide to fall in the first week of Lent, the second in Whitsun week,
the third in the third week of September, the fourth in the third week in
Advent.
According to what has been said the Ember fasts were distinctively Roman
in origin, and indeed belonged to the city of Rome, and the Roman bishops
by repeated injunctions ordered their colleagues in Italy to adopt
them in the first instance. In Gaul and in the Christian districts of
Germany, their adoption was due to the patronage given to Roman usages by
the Carolingians: in Spain the Ember Days were unknown until the Roman
ritual was introduced in the eleventh century, and in Milan they were
introduced much later, in fact by St Charles Borromeo.[411] It does not
appear from history that the original object of the Ember Days was to
petition God to raise up worthy priests in His Church. They are first
mentioned in this connection after the popes had appointed them as the
fixed times for ordinations. They owe their origin to the agricultural
festivals of ancient Rome, as appears plainly from the references of Leo
the Great,[412] to the December fast.
In a later age, they lost entirely their early significance and came to
be regarded solely as days of penitence and prayer. In the prayers of
the actual Roman missal, no trace of their original character is to be
found. The Ember masses of Advent refer to the coming of Christ, those of
Lent to the suffering caused by sin, and its Atonement, those of Whitsun
week to the descent of the Holy Ghost. Where the prayers do not relate
to these subjects they contain no special references, or deal only with
fasting in general and its necessity. The masses for the September Ember
Days alone preserve some traces of their historical origin, in as much as
they are principally of a festive character (_Exultate_, etc.), such as
might refer to a harvest safely gathered in. But such a connection cannot
be proved beyond doubt.
When we go through the prayers in the oldest sacramentaries we find the
same thing. The name of Embertide is not indeed employed, and the days
are not yet marked as fast-days, but the Saturdays are distinguished,
twice in the Gelasian, and on all four Embertides in the Gregorian
sacramentary, by having twelve lessons.[413] With regard to the later
recensions of these two sacramentaries, the Gelasian contains two formulæ
for announcing the Ember fasts to the faithful after the “_Pax Domini sit
semper vobiscum_”[414] in the Mass. In the first part, there is a Mass
for the three Ember Days of the fourth month, June, and, in the second
part, for September and December as well,[415] while the March Ember
Days are merely indicated in Nos. XIX. and XX. of the first part. In the
Frankish Gregorian sacramentary it is the same; masses are given for
March, June, and September but not for December.[416] Few of the prayers
in these two sacramentaries are contained in the missal actually in use.
It is to be remarked concerning the lections that they numbered twelve
on the Saturdays. The present Roman missal prescribes three lections for
the Wednesdays, but for the Fridays only two as usual. For the Saturdays,
however, the number reaches six, and, in the Advent Embertide, seven,
including the Gospel.
That there were only three Embertides (_i.e._ the _jejunium quarti,
septimi, et decimi mensis_) given in the ancient service-books is not
surprising, since the fast in March fell usually in Lent and so needed no
special mention.
With regard to the spread of Ember Days in the West, they made their way
slowly and seemed to have been earliest adopted by the Anglo-Saxons,
who at their conversion accepted the Roman ritual as a whole. They are
ordered to be observed by the Council of Cloveshoe (can. 18) in 747.
Neither Chrodegang nor Theodulf speak of Ember Days in their writings,
though they seem to have been introduced by St Boniface into Germany and
France. Even if the so-called statutes of St Boniface are not in all
points contemporary with the saint, Ember Days were certainly enjoined
in the Frankish Empire by the Capitulary of Charlemagne in 769, where up
till then they had not been observed.[417] The circumstance, too, that
their observance had to be repeatedly enjoined by the Councils of the
ninth century, _e.g._ the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, and later
ones, proves that they had not yet won their way as a popular observance
in northern countries.[418]
Moreover, it still remained uncertain in which week of the months in
question the Ember Days should come. In Rome they came in the first week
of the month. Elsewhere doubts arose as to what ought to be done when
the Ember Days in June came in Whitsun Week, and as to whether one ought
to fast when the 1st March fell on a Thursday or Friday, the Wednesday
falling on the last day of February.[419] Gregory VII. put an end to
these variations by establishing the present usage.[420]
2. _Litanies or Rogations_
_Litaniæ_ is the name given to solemn processions of clergy and
people accompanied by prayer at which sacred pictures and emblems are
carried. It was impossible to perform such devotions in the days before
Constantine. But when Christianity became a recognised religion they
were quickly adopted, and all the more so as the heathens had similar
practices which they performed frequently and at stated times.
Litanies were especially frequent in Rome. There, during Lent, the Pope
was wont to set out with his assistants with great solemnity from his
residence to celebrate Mass in the various churches of the city. Each
day he went to a different church, where the halt or station was made. A
survival of this remains in the word _Statio_, which appears so often in
the missal. This custom was abandoned in course of time.
Still some of these _litaniæ_ found their way into the regular worship of
the Church, and have their place in the ecclesiastical year, _i.e._ the
procession on the 25th April, St Mark’s day, called _litania major_, and
those on the three days before the Ascension, called _litania minor_. The
names are remarkable, for the _minor_ lasts three days and the _major_
only one, but it is explained by the history of their institution.
The Christian processions are a continuation of the heathen processions
which they have replaced. This is especially clear with regard to the
_litania major_ which was performed on a stated day, the 25th April.
It has nothing to do with St Mark, whose feast was only much later
introduced in the Roman Church.
The ancient Romans had their processions which took place both within and
without the city, the latter corresponding to our rogation processions;
the former were called _amburbalia_ from _urbs_, and the latter
_ambarvalia_ from _arva_.[421] They served as supplications either for
blessings from the gods on the fruits of the earth, and were observed
yearly on stated days, or to avert calamities and were appointed as need
required.[422]
The better known of these processions of ancient Rome, the _ambarvalia_,
took place on vii. a. Kal. Maias (25th April). The procession passed
along the _Via Flaminia_, the present Corso, and went as far as the fifth
milestone, _i.e._ as far as the Milvian Bridge, where, the entrails of
a dog and of a sheep were offered to the god _Robigus_.[423] As the
procession was primarily intended to ward off blight (_robigo_) from the
crops the day was called “_Robigalia_” in the Calendar. When Rome became
a great city, agriculture and its festivals fell unto the back ground,
and both in the Calendar of the fourth century and in that of Polemius
Silvius the _Robigalia_ is no longer mentioned on this day. There was
another great procession in heathen Rome, the _Argea_, which took place
on the 16th and 17th March, and Bishop Vigilius of Trent, speaks of a
rural festival of the same character.[424]
As to Christian Rome, Rupert of Deutz is of opinion that processions had
been performed there since Constantine’s days, and Beleth names Liberius
as their originator. Although it is not impossible these writers may have
gained their information from ancient sources, still one cannot draw any
certain conclusion from their remarks.
We have, however, sure proof of the introduction of Rogations by Bishop
Mamertus of Vienne. That part of the country had been visited for a
considerable period by various calamities and earthquakes. On Easter
night, 469, the royal palace in Vienne was struck by lightning, which
caused such a panic among the entire congregation assembled in church,
that they fled from the building. Mamertus put himself into connection
with the civil authorities and along with them organised the Litanies,
which had been used before this time, but in an informal and irregular
manner. It was ordained they should take place on the three days before
the Ascension, that they should be accompanied by a fast, and that the
slaves should do no servile work. This institution was soon imitated
throughout the whole of Gaul. Under Bishop Sidonius Apollinaris they
were adopted at Clermont, next the first Council of Orleans (511), in
its twenty-seventh canon, prescribes them for the Frankish part of the
country, and Avitus could say they had already spread throughout the
whole world, and been accepted with eagerness.[425]
Nevertheless there is no clear evidence in antiquity, to show how matters
were arranged in Rome. Only when we come to the time of Gregory the
Great, do we get detailed accounts which have been preserved by Gregory
of Tours. In autumn of the year 589, a terrible inundation devastated
the city of Rome, overthrowing the ancient buildings, destroying all
provisions, and leaving behind it a pestilence which carried away Pope
Pelagius II. in February 590. To avert the divine wrath, Gregory, as
administrator of the vacant see, ordered a procession of especial
solemnity.[426] It was apparently the procession of the 25th April, but
carried out on a larger scale than heretofore. It may, however, have been
an extraordinary procession such as had never before taken place, for its
date is unknown, and it is not certain if the often quoted statement of
Gregory really refers to it. In his numerous letters there is no mention
of this procession.
Gregory prepared the people for the procession some days before by a
sermon. The procession was divided into seven parts, and hence received
the name of _Litania Septiformis_. Each division started from a different
church, and all met in the basilica of St Mary Major. As Gregory says
in another place, “The return of this annual solemnity warns us to keep
it with devout hearts,” we conclude it was not a new observance just
introduced.[427] In Rome the _litaniæ_ of Rogation Week, as the _Liber
Pontificalis_ informs us, were first adopted under Leo III. (795-816),
through the Frankish influence[428] then dominant there. The observance
of days of penitence in this season of the year was a departure from the
original principle that the Quinquagesima was a time of ecclesiastical
joy, as Amalarius rightly observes. The procession of the 25th April
belonged especially to the city of Rome, and the name _litania major_
is due to the fact that the processions of Rogation Week were only
introduced later. They too were performed with great solemnity. In other
places there were yet other days appointed for litanies, but whether in
addition to those already mentioned or in place of them is not clear.
Thus the second Council of Lyons in 567, in its sixth canon, enjoined
that in the first week of November, litanies similar to those customary
before the Ascension should be performed. The Church of Milan celebrated
the Rogations in the week after the Ascension. The Council of Gerunda in
517, in its second canon, places them in the week after Pentecost, and a
second _litania_ on the first of November when it was not a Sunday (Ib.,
Can. 3). The second canon of the sixth Council of Toledo (638) places
them on the Ides of December. It may be conjectured from this that the
litanies in Spain developed on peculiar lines.[429] Here as in Gaul,
the Rogation Days were kept as fasts. In Germany, the Rogations were
only introduced in the ninth century, for the Council of Mainz in 813
(Can. 33), prescribed they should be observed by a three days’ fast, and
the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 836 (Can. 11), ordered expressly the
performance of the processions after the Roman manner.
3. _The Dedication of a Church and the Festival of the Patron Saint_
The festival of the dedication of a Church has indeed no connection with
the ecclesiastical year, and the festival of the patron saint belongs to
the same category as the ordinary saints’ days, but formerly, and even to
some extent at the present time, both have such a marked position among
the festivals that they deserve some special mention.
In order to distinguish one church from another, different ways of
naming them were adopted in course of time. In Rome they took their
names originally from their founders and from those to whom the site
on which they stood had previously belonged, _e.g._, the Basilica of
the Lateran, the Sessorian Basilica (Sta. Croce), the Licinian Basilica
(Sta. Bibiana), the Liberian (Sta. Maria Maggiore), etc. Elsewhere they
received their names partly in the same way, and partly from other
reasons, as we see from the oldest churches in Jerusalem—the _Martyrium_
and Anastasis in the city, the Eleona or Imbomon on the Mount of Olives,
and the _Lazarium_ in Bethania, close to Jerusalem.[430] Churches built
over the graves of martyrs, _Martyria_, were naturally called after
the saint over whose tomb they were erected, and as many such churches
served for ordinary divine worship, it gradually became customary to call
churches after a saint, or to dedicate them specially to his honour.[431]
Such was the custom in Carthage. From the point of view of the historical
development, one must consider (1) the day on which the church was made
over for public use, and (2) the patron saint. The former was the day
of the church’s dedication or consecration. The heathen, both civilised
and barbarian, had been accustomed to set apart the edifices erected for
the service of their gods by a special ceremony of consecration.[432]
Everyone knows with what magnificence Solomon dedicated the first temple.
Accordingly, it only was to be expected that so symbolical a ceremony
would be adopted by the Church, and, as a matter of fact, immediately
after the cessation of persecution, under the first Christian Emperor,
we find the dedication of churches performed with great display. We have
an example of this in the dedication of the Church at Tyre, about which
Eusebius has so much to say in his Ecclesiastical History, having himself
delivered a long and very tedious and commonplace discourse on that
occasion. (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, 10, 3 and 4.)
The dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in
335, was performed with remarkable magnificence. After the Synod of
the Eusebians at Tyre in this year, many bishops at the invitation of
the imperial representative proceeded to Jerusalem, for the great
basilica which Constantine had commenced to build on Mount Calvary was
now finished. The dedication took place on the 14th September, the day
on which the Empress Helena had found the Holy Cross, and which, as the
Gallic Pilgrim states, was observed later as an annual festival. Two
anniversaries fell, in this case, on the same day and consequently we are
unable to conclude that the anniversary of a church’s dedication was at
this time already celebrated as a regular thing. It became customary to
do so, however, shortly afterwards both in the East and in the West.[433]
To the same period belongs the consecration of the so-called Golden
Basilica at Antioch, also commenced by Constantine but completed under
Constantius in 341. On this occasion also a Synod was held.[434]
Unfortunately nothing definite regarding the ceremonies employed at the
dedication of a Church can be gathered from Eusebius’ wordy description.
He says: “The bishops performed the divine service, and the priests
fulfilled their functions, and very magnificent were the ecclesiastical
ceremonies. One heard the psalms and the other hymns which come from God,
and saw the mystic rites of the service performed; the mystical symbols
of the saving Passion were there also. Moreover each of the bishops
present delivered a festal address and strove to the best of his ability
to promote the festivity.” In the West, even in the fourth century,
special ceremonies of dedication were in use, and Ambrose mentions them
as generally observed, but the particulars of which they were composed,
we cannot now ascertain. However, one of the ceremonies was the placing
of relics of the martyrs in the new church, if there were not some there
already. In an unconsecrated church there could be no performance of
divine service.[435]
Before this, and in many places afterwards, it appears that the
consecration of the altar alone was required. At least the oldest Gallic
missal[436] contains a mass for the consecration of an altar only, and
none for the dedication of a Church. This is borne out by the fact that
in the liturgical writings of Ephrem and of the pseudo-Dionysius we find
mention of the consecration with holy oil of the altar, while nothing is
said of the consecration of churches. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions
nor the so-called Testament of Jesus Christ contain any reference to
it.[437] The Old Testament furnished models for the elaboration of the
liturgical services used at the dedication of churches; in particular,
the octave and the annual commemoration of the dedication day follow
Jewish precedents.[438] The impressive solemnities with which Solomon
dedicated the first temple in the twelfth year of his reign lasted
for seven days (iii. Kg. viii. 65). When the second temple, built by
Zorobabel, had been defiled by the heathen rites of the Syrians, it was
purified by Judas Machabeus, B.C. 165, and restored to the worship of
Jehovah. It was then settled that the festival of this purification of
the temple should be observed annually for eight days, beginning on the
25th Casleu (1 Mach. iv. 42 _et seq._, 2 Mach. i, 9 and 18).
The prolongation of the dedication festival for eight days, and the
recurring celebration of its anniversary soon make their appearance
in liturgical writings and spread throughout all Christian countries.
The Leonine Sacramentary contains a mass for the anniversary of the
dedication of St Peter’s, the Gelasian Sacramentary has a short rite
for the consecration of a church along with forms for the consecration
of altars, chalices, and altar cloths, but omits the blessing of the
water.[439] At the consecration of a church in St Augustine’s time, the
twenty-ninth psalm was directed to be sung. We possess three sermons
preached by St Augustine at a _Dedicatio_ (336-338). In the text of the
Gregorian sacramentary, there is no Mass for the consecration of a new
church, but a special one for the anniversary. That the latter was kept
as a festival of obligation is not stated. The form for the consecration
of a church, with the Mass belonging to it, is given in the Appendix.[440]
In the middle ages, the anniversary of the dedication (_natale
ecclesiæ_) was observed as a general festival of obligation for the
local congregation irrespective of whether it fell on a week-day or on
a Sunday; it was also to be observed with an octave.[441] In Germany it
was ordered by the Synod of Mainz in 813, and, along with the feast of
the Patron Saint, in the statute of Bishop Hetto of Basel about 827. Both
festivals are found together in the statutes of Lanfranc of Canterbury
and in the decrees of the Council of Szabolcs in Hungary, in 1092. The
ecclesiastical celebration consisted of a vigil, solemn High Mass, and
procession in which the relics of the saints belonging to the church
were carried. A flag was wont to fly from the church tower, the floor
was strewn with green leaves, the altar and pulpit were decorated with
boughs, and a bunch of flowers was placed before the picture of the
Patron Saint. The anniversary of the dedication of each altar was also
observed, but only inside the walls of the church.[442]
Festivals of the Patron Saints were not enjoined as of obligation in
the decretal of Gregory IX. in 1232, although placed by Lanfranc in the
highest class of feasts. They were regarded as such in various countries,
especially throughout Germany. Thus, the diocesan Synod of Cologne,
under Archbishop Heinrich II., placed them along with the dedication of
churches among the holy days of obligation,[443] and so also did the
statute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves in 1338. On the other hand,
the provincial Synod of Cologne in 1549, under Adolf III., expressly
suppressed them as holy days of obligation, and desired they should be
celebrated only in choir, in order, as it said, festivals should not
become too numerous. It also forbade noisy revels, such as dancing, etc.,
at the festival of the dedication of a church.
To have a church of its own, especially a parish church, was of the
greatest importance to each district, on account of the spiritual and
even material benefits of which it was the source. This explains the
enthusiasm with which the dedication of the church was observed. With the
ecclesiastical festival were soon associated secular amusements, fairs,
merry-makings, and shows. The dedication was especially the festival of
the people in the middle ages, and, as always happens in such cases,
the secular influences proved stronger than the spiritual, although the
dedication was one of the days on which indulgences were usually granted.
As parishes and churches became more numerous, the number of these
festivals increased also, and the result was that not only the parish in
question observed the feast, but all the neighbouring parishes joined in
the celebration. Thus these feasts and the merry-making associated with
them increased without limit. Among the country people especially it was
inevitable that excess and licence should give rise to grave disorders.
At the outbreak of the Reformation, the innovators availed themselves
of these abuses to wage war against all Dedication Feasts,[444] and
some provincial Synods of the sixteenth century directed that all the
dedications in a diocese should be kept on one and the same day. In
the bull of Urban VIII. in 1642, reducing the number of festivals,
the dedication is no longer named among the festivals which were to
be retained. By a decree of Clement XIV. in 1772, the festival of the
Patron Saint was to be celebrated on its proper day, and if there were
more than one patron, only the chief patron was to be commemorated. The
brief of Pius VI. of 1788 for Breslau removed the festival of the Patron
Saint out of the range of the ordinary life of the people by transferring
its celebration to the Sunday.[445] Finally, the French revolution and
the Concordat abolished these celebrations altogether, and put an end
to all Dedication Festivals throughout the extent of the French Empire.
This caused the churches in most dioceses to keep a general Dedication
Festival on some one Sunday in the year, and only inside the walls of
the church. The dedication of the cathedral is either included in this
general celebration, or, in some instances as in Cologne, is still
celebrated by itself.
The people were by no means pleased at the suppression of these popular
feasts, but consoled themselves by transferring to the festival of the
Patron Saint, even when transferred to the Sunday, the rejoicings which
they had hitherto associated with the Dedication Festival.
In those parts of Germany which in 1802 did not belong to France, the
earlier usages continued and the traditional rejoicings still continue to
be observed, but in a manner corresponding to the more refined spirit of
the time.
The custom of keeping the day of the Patron Saint as a holiday of
ecclesiastical and civil obligation still continues in all the several
Austrian crown lands. In Bavaria each diocese celebrates the feast of the
Patron Saint of the diocese on the proper date.
As regards the present usage, the law for every parish is that the feast
of the patron of the church, or, if the church is dedicated to a mystery,
the day on which that mystery is commemorated in the calendar, is to be
kept as a double of the first class with an octave. The popular festival,
called in Germany _Kirmes_, takes place on the following Sunday. The
existence of these popular feasts to the present day, in spite of so much
opposition, proves their inherent right to exist, for each part of a
great whole, having its own separate existence, naturally wishes to have
something distinctively its own in addition to what it shares in common
with others.[446]
CHAPTER II
THE SAINTS’ DAYS
1. _The origins of the Cultus of the Saints and the Grounds on which it
Rests_
The ecclesiastical year recalls to the memory of the faithful all that
God has done for the salvation of mankind, especially through the
mysteries of the new Covenant, _i.e._ the life and passion of Jesus
Christ, and she re-enacts them, as it were, before their eyes within
the compass of each recurring year. To this the Sundays and festivals,
especially those from Advent to Pentecost, are devoted. They form
an organic whole, constituted in accordance with one definite idea,
consisting of the three great festivals Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost,
each in itself the centre of a special season. The foundations and heart
of the whole festal system of the Church were given by a higher Hand, and
only the development—the much less important part of the whole—is to be
attributed to the thoughts and contrivances of men.
It now remains for us to consider the second division of the Christian
festival system—the Saints’ Days. These are distinguished from the feasts
of our Lord both by their institution and by their treatment, their
distribution throughout the year, their development and their diffusion
throughout Christendom.[447]
From the foundation of the Church, there has been no controversy over
the holiness and worshipfulness of those who laid down their life for
the Christian faith. The New Testament itself did not omit to hand on
to posterity the memory of those whose death fell within the apostolic
period, such as the Holy Innocents, St James the Great, and before all
others the first martyr St Stephen. The seer of the Apocalypse saw the
martyrs of Jesus beneath the altar of God, Who did not forget them (Apoc.
xvii. 6; vi. 9-11).
Neither did the Church forget them. From its foundation each Christian
congregation was at pains to preserve the memory of the martyrs belonging
to it. Thus, for example, Pionius and his companions celebrated the
“true day” of St Polycarp’s death (_natale genuinum_) at Smyrna in
250, during which festival they were themselves seized and condemned
to death.[448] Among the larger congregations, where the number of
martyrs rapidly increased, special means were taken at an early date to
preserve their memory. This was necessary in large communities if the
memory of these heroes of the Faith was not to pass away. It is true
that for the Church of Rome alone, do we possess definite information
as to her mode of proceeding in this respect, but there is no room for
doubt that smaller communities followed on the same lines, and for some
indeed we have clear evidence that they did so. In many instances, the
reverence which continued to be paid to the tomb of such an individual
was sufficient to keep his memory alive. Those who suffered a shameful
death as law-breakers in the opinion of the civil power nevertheless
received honourable burial. According to Roman ideas earthly Justice was
satisfied by the death of the guilty person, the body was given to the
relations and friends to be duly buried.[449] Only when there was risk of
a tumult was this permission withheld, which happened very rarely in the
Roman Empire before the reign of Diocletian—or, where it was a question
of high treason.
Not only the relations and friends were careful to preserve the memory
of the martyrs, but, as we have already said, the congregation to which
they had belonged. While the former erected chapels over the tombs of the
martyrs, and preserved the information relating to them, the community on
its part marked down in its registers their names and the days on which
they suffered. In large communities the Bishops took steps for drawing up
authoritative reports concerning the martyrs belonging to their flocks.
According to the _Liber Pontificalis_, Clement I. is said to have divided
Rome into seven regions, with a Christian notary appointed over each
whose business it was carefully to investigate matters of this nature
belonging to his region.[450] The size of the city of Rome rendered this
necessary. Augustus had divided Rome for civil purposes into fourteen
regions, but Clement, for the purpose he had in view, formed one region
out of every two. Pope Fabian again adopted similar measures, and
enjoined upon the seven sub-deacons the duty of seeing that the seven
notaries made a complete collection of the acts of the martyrs. He thus
doubled the number of persons employed in this matter, and placed the
subdeacons over the notaries.[451] His predecessor Anteros (235-236)
collected the _gesta martyrum_, and carefully preserved the Acts of
the martyrs, as we learn from a somewhat obscure notice in the _Liber
Pontificalis_.[452] This is again referred to in the same work, where
it is stated that Pope Caius appointed the regions of the city to the
deacons during the Diocletian persecution.
St Cyprian adopted the same plan at Carthage during the persecutions
under Decius and Valerian. He ordered the priests and deacons of Carthage
not only to interest themselves in every way on behalf of the faith of
those in prison, but also to take thought for the bodies of those who
died in bonds, even when they died without having undergone torture,
and also to keep a record of the name and date of death of each one, in
order that his memory might be celebrated along with the memorials of
the martyrs.[453] The order to take down the date could be easily obeyed
everywhere, since in every city, Calendars engraved on marble tablets
were set up for public use.[454]
We have an authoritative document of this kind in the detailed account
given by the communities of Lyons and Vienne, of the martyrdoms which
took place there under Marcus Aurelius. Owing to its having been sent to
Asia Minor, Eusebius was able to utilise it and incorporate the chief
parts of it into his history of the Church.
The same thing happened more or less everywhere; the names of the martyrs
belonging to the community were entered in the Calendars of the Church,
and their memory was celebrated annually on the anniversary of their
death. These were the so-called _martyres recogniti_, _i.e._ those who
were recognised as martyrs by the community. Each large community,
especially the patriarchal Churches, thus possessed their calendar of
saints, which became more and more full of names in process of time.
Authentic fragments of such calendars are contained in the Roman
_Depositio Martyrum_, which, along with the _Depositio Episcoporum_, was
compiled not later than the episcopate of Liberius (352-354). Fuller,
because less ancient, is the Calendar of Carthage, dating from the end of
the fifth century or from the beginning of the sixth, printed by Mabillon
in his _Analecta Vetera_,[455] and of which he treats in iii. 398, of
this work.
In the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocæsarea in
Pontus, was no less zealous than St Cyprian in collecting information
concerning the martyrs. He travelled throughout the whole district,
inspiring the people everywhere with zeal for the celebration of the
memory of those who had suffered for the faith.[456] And thus in all the
greater cities, catalogues of the local martyrs were compiled, as Sozomen
testifies for two neighbouring towns, Gaza and Constantia. Each of these
two towns, he says, had their own bishop and clergy, and also their own
festivals of martyrs and catalogues of the priests who had presided over
them.[457]
At a much later date, Maximus of Turin gives us some interesting
evidence concerning these attempts of the different communities: “As
we must celebrate the general commemoration of all the holy martyrs,
so, my brethren, ought we to celebrate with special devotion the feasts
of those who shed their blood in our own locality. For while all the
saints, wherever they may be, assist us all, yet those who suffered for
us intercede for us in a special manner. For the martyr suffers not for
himself alone, but also for his fellow-citizens. By his sufferings, he
obtains for himself a reward in heaven, and gives a good example to his
fellow-citizens. He gains rest for himself and salvation for them.”[458]
The official cultus of the saints was at first confined to the martyrs.
The earliest example of the public worship of saints, not martyrs, dates
from the time of Pope Symmachus, under whom, about A.D. 500, a church was
built and dedicated to Pope Silvester and Martin of Tours, in Rome, the
_basilica Silvestri et Martini_.[459]
Our information concerning the martyrs is derived from three
sources[460]:—
1. The _Acta_, _i.e._ the report of the trial taken down by the notary
of the proconsul or procurator (_notarius_, _commentariensis_, and
_exceptor_), containing the accusation, the examination, the depositions
of the witnesses, the description of the tortures employed and the
judgment given. Even in the time of Cicero the evidence of the witnesses
was taken down in writing, and during the Empire full reports of both
civil and criminal actions were taken and preserved. A proclamation of
the Emperor Severus in 194, enjoins that these _acta_ be preserved, and
be produced when required for ascertaining the truth. Copies were given
for payment to people interested or concerned in the trial. Some of
these reports of the trials of the martyrs have come down to us in their
original form, and afford the most valuable materials which we possess
for the history of early Christian times. The best known are the _Acta
Proconsularia S. Cypriani_, along with the acts of Pionius, Maximilian,
and Marcellus, etc.
2. _Passiones_, _i.e._ an account of the imprisonment, trial, and
execution of the martyrs drawn up by Christian eye-witnesses at the time
or immediately afterwards. They are worthy of all credit, for among the
Romans legal proceedings took place as a rule in public. It was only
under the later emperors that this publicity was so far curtailed that
the proceedings were conducted in the basilicas or buildings set apart
for that purpose. The earliest and best-known examples of these Passions
are the letter of the church of Lyons to the churches of Asia Minor, the
_Passio S. Perpetuæ et Felicitatis_, the _Martyrium Polycarpi_, etc.
3. Legends, _i.e._ narratives based upon documents of the nature
described above, and worked up by later writers, either for the purpose
of edification or from the point of view of a historian. This class of
writings is very large, beginning with the account of the martyrdom of
St Ignatius. The writings, however, differ endlessly as to their value,
according to the knowledge and authority possessed by the writers,
and according to their nearness to the date of the events described.
There were many martyrs whose sufferings were recorded in no _acta_ or
_passiones_, but were imprinted upon the memory of men, and became part
of the traditions handed down in the community, until they were finally
committed to writing. The later this took place, the worse for the
authenticity. For it was then that anachronisms, alterations in titles,
changes in the persons, and other similar historical errors could more
easily creep into the narrative, as we know, in fact, they have done in
many instances. The historical sense was unfortunately lacking to the
Franks and Byzantines, as well as all idea of sound criticism.
A false kind of patriotism and national pride often goes along with
credulity, so that we find here and there in literature of this kind
even downright fabrications. After the introduction of printing, by
which literature became more widely diffused and comparative criticism
was rendered possible, it at once became evident among Catholics that
error was mixed with truth, and that a sifting of the one from the other
was necessary, and, in many cases, quite possible. In this province of
criticism, those who have most distinguished themselves for judgment
and insight are Launoi, Henschen, the Bollandists, Tillemont, Baillet,
Ruinart, and in more modern times, Franchi di Cavalieri and others who
have avoided extremes in either direction.
The matter from these writings incorporated in the service books
possesses the same historical value as the source from which it is drawn.
For, as Bäumer justly remarks, “it was not the intention of the Church,
or of the compilers and authors of the service books, to claim historical
authority for their statements. And so the Popes themselves have directed
many emendations to be made in the legends in the Breviary, although
many others still remain to be effected.”[461] The legends, by their
incorporation into the Breviary, gain no higher degree of credibility
than that which the person who incorporated them is able to confer upon
them from a purely natural standpoint. This must be emphasised and
maintained, for since the time of Bishop Aurelian of Arles,[462] the
reading of the histories of the martyrs made its way more and more into
the psalmody in the West, and became an essential part of the Breviary.
The honour of having cultivated for the first time the province of
hagiography as a whole and not merely in a few particulars, belongs,
as far as we know, to the historian Eusebius. Before he completed his
history of the Church, he planned a collection of the Acts of the Martyrs
(συλλοωὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων), which he quotes in his history (v. 1, 6).
Unfortunately this compilation has been lost, although it was probably
used by Gregory of Tours.[463] He gives further information in his work
on the martyrs of Palestine which took place in his own lifetime during
the Diocletian persecution, between 303 and 310. This book seems to have
been composed after the completion of his History of the Church.[464] Had
we similar writings of the same period relating to other provinces of
the Church, we should be better informed concerning those extraordinary
events.
The method adopted was plainly that each local community worked for
itself alone without troubling itself about what happened elsewhere.
The worship of the martyrs was also at first limited to particular
localities. Certainly there was no lack of interest in what took place
in other districts, as is shown by the letter from the churches of
Lyons and Vienne to the Christians of Asia Minor, but liturgical and
ecclesiastical worship was paid to the martyrs of the place alone. For
example, the Calendar of the Roman Church contained those martyrs alone
who belonged to the Roman community; in the same way the Alexandrian
Calendar contained only those belonging to Egypt, the Antiochene Calendar
only those of Syria, and so on. This state of things continued until the
ninth century. A striking proof of this is the fact that Ignatius of
Antioch, although he suffered death in Rome, finds no place in either
the _Gelasianum_ or the _Gregorianum_, while at Antioch he was venerated
as a saint from the beginning. A remarkable exception is the veneration
which St Perpetua, St Felicitas, and St Cyprian enjoyed in Rome. In this
case the relationship between the mother and the daughter church must
be taken into account, for Christianity had spread to Carthage from
Rome. From what has been said, it follows that information concerning
the manner of a martyr’s death and the exact day on which he suffered,
derived from local sources, is trustworthy in the highest degree, but it
is forthcoming in a few cases only.
As it was the day of the martyr’s death which was kept and marked in the
calendar, it must be observed that this day was sometimes called the
martyr’s birthday, _natalis_, _natalitium_, and sometimes also _dies
depositionis_. Owing to the burial taking place on the day of death, as
was the custom among the ancients, _dies obitus_ and _dies depositionis_
could be used as synonymous terms.[465]
Among the Romans burial followed as soon as the death was certified.
Nearly every one belonged to a burial society, which undertook the
preparations for the funeral. In addition to these, there were only the
preparations in the house to be thought of, and these—the washing and
clothing of the corpse—could be quickly performed. Hence the burial
could take place in a very short time. The Jews also buried their dead
immediately after death, as the story of Ananias and Saphira shows.
The Christians of the first centuries followed out all the customs
relating to burial usual in their time and country, excluding only those
which were specifically heathen and idolatrous. That they buried their
dead with the same expedition as the heathen is clear from an incident
related by Tertullian.[466] The burial of a woman who seemed to be dead
was for some reason delayed. While she lay ready for burial and the
priests were reciting the prayers, she raised up both her hands, and,
when the prayer for peace was concluded, laid them down again in their
former position. It was only in the fourth century that it began to be
the custom to delay burial to the third or fourth day after death,[467]
but the earlier practice continued still to exist for a considerable
period.[468]
As it was already the custom to inter those who died a natural death
on the day of their decease, so there was no reason why the burial of
the martyrs should be delayed, and thus with them the _dies obitus_ and
the _dies depositionis_ were one and the same. Consequently the ancient
dates in question, even when given as that of the burial, are always to
be understood as referring to the day of the martyr’s death, and, when
they form part of the traditions of the community to which the martyr
belonged, they are to be received as absolutely reliable.
In the case of the martyrs, the rule of venerating them on the day of
their death admitted of no exception, although it might be set aside in
the case of those saints who were not martyrs, for certain reasons and
in particular instances. Thus, for example, the day of St Chrysostom’s
death, the 14th September, was already occupied in the fourth century
by the festival of the Invention of the Holy Cross. St Basil died on
the 1st January, and St Ambrose on the 4th April, which fell within the
Pascal season. During Lent, no festivals of martyrs were to be celebrated
on week-days, according to the fifty-first Canon of Laodicea, but only
on Saturdays and Sundays at most. But this prohibition was by no means
general.
Besides the lists of the _depositiones_, the service-books, the
sacramentaries or missals, helped to preserve the memory of the martyrs.
In the earliest service-books of the Roman and also of a few other
churches, the Masses in honour of the martyrs were not classed by
themselves apart, but were incorporated with the others, and not
separated from the course of the ecclesiastical year, or, to use a modern
expression, the _Proprium de Sanctis_ and the _Proprium de Tempore_
were still fused together. Only in the _Gelasianum_ are the _Natalitia
sanctorum_ separated from the ecclesiastical year and collected together
in the second volume. Still later were the catalogues of the saints
formed into independent works, the so-called martyrologies. In the East
these began to appear at an early date. In this a return was made to the
older arrangement, except that now it was not the martyrs of the local
churches alone which were taken into consideration, but those of the
Church Universal.
It is just this insertion of the saints’ days in the course of the
Church’s year which proves that the names of the martyrs and the days
of the commemoration were subject to the control of authority; that
is to say, the compilations in question have all the weight attaching
to public official documents and to reliable sources of information,
and, for this reason, they may be used as material in historical works.
Valuable information can be gained from a judicious employment of these
compositions.
The restriction of festivals to those commemorating saints of a specific
locality disappeared only slowly, and at a late date in the West.
It disappeared still later, and only to a limited extent, among the
Easterns, who showed a tendency to fill up their calendars with other
things rather than with the feasts of foreign martyrs and saints, as, for
example, the commemorations of Councils, Old Testament personages, and
even the four beasts of the Apocalypse were pressed into the service.
In the West the entrance of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons into the Roman
Church gave the first impulse to an extension of the martyrologies and
calendars in the direction of universalism or universal Catholicity. Both
these nations, having no Christian antiquity of their own, adopted along
with the ritual of the Roman Church her calendar of saints as well. Soon,
however, they added to this the names of their own particular saints, and
so prepared the way for more universal ideas; while, on the contrary, the
Roman Church did not include in her calendar the saints and martyrs of
the Franks and Anglo-Saxons. Only at the revision of the service-books
in the sixteenth century did she so far yield as to act in some degree
upon the principle of Catholicity in this matter. The subsequent increase
and development of the festivals of the saints in the Calendar of the
Catholic Church had a disturbing effect upon the ecclesiastical year and
daily office. Ordinary Sundays have lost their position and have given
place to the commemoration of saints, and green vestments only rarely
make their appearance. The first step towards the general observance of
the cultus of particular saints throughout the Church, and the admission
of other than merely local saints to a place in the devotions of each
community, may have been effected by the Litanies which came into use in
France. The oldest form of a Litany of the Saints is contained in the
prayer-book of Charles the Bald.[469]
The saintly personages of the Old Testament have really the same right
to veneration as those of the New, being justified through faith in
the future Messias, many of them were martyrs, and all attained to the
Beatific Vision after our Lord’s resurrection. They are on this account
called blessed by St Paul in Heb. xi. 4-39. The synagogue paid no worship
to saints, but honoured the memory of the prophets so far as to erect
monuments over their graves (St Matt. xxiii. 29). Accordingly there was
nothing to prevent the same cultus being paid to them as to the saints
of the New Testament, yet nevertheless it remained exceptional. Eastern
calendars contain the names of many Old Testament worthies, Western
calendars only a few, and the Roman Church commemorates none with the
exception of the Machabees. But even the Eastern Churches have appointed
no days in their honour, and so this part of the worship of the saints
lies without the scope of this work.[470]
2. _The Festivals of St John the Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-Martyr_
In saying that in antiquity the worship of the martyrs was confined
to the localities to which they belonged, it must be borne in mind
that this rule admitted of two exceptions from the first. St John the
Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-martyr, were honoured throughout the
whole Christian Church from the beginning; their commemoration was
universally celebrated, and even the former was regarded as a martyr in
the ecclesiastical sense of the word.
The Baptist had at once been designated by his father in a moment of
prophetic inspiration as a prophet and the Forerunner of the Lord,
and later on he received from our Lord Himself the recognition of his
remarkable sanctity (St Matt. xi. 11). Accordingly it causes no surprise
to find proof of his worship and his festivals at a very early date. The
latter already appear in the sermons of St Augustine as _solemnitates_,
and as fixed on definite dates. Indeed, in course of time a regular
little cycle of festivals of the Baptist came into existence. The date
of his birth, for instance, was fixed by that of our Lord, as falling
six months before Christmas; nine months earlier came the date of
his conception,[471] and, in addition to these, the day of his death
was celebrated on the 29th August, under the title of _Passio_ or
_Decollatio_.
The festival of St John’s birth does not appear indeed in the Calendars
of Philocalus and Polemius Silvius, although it is found in the most
ancient calendar of the African Church, and in the list of festivals
drawn up by Perpetuus of Tours. Among the sermons of St Peter Chrysologus
and Maximus of Turin there are also to be found many allusions to it.
It was numbered, by the Council of Agde in 506, among the chief feasts
on which all the faithful must attend divine service in their parish
churches and not in private oratories.[472] In the Middle Ages servile
work was proscribed on it,[473] and until our own times it continued
universally to rank as a high festival, but at the present time it is
kept as such in only a few countries, as we have observed on page 35.
The festival of the Baptist’s conception was celebrated, especially in
the East, and appears in the Calendars of Calcasendi and of the Syrians,
also in the Neapolitan Calendars, and in that of Silos as well as in the
Mozarabic Calendar, in the Calendar of Bede, in the Greek calendars, and
in both menologies, _i.e._ that of Constantinople and that of Basil.
Its introduction[474] at an early date is due to the circumstance
that St John’s conception was announced by the angel, and also to the
supposition, which appears as early as St Augustine, that by the meeting
of his mother with Mary he was already purified from original sin before
his birth.
The 29th August was kept as the commemoration of his death at an early
date, both in Africa and in the East. The collection of St Augustine’s
sermons contains two sermons for this festival (307 and 308), and it has
its place among the festivals in the list of Perpetuus. The same date is
given in the Coptic Calendar in Selden, in the Syrian, Neapolitan, and
Mozarabic. As regards Rome, it had not yet made its way into the Leonine
sacramentary, though it is found in the _Gelasianum_.
In addition, a so-called _synaxis_ of St John the Baptist is marked in
the two Greek menologies. This is an instance of a peculiar custom among
the Greeks, according to which, after certain chief feasts of our Lord
and our Lady, there is held a second festival, or _synaxis_, on the
following day, in honour of the personages who had taken part in the
event commemorated by the feast. Thus with the feast of the 2nd February
is coupled that of St Simeon, with that of the Nativity of our Lady,
the feast of Joachim and Anna, and here, after Epiphany, the day of
Christ’s baptism, we have the feast of St John the Baptist, on the 7th
January.[475]
The cultus of St John the Baptist received a great extension throughout
the whole Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, owing to the
discovery of his relics. The records of the Church contain much
information concerning both the discovery and the translation of these
relics, though they give rise to insoluble difficulties.
In the first place one must bear in mind how the disciples of St John, on
hearing of the death of their teacher in the fortress of Machærus,[476]
came and took his body and buried it (St Matt. xiv. 12; St Mark vi.
29). The head doubtless remained at first in the keeping of Herodias,
who had accepted it as a present. According to a creditable tradition,
Samaria was the place of St John’s burial, as it was outside the limits
of Herod’s tetrarchy, and under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor.
The remains reposed there until the persecution of Julian in 362, when
the pagan rabble violated the tomb and burnt the remains. A portion
of them, however, was saved by monks and carried to Alexandria, where
Athanasius deposited them provisionally in a church. Later on they were
placed in the church erected by the Patriarch Theophilus in honour of the
Baptist in the ruins of the destroyed Serapeum. The dedication of this
church followed on the 27th May 385 or 386.[477] Tillemont was inclined
to regard the 29th August as the day of the translation, which in this
case as in others came to be regarded as the ecclesiastical commemoration
of the event. Against this, however, is the fact that the more ancient
Coptic Calendars know nothing of the 29th August as a feast of the
Baptist.[478]
With regard to the saint’s head, there are two different accounts in
existence. According to one account, given by Sozomen (7, 21), it is said
to have been found in Jerusalem in the possession of monks belonging
to the sect of the Macedonians, who carried it to Cilicia, when they
were driven out from that city. When the Emperor Valens heard of this,
he despatched an official to convey the relic to Constantinople. As
they approached Chalcedon, the mules which drew the vehicle in which
the messenger travelled with the relic refused to proceed any further,
and all efforts to continue the route were unavailing—a circumstance
frequently repeated in later legends. Valens and his court regarded
this as miraculous and did not venture to bring the relic near the
city. Accordingly it remained in a village near Chalcedon in charge of
adherents of the Macedonian sect, until the reign of Theodosius, who
brought it to Hebdomon, a suburb of Constantinople, where he had a
church erected in honour of the Baptist.
The Paschal Chronicle makes mention of this translation in 391, as well
as of another under the date 453, without throwing any light on the
connection of the one with the other. This second translation, of which
Rufinus also speaks (“Hist. Eccl.” 2, 28), is said to have come about in
the following manner.
The head is reported to have been brought from Machærus to Jerusalem
and there buried. In the time of Constantine it was taken to Emesa and
hidden away in a cave. Why this was necessary at that particular period
is not stated. Here it was discovered by a priest called Marcellus, the
superior of a monastery in those parts. He composed a long and detailed
account of the discovery, containing also a history of the previous
vicissitudes of the relic.[479] The discovery was made in consequence
of many dreams, and a fiery star is said to have guided Marcellus to
the spot where the sacred treasure rested in an urn, deeply buried in
the earth. Marcellus informed Bishop Uranius of Emesa of his discovery,
and the bishop solemnly removed the relic on the 24th February, 452. It
was first of all placed in the cathedral, and then soon afterwards in a
chapel expressly built to receive it, to which it was conveyed on the
26th September of the same year. Here it rested under the Mohammedan
dominion, and in 760 a large church was even built to replace the
chapel. We have here a threefold translation of the head of St John the
Baptist. It is asserted that a part of it is preserved at Amiens which
was brought thither from Constantinople in the thirteenth century. Two of
the three days commemorating these translations are marked in the Greek
menologies, the 24th February and the 26th September.[480] The story of
these translations throws no light upon the choice of 29th August for the
beheading of the saint.
From a liturgical point of view, the birth of the Baptist was kept with
special distinction at Rome in earlier times. In the Leonine sacramentary
it is already provided with a vigil. Other saints’ days indeed were
similarly provided, but the vigil of St John was to be kept as a fast,
and, moreover, in addition to the two formularies for the Mass of his
feast, there are two more specially intended for use in the Baptistery of
St John. As early as the fifth century in Rome, three Masses seem to have
been celebrated on St John’s Day as on Christmas, one on the vigil after
Vespers, one during the night, and the third on the morning of the 24th
June—this last being celebrated in the Baptistery. In the _Gelasianum_
we find only two Masses, one for the vigil, and one for the day itself,
but in the _Gregorianum_ we find three again to be said at special times,
as in the _Leoninum_.[481] Accordingly, Menard observes that Alcuin[482]
also speaks of three Masses on St John’s Day commemorating the three
great triumphs—as he calls them—which the Baptist had celebrated in
preparing the way for our Lord, in baptizing Him, and in having been a
Nazarite from his mother’s womb. The ordo of the Canon Benedict of St
Peter’s, belonging to the year 1143, makes no mention of three Masses,
though it speaks of two offices.[483] When the Council of Seligenstadt in
1022 (cap. 1) prescribed abstinence for the fourteen days before St John,
it was acting without precedent, and was influenced by the desire to make
the festival of the forerunner as like to Christmas as possible.
As at Rome, so too in Latin North Africa, the Nativity of the Baptist
must have been celebrated with special honour, for we possess no fewer
than seven sermons of St Augustine on it, and he distinctly speaks of it
as a festival which had come down from his predecessors.[484]
THE PROTO-MARTYR ST STEPHEN. The cultus of this saint received also a
great impulse from the discovery of his relics at Kaphar-Gamala.[485]
This took place on the 5th December, in consequence of a revelation said
to have been made to a priest of Jerusalem called Lucianus, in presence
of John Bishop of Jerusalem, and of a Spanish priest from Braga, named
Avitus, who was then stopping in Jerusalem. Lucianus wrote an account of
the event in the form of a letter to all the churches,[486] which Avitus
translated into Latin.[487] Whereupon the worship of the first martyr
spread, one might say, in every direction. Pilgrims seeking relief from
their sufferings visited his churches and chapels, numerous answers to
prayer and miracles of healing followed, of which the sermons of St
Augustine and his work on the “City of God” afford evidence.[488] Pope
Simplicius († 483) erected a basilica in St Stephen’s honour at Rome. The
festival of the discovery of his relics was fixed for the 3rd August.
Upon their discovery the relics were first taken to Jerusalem, but
portions of them were bestowed upon other places, as, for example, a
hand to the city of Constantinople, or rather to the Emperor Theodosius
II.,[489] and smaller relics elsewhere. In the year 439 the Empress
Eudocia brought the remaining relics to Constantinople and had them
placed in the basilica of St Lawrence.[490] Over the tomb a chapel was
erected, well known to pilgrims of the sixth century as the grave of St
Stephen.[491] St Augustine, in the passages already quoted, speaks of
churches erected in St Stephen’s honour in many places.
The worship of St Stephen, however, does not date merely from this
period, but was much older, and may even be said to be as old as the
Church herself, since St Paul gave him the title of “Martyr of Christ”
(Acts xxii. 20). Many churches and chapels were dedicated to him in
Constantinople, of which the oldest was built by or under Constantine, if
Codinus is rightly informed.[492]
Apart from this, his name is to be found already in the earliest
liturgical sources, _e.g._ the Arian martyrology, belonging to about 360,
and in all Calendars ancient and modern excepting the Coptic Calendars,
published by Selden and Calcasendi. A remarkable variation is observable
with respect to the date, for the most ancient Calendars and also
the Roman give it invariably as the 26th December, while the Eastern
Calendars give it sometimes on the 27th, _e.g._ the two menologies of
Constantinople and the Syrian lectionary. It cannot now be ascertained
whether one of these days was the day of his martyrdom or not; it is not
impossible, but it must be observed that the Coptic Calendar given in
Mai notices only a discovery of his relics on the 27th December, with
which agrees a later tradition of the Egyptian Church.[493] Accordingly
the 26th or 27th December may have been observed as only the day of a
translation of St Stephen’s relics.
3. _Festivals of our Blessed Lady in General_
The unique position occupied by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the scheme
of salvation called for a corresponding recognition from the Church in
the development of her festal system. As a matter of fact the Church has
amply discharged this duty, inasmuch as not only the events in our Lady’s
life recorded in Scripture have been made the occasion of festivals,
but others also not mentioned therein. A considerable period, however,
elapsed before this work was accomplished. This circumstance has been
explained by reference to the fact that the Church, while paganism was
still in power, refrained from publicly honouring the parents of our
Lord after the flesh, on account of the myths and genealogies current
about the gods. More weight may be given to the circumstance that the
facts relating to the life of Jesus and the redemption He accomplished
had first to be commemorated by fixed festivals before an extension of
the Calendar in other directions could be thought of. Then again, in
the early ages, it was felt to be an imperative duty to duly honour the
commemorations of the numerous martyrs, and the custom of appointing days
for the commemoration of saints not martyrs only came into existence
later.
The cultus paid to the Mother of God by the Church existed long before
the institution of her feasts, for Constantine is said to have built
three churches in her honour in his new capital. According to recent
investigations, a Church dedicated to her, Maria Antiqua,[494] is said
to have existed in Rome before the erection of the Liberian basilica,
generally reckoned as the oldest Church of our Lady in the Eternal City.
It is certain that Ephesus had a noteworthy Church of our Lady in 431, in
which the third Ecumenical Council held its meetings.
As regards festivals, all the churches of the ancient patriarchates
observe many of them, especially the oriental Greeks and the Roman
Catholic; the latter, without question, observes the largest number.
But the ancient Church of Egypt also distinguished itself by its zeal
for the worship of our Lady, and in the Coptic Calendars we find a
_commemoratio Dominæ Virginis Mariæ_ on the 21st (corresponding to the
15th in the Julian Calendar) of each month.[495] Formerly every Saturday
was generally dedicated to her. The first certain instance of the
observance of a festival in honour of the Mother of God, which has so
far come to light, is found in the panegyric on St Theodosius, preached
by Theodore about the year 500. In this it is stated that a commemoration
of the holy Mother of God (θεοτόκου μνήμη) was celebrated annually in
the Palestinian monasteries, attended by a concourse of all the monks.
Unfortunately neither the date of this festival nor its name is given,
although there is good reason for thinking that it was the feast of the
15th August, which had been regarded as the day of our Lady’s death from
the earliest times.[496] In Spain, in the time of Bishop Ildephonsus
of Toledo († 667), a festival of the Mother of God was also solemnly
observed. This prelate made penitential processions (_litaniæ_) in the
three preceding days, and composed a special mass for the feast. Here
again the particular name of the feast is unfortunately not given. Still
it can only have been the feast of the 15th August.[497]
The number of feasts of our Lady observed at the present time in the
Catholic Church is, as we have said, considerable, among them being some
which affect the public life of the community and some whose observance
is confined to the four walls of the Church. They can also be classified
as greater and lesser, or, according to the date of their institution,
as earlier or later. Among the greater feasts are the Conception, Birth,
Annunciation and Assumption of our Blessed Lady, and Candlemas; among the
lesser are the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple, her Espousals, the
Visitation, and now the Feast of the Holy Rosary.
It is not, however, possible to speak, as many liturgists do, of a
Marian ecclesiastical year. For the dates of our Lady’s feasts, viewed
in their chronological order, overlap the limits of the year, and
being subject to the same principles which regulate saints’ days, fall
invariably on fixed days in the Calendar, and so cannot be said to form
an integral part of the ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless they form in
themselves a cycle of festivals, as is also the case in a lesser degree
with regard to St John the Baptist. Two of them, however, have been
brought into connection, at least externally, with the ecclesiastical
year, _i.e._ the Annunciation, whose date depends upon Christmas, and the
Visitation, whose date is regulated by the births of Christ and St John
the Baptist. The former interrupts the course of the Church’s year, and
falls within a cycle of feasts with which it has no inner connection. The
Conception of our Blessed Lady, the latest in date of her great feasts,
depends naturally upon the date of her birth. Finally, nothing can be
said touching the grounds which led to the choice of these dates, for no
historical evidence for the first institution of these festivals has come
down to us. They have been appointed and sanctioned by custom.
We shall first deal with the great festivals of our Lady, the observance
of which affected public life. From these we omit Candlemas, originally
regarded rather as a festival of our Lord. Three others—the Nativity,
Annunciation, and Assumption—can be considered together as far as their
institution is concerned, inasmuch as they made their appearance in
history at the same period—that is to say, in the seventh century. The
reliable evidence for their introduction in Rome is confined to the
following; in the later MSS. of the _Gregorianum_ appears a notice
which confines the work of Gregory the Great to the first part of the
sacramentary. This is the important preface “Hucusque.”[498] In this it
is stated the entire preceding part of the book is due to Gregory I.,
with the exception of what concerns the Nativity and Assumption of our
Lady, and a few other matters. From this it follows that the sacramentary
used in the time of Gregory I. did not contain these two festivals of the
Mother of God.
They had been already introduced, however, by the end of the seventh
century. This is clear from the fact that they appear in the
_Gelesianum_, and, secondly, from a statement in the life of Sergius
I. (687-701),[499] to the effect that this pope directed that on the
Annunciation, Nativity, and Assumption of our Lady, and in the festival
which the Greeks call _Hypapante_, a procession (_litania_) should go
from St Adrian’s to St Mary Major’s. These festivals were at that time
already observed in Rome, when Sergius ordered these processions as
adjuncts to existing festivals. This comprises all the reliable evidence
at our disposal regarding these feasts of our Lady.[500]
All that we can with certainty deduct therefrom is that these three
principal feasts of our Lady were introduced in the Roman Church only
in the course of the seventh century. The sermons belonging to the same
period also support this conclusion. The rich collections of sermons of
St Augustine, St Leo the Great, Peter Chrysologus,[501] Fulgentius, and
Maximus of Turin, contain no sermons for feasts of the Mother of God.
All the chief, and also the majority of the lesser, feasts of our Lady
had their origin rather in the East, and only at a comparatively late
date made their way into the West. This also explains why none of them
have been incorporated, as most of them might easily have been, into the
ecclesiastical year. Their adoption by Rome resulted from the political
dependence of Italy on Byzantium and from the intimate relations existing
between the Apostolic See and the Imperial Court.
4. _The Three Ancient Festivals of our Blessed Lady—the Nativity, the
Annunciation, the Assumption_
(1) THE NATIVITY OF OUR LADY
The spread of this feast seems to have been retarded, for it does not
appear in many Calendars which contain the Assumption, _i.e._ in the
Gotho-Gallican, in that of Luxeuil, in the Toledan Calendar of the tenth
century, and in the Mozarabic; that it is not to be found in older
Calendars goes without saying. On the other hand, it appears along with
the Assumption in the _Gelasianum_ and in the Frankish Calendars drawn up
under Roman influence in the Carolingian period, the earliest being those
of Reims and Bede. It cannot be said to have been generally celebrated
in the eighth and ninth centuries, although in many places it makes its
appearance much earlier. Some writers have maintained that, on the
whole, Fulbert of Chartres († 1028) was the first to introduce it.[502]
But this is certainly wrong. Nevertheless he probably exerted himself to
spread the observance of the feast in the northern parts of France, since
we have two sermons of his preached on the feast, the oldest genuine
Latin sermons on this festival, as it seems. In Greek there are two
sermons of Andrew of Crete dealing also with the festival.[503] Evidence
is wanting to show why the 8th September was chosen for the Nativity of
our Lady.
(2) THE ANNUNCIATION
The official title of this feast is now _Annuntiatio B. Mariæ Virginis_,
but formerly other titles were used, _i.e._ _Annuntiatio Angeli ad
B.V.M._, _Annuntiatio Domini_,[504] _Annuntiatio Christi_, or even
_Conceptio Christi_, etc., showing that it was regarded more as a
festival of our Lord than of our Lady. That it owes its existence
entirely to Christmas, and depends upon the date (25th December) assigned
to the birth of Christ, requires no proof. But the reference to Mary is
so striking that it could not fail to be regarded as essentially one of
her feasts.
It is well known that the custom of the ancient Church was not to
celebrate the festivals of martyrs and other saints during Lent, which
rule the Spanish Church followed even with regard to this feast. But in
Constantinople an exception was made in its favour, which was expressly
approved by the fifty-second canon of the Trullan Council. The feast is
absent from the ancient Gallican Missal and the Lectionary of Luxeuil,
but in Rome, according to the evidence afforded by the _Gelasianum_ and
_Gregorianum_, the feast was observed on the same date as in the East.
The feast of our Lady in Advent (S. Mariæ), noted, without further
specification, in the Lectionary of Silos dating from about 650, can
be no other than the Annunciation. Soon afterwards, however, the tenth
Council of Toledo (656) took occasion to remark upon the difference
of date. External influences (_traducti homines_) had been the cause.
The Council decided in favour of the date hitherto observed in Spain,
and ordained in its first canon that the feast should be celebrated
throughout Spain eight days before Christmas—on the 18th December.
But in the East the other date was already so widely observed that it
was even employed as a fixed indication of time, as, for example, when
the Alexandrian Paschal Chronicle states in 624 that Heraclius and his
forces started for the East on the day of Mary’s Annunciation.[505] This,
along with other indications, shows that in the East the festival had
been earlier adopted and was widely spread. A circumstance of special
importance is that the schismatic Armenians, whose ecclesiastical year
in other respects is very primitive in character, observe this feast.
They keep it, however, on the 7th April. This is due to the fact that
they have not adopted Christmas, and still celebrate the birth of Christ
in the ancient manner on the 6th January. Counting back nine months
from this date one arrives at the 7th April. The Armenians certainly
celebrated this festival before their separation from the Church. It was
known and loved in the East as early as the fifth century, as the sermons
of Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople († 446), and of Peter Chrysologus
of Ravenna († 450), prove.[506]
Both methods of dating the festival existed side by side for a long
period. The majority was in favour of the 25th March, but the other date
was not without supporters, especially in Upper Italy, for according to
the Milanese rite the _Annuntiatio_ falls in Advent, and, indeed, on the
fourth Sunday. In southern France the difference in date gave rise to
sundry differences and disputes which terminated in a victory for the
Roman usage. Certain Spanish monks, who came to Cluny under Abbot Odilo,
desired to celebrate the festival after their own fashion, which was at
first allowed them. In the eleventh century several Councils occupied
themselves with the question, and decided, obviously out of regard for
Rome, for the 25th March.[507]
A further consideration of the question shows that an agreement was
arrived at by both parties. The Spaniards, in their _Missale Mixtum_,
celebrated the feast twice—on the 18th December and the 25th March—with
the same Mass,[508] and in Rome, in eighteenth century,[509] the feast
of the _Expectatio Partus B.M.V._, was placed on the 18th December, the
Gospel for the Mass being that of the Annunciation.
The sermons of Proclus already referred to give rise to an important
observation. This preacher in other passages of his works enumerates the
festivals celebrated in his time and in his diocese, among which, strange
to say, the Annunciation does not appear.[510] Since there are not only
two sermons of his composed for this feast, but the day itself is clearly
marked out as a festival, this contradiction can only be explained by
the fact that in the fifth century the Annunciation was kept simply as
a festival inside the Church, but had not yet won its way to public
recognition.
If the conception of the ecclesiastical year taken in Section I. of this
chapter be assumed as correct, the Annunciation is most suitably observed
in Advent, where it was correctly placed in the ancient Spanish liturgy.
But owing to the fact that the Eastern Church did not sufficiently carry
out the idea which underlay the ecclesiastical year, the feasts of our
Lady were not incorporated therein, but were treated as ordinary saints’
days by being tied down to fixed dates. And so it comes to pass that with
us the Annunciation, instead of coming in Advent, falls in Lent, and from
time to time even in Holy Week, where it is singularly out of place. In
North America, when this feast falls on one of the three last days of
Holy Week or in Easter Week, it is now transferred, which on the whole
may be regarded as a desirable arrangement.
(3) THE DEATH AND ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY
In all probability this is the earliest of our Lady’s feasts. From the
beginning, there was a general sentiment in the Church which led to the
days on which the martyrs suffered being kept as solemn commemorations.
The same thing took place at a later date with regard to the other
classes of saints—confessors, virgins, etc.—and so Christian sentiment
was soon directed towards the question of our Blessed Lady’s death. It is
highly probable, if not certain, that the feast of our Lady, mentioned
above as having been celebrated by the monks in Palestine, was that which
we are now considering. Both in the East and in Rome the 15th August was
kept as the day of our Lady’s death, while we find another date observed
in Gaul.
As regards the references to the decease of the Holy Virgin found in
patristic literature, we find Epiphanius alluding to it, but in such
general terms as to show he knew nothing about it for certain.[511]
Then we have a letter of the so-called Areopagite Dionysius containing
the essential points of the tradition for the death and burial of the
Holy Virgin, which we find later on in St John Damascene. The date of
this letter depends upon the view taken of the author and date of the
pseudo-Dionysian writings. The garden of Gethsemani is named as the place
of burial.[512] The same tradition appears in the apocryphal Apocalypse
on the “_transitus_” of Mary, where the year of her death is given as
the third after our Lord’s resurrection,[513] while other authorities
give it as the twelfth.
The chief authority, however, for the event is St John Damascene. Relying
on the history of an otherwise unknown Euthymius, he describes the
circumstances in detail. According to this informant, Pulcheria, wife
of the Emperor Marcian (450-457), had erected a Church in honour of the
Holy Virgin in the suburb of Constantinople called Blachernæ, to which
she wished to translate the earthly remains of our Lady. With this end
in view, she addressed herself to Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem during
the sitting of the Council of Chalcedon, but he informed the Emperor
and Empress that the body of the Mother of God was not to be found in
Jerusalem. She had indeed been buried there in the Garden of Gethsemani
in the presence of all the Apostles; Thomas alone was absent, and only
arrived on the third day after the burial; in order that he too might
venerate the body of the Mother of God, the tomb was opened, but nothing
was found save the linen grave-clothes, which gave forth a fragrant
perfume. Whereupon the Apostles concluded that our Lord had taken up into
heaven the body which had borne Him. In his panegyric on the Holy Virgin,
Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem († 634), states that already in the
seventh century there was a special festival in Jerusalem to celebrate
her decease (κοίμησις). In addition, we have sermons dealing with this
event by Andrew of Crete († 720 _circ._) and Germanus, Patriarch of
Constantinople († 733).[514] The bodily assumption of Mary into heaven
was already known in the West in the sixth century, and is alluded to in
Gregory of Tours.[515]
The Emperor Maurice is said to have appointed the festival of our Lady’s
death (κοίμησις τῆς παναγίου καί θεομητέρος), and fixed it on the 15th
August. Although this information is given by an historian of a much
later date,[516] it must not be altogether set aside. Maurice may well
have given official recognition to the festival, and by so doing settled
the question of the day on which it was to be kept. The festival itself
was, however, much older, for not only the heretical sects, which
separated from the Church in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites
and Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their separation,
but most ancient national Churches, such as the Armenian and Ethiopian,
have it in their Calendars. Accordingly the 15th August must have already
been generally regarded in the Church as the day of our Lady’s death
before the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, although not mentioned by
historians of that time.
We have unfortunately no information concerning the introduction of this
festival in Rome. All we know is that it was celebrated there along with
our Lady’s Nativity and Annunciation under Sergius I., at the end of the
seventh century. About 847 Leo IV. ordained that it should be celebrated
with a vigil and octave in the basilica of St Lawrence without the Walls.
In the Gothico-Gallican missal of the seventh or eighth century, edited
by Mabillon,[517] the festival is placed on the 18th January,[518] and
not on the 15th August, as is also the case in the Lectionary of Luxeuil
of the seventh century. This circumstance points to the conclusion
that, independently of Byzantine influence, it was observed already at
an earlier date in other parts of the Church as well, and came into
existence spontaneously, so to speak.
It is also noteworthy that the feast appears already with the title
_Assumptio_ in the canons of Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, composed
sometime about the year 630.[519] In the canons ascribed to St Boniface
some amount of vacillation is observable. By the thirty-sixth canon of
the Council of Mainz, in 813, it is appointed as a feast for the whole
Frankish Empire, while the earlier Council of 809 had decided nothing
concerning its adoption.
Among the Latins the festival did not at first bear the name _Assumptio_,
but was called _Domitio_ or _Pausatio_, corresponding to the Greek title.
This name left the particular object of the feast uncertain—whether it
commemorated merely the decease or the bodily assumption of Mary into
heaven. It was probably due to this that in the ninth century doubts as
to the latter were here and there expressed.[520]
Unlike both Easterns and Westerns, the Copts have placed the death and
bodily resurrection of the Mother of God on the 16th January (21st Tybi).
We find it so in the _Synaxarium_ of the ninth century in Mai, and in
that of Michael of Atriba; while the older Calendar of saints belonging
to the seventh century given by Seldenius has a “_Planctus Dominæ Mariæ_”
on this day, which may well mean the same thing.[521]
In not a few German and Sclavonic dioceses a blessing of the fruits of
the field takes place on the 15th August. This is of ancient Germanic
origin, but has been adopted into the Roman ritual. It seems to have
arisen from some popular custom connected with harvest.[522]
5. _Institution and Spread of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception_
The two dogmatic definitions formulated during the pontificate of
Pius IX. had this in common that they came as a surprise to many,
although they only set at rest questions which had been ventilated for
centuries. This is especially the case with regard to the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception, for the discussion of the question had
been prolonged during a thousand years. Bound up with the discussion
was the contention whether the festival in question ought or ought not
to be celebrated; and these two things, the theoretical treatment of
the doctrine, and the fortunes of the festival, were most intimately
connected with one another, and found at one and the same moment their
final solution. Indeed, the festival has a longer history than the
doctrinal controversy. For the observation that Church festivals required
a long time from their inception—which is for the most part to be looked
for in monasteries—until they obtained general approbation and acceptance
from the ecclesiastical authorities, applies to many festivals; but none
has had so long and changeful a history as the festival of the Immaculate
Conception of the Mother of God. It has now, for the last fifty years,
been celebrated as a festival of obligation throughout the Catholic
Church, and has even been adopted in those countries which formerly set
themselves most strongly against the increase of ecclesiastical holy days.
Our object is to give a comprehensive and detailed history of the
vicissitudes of this festival, while leaving aside the history of
the doctrine. Naturally they cannot be kept entirely distinct, still
the latter shall only be touched upon in so far as is necessary for
the elucidation of the history of the feast.[523] Passaglia and his
collaborator Clemens Schrader, S.J., in their well known work, “_De
Immaculato Deiparæ Conceptu_” (Rome, 1854 and 1855, 3 vols. 4to.), have
given us a rich and noteworthy collection of materials for this purpose.
We must do justice to the immense learning expended upon this work both
in its dogmatic and historical sections, but the historical explanations
can no longer be regarded as satisfactory. On the one hand, subsequent
investigations have brought fresh facts to light which give a new turn to
the history; and, on the other, Passaglia was deficient in the critical
faculty, and merely in order to marshal as many proofs as possible, he
made use of several which cannot stand close investigation, and must be
set aside if the whole question is not to be misrepresented.
For the correct understanding and examination of the sources of evidence,
it must first be observed that anciently both among the Greeks and the
Latins the term _conceptio_ (σύλληψις) was taken in the active sense,
while we are accustomed to take it in the passive sense. _Conceptio
Mariæ Virg._ signified then the conception of Christ by Mary, while the
(passive) conception of Mary was called the _Conceptio S. Annæ_.
Thus it follows that the festival of “the Conception of Mary” and
the festival of “the Immaculate Conception” are not the same thing.
Originally only a _festum Conceptionis B.M.V._ was celebrated, and only
in course of centuries has a _festum Immaculatæ Conceptionis_ been
evolved therefrom. This must not be regarded as a mere question of terms
which might be employed interchangeably. Passaglia has not sufficiently
emphasised this distinction, and consequently his presentation of the
facts creates the impression that there was already in the fifth century
a festival of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is altogether
erroneous. The simple statement of the facts will make this clear, and
show that in the course of centuries the feast originally celebrated
as the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was changed into a feast
of the Immaculate Conception. This change came about in proportion
as the matter was made clearer by dogmatic discussion, and as the
doctrine of Mary’s exemption from original sin gained adherents in the
schools. Even when this doctrine had found general acceptance in the
West, and had authoritatively received the support both of conciliar
decrees and of papal dogmatic decisions, the ancient title of the feast
still remained in use for a long time. If we consult the service-books
printed before 1854, we find in them indeed on the 8th December the
_festum conceptionis_, but the word _immaculata_ is nowhere found in the
office for the feast. An orderly representation of the historical facts
concerned will show how this was brought about.
Evidence shows that the feast of our Lady’s Conception arose in the
Eastern Church, and had gained civil recognition in the Byzantine Empire
at a time, when in the West, ecclesiastical circles were still debating
whether or not its celebration ought to be permitted. In a constitution
entitled, “Concerning the days of the year which are whole holidays
and half holidays,” the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1166 recognised it
as a public festival on which servile work was forbidden. Now it is a
known fact that the civil authorities are slow to give recognition to
ecclesiastical festivals, and accordingly festivals have often been
celebrated by the Church for a long period before they received the
recognition of the State. So it was in this case. The Calendar of the
Church of Constantinople in which the feast of the 9th December is
marked as the “festival of the Conception of St Anne, the mother of the
Theotocos,” is a century and a half older than this constitution. It
bears the name of the Emperor Basil, meaning the second of this name
surnamed Porphyriogenitus (976-1025), and, accordingly, it follows that
even then the festival had received some lesser degree of recognition
from the State.[524]
Concerning the date of the introduction of this feast, we have detailed
information in a sermon of John of Eubœa, who lived in the middle of the
eighth century. He was first a monk and then Bishop of the island, and
was contemporary with St John Damascene, whom he occasionally visited.
John declares that there are ten points in the life of the Holy Virgin
which must be commemorated, and these he enumerates in the tenth section
of his sermon. The most of them are at the same time feasts of our
Lord, the only ones entirely relating to our Lady being her Nativity,
Annunciation, and Assumption. With regard to the feast of our Lady’s
Conception, John hesitates. First of all, in the passage referred to
above, he enumerates it among the feasts, but at the end of his sermon he
states that it is not acknowledged by all,[525] but he speaks highly in
its favour, and considers in conclusion that it ought to be celebrated.
From this it is plain that in his time the feast was not yet generally
accepted, and that he exerted himself to spread it. If Passaglia, who
quotes this sermon as evidence for the feast, had noticed this passage,
he would have learnt that in the eighth century the festival had not yet
become generally popular in purely ecclesiastical circles, such as among
the specially devout and the religious, and he would have avoided the
mistake of throwing back the inception of the feast to the fifth century
in reliance on an interpolated and much later _Typicum S. Sabæ_.[526]
John mentions the 9th December as the day of the feast. The contents of
this sermon of his are in other respects of no importance.
George of Nicomedia, who lived about a century later, is the second Greek
preacher of whom we possess a sermon for this festival.[527] It bears
the title, “Concerning the Conception of St Anne,” and was delivered
upon a festal occasion (πανήγυρις), and the day is already distinctly
called a feast (ἑορτή). George considered it no longer necessary to
merely commend the acceptance of the feast, but regarded its adoption as
a matter of course. He reveals, however, the comparatively late date of
its institution, by saying that the day was not to be kept “as one only
recently added to the Calendar, but as one adopted on the best grounds,
since it naturally belonged to the course of the year and is prescribed
by the nature of things. In doing so we become partakers of the joy it
promises.”
As far as the East is concerned these two witnesses are sufficient,
especially as they throw light on the date of the institution of the
feast. As in other cases, so here the origin of the feast is doubtless
to be sought in religious communities. They were the first to think of
honouring this act of redemption. It was certainly the monks, to whom
is due the development of the Church’s psalmody, who in their canonical
hours celebrated Mary’s Conception, and appointed a special day for this
purpose, the 9th December, which was always kept as such in the Greek
menologies. In course of time the feast issued forth from the limits of
the monasteries, and from the inner circles of the devout, and attained
publicity. Preachers glorified it. It met with a sympathetic reception in
ever widening circles, until it gradually attained the rank, if not of
a feast of obligation, at any rate, of a simple feast of devotion, and,
finally, it obtained both ecclesiastical and civil authorisation.
The Byzantine Empire comprised during the whole of the period of which
we have been speaking, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. In the eighth
century Byzantium was no longer able to retain its hold over the duchy of
Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna; at a still later date it lost Apulia,
Calabria and Sicily, especially when the Normans settled in those parts.
It retained its hold over the city of Naples longest of all; it was only
in 1127 that Naples was taken by Roger II., who had himself crowned king
of the Two Sicilies in 1130.
The constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 mentioned above was never
promulgated in Naples, and had no force there, but the connection with
Byzantium had lasted sufficiently long for the feast of Mary’s Conception
to obtain an entrance into Naples. That it actually did make its way
there is proved by the Calendar of the Neapolitan Church of the ninth
century, engraved on marble, and showing traces of Byzantine influence,
which was discovered in 1742 in the Church of San Giovanni Maggiore.
Apart from the historical facts which we have mentioned, the name and
date of the feast—_Conceptio S. Annæ_, and the ninth December—show a
Byzantine origin. And so in respect of the history of this feast, Naples,
along with Lower Italy and Sicily, must be classed with the Eastern half
of the Catholic Church as celebrating a feast, of which at Rome no one
had as yet thought.
From all this it follows that the feast of Mary’s Conception was known
in the Byzantine Empire as early as the beginning of the eighth century,
although under a different name from that which it now bears. Was the
feast, in its essential idea, the same as ours? This question the
reader may answer for himself. There is much doubtless in favour of
an affirmative answer. Greek writers refer to our Lady in the highest
conceivable terms, as can be amply proved from the lections of the office
for the 8th December now in use. They exalt her not merely above all
men, but absolutely above every creature. Moreover, the feast of the
Conception has a meaning only when the conception is regarded as sinless,
just as the Greeks celebrate a commemoration of the conception of St
John the Baptist solely On the ground that John was sanctified in his
mother’s womb. In all other cases, it is not the birthday of the saints
which is kept, but the day of their death. All this tells in favour of
the affirmative. But on the other hand, the fathers of the Eastern Church
have never either used or even discovered the specific terms to designate
the Immaculate Conception, nor have they ever proposed the question if
our Lady was free from original sin.
It is indeed very difficult to maintain the former view in the face of
the fact that the Greeks, at the present day, do not regard their feast
of Mary’s Conception as implying this meaning, but among them it is a
feast of little importance. Their Breviary contains the following notice
of the feast: “God sent His angel to the pious couple Joachim and Anna,
and announced to them that the barren would give birth, and so to prepare
the way for the conception of the Virgin. Thus the holy Virgin Mary was
conceived in consequence of an announcement, but by means of man and from
his seed. For our Lord Jesus Christ alone was born in an ineffable manner
of the holy Virgin Mary without the co-operation of man and his seed.”
This announcement by an angel is based on an apocryphal legend, which
appears in Byzantine sermons on our Lady, belonging to the eighth and
ninth centuries. Joachim, according to Jewish custom, desired to present
an offering in the Temple, but was driven back and insulted by members
of the tribe of Reuben because he was childless. This caused him so much
pain that instead of returning to his home, he sadly betook himself into
solitude. Anna, in her anxiety, prayed earnestly to God, and was informed
by an angel she should give birth to a daughter richly endowed with gifts
of grace. This legend derived from the _Proto-evangelium_ of James, and
propagated chiefly in the sermons of John of Eubœa and of Peter Siculus,
was also known in the West, and figures largely in works of art; as, for
example, in the beautiful picture in the cathedral at Augsburg, by Hans
Holbein the Elder.
The Greek Breviary, however, shows that there was current among the
people a still stranger idea, which it strongly opposes, _i.e._ that Mary
was born on the seventh month after her conception, and so was what is
called a seven months’ child. The reason why it is worth while to allude
here to this will be plain later on. We may merely point out how all this
shows the unimportant character of the festival among the Greeks.
It was otherwise in the West.[528] Here the festival in question makes
its appearance on the scene just as its development in the East came to
an end. To the tentative attempts at the introduction of this festival in
monasteries, and among the inner circles of the devout, there followed
its acceptance by several dioceses, not however without opposition.
The theoretical discussion over the warrant and significance of the
festival accompanied the early instances of its official introduction.
These discussions lasted through centuries, and were only brought to a
conclusion in our own times.
In attempting to trace out its introduction in detail, it must be borne
in mind that we are treating of what was in the first instance a festival
of the Conception only, not of the Immaculate Conception; that it was
not a public holy day of obligation, but only a religious commemoration
confined to the four walls of the churches; and, finally, that when it
was adopted by some religious order or celebrated in some monastery, it
does not follow that it was at the same time adopted by the diocese or
country wherein such a monastery was situated.
Clear and detailed evidence for its introduction comes to us first of all
from England. The individuals who more or less exerted themselves in this
connection were a certain Elsinus or Helsinus, a monk of St Augustine’s,
Canterbury, and later Abbot of Ramsay in the diocese of Winchester
(1080-1087), St Anselm of Canterbury and his nephew of the same name,
Osbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, Warinus, Dean of Worcester,
Abbot Hugh of Reading, and finally, the historian Eadmer.[529] Further
particulars concerning these persons will be found in the appendix.[530]
We begin with the history of Elsinus, or Helsinus. He is not an imaginary
personage, but one whose story is historically true. He was monk at St
Augustine’s, and then Abbot of Ramsay under William the Conqueror. A
legend, current in the middle ages in various forms as either a sermon
or a letter of Anselm the Elder, states that he was sent by William with
presents to the King of Denmark, in order to discover if he contemplated
an invasion of England. Having fulfilled his embassy, he was overtaken on
his return voyage by so severe a storm that the ship seemed about to be
dashed in pieces. As all were invoking our Blessed Lady in this moment
of peril, a form arrayed in episcopal vestments appeared, which was
supposed to be St Nicholas, the patron of sailors. He addressed Elsinus
by name, and promised him he would be saved, if he in his turn promised
to celebrate the feast of our Lady’s Conception annually on the 8th
December, and to exhort others to celebrate it also. Elsinus promised,
and all were saved.[531]
This legendary narrative was adopted formerly for the lections in the
Breviary,[532] but more recently it has been altogether discredited. The
learned Maurist Gerberon, editor of St Anselm’s works, in particular
has objected to this narrative on the grounds that after the battle of
Hastings in 1066, William returned to Normandy, and the landing of the
Danes followed immediately. Gerberon has overlooked the fact that since
Elsinus undertook this journey as Abbot, not as a simple monk—which in
itself would have been highly improbable—it must be placed between 1080
and 1087, not in 1066. However, although the story be a legend, yet this
much is true, that Elsinus did introduce the feast of the 8th December
into his monastery.[533]
That Anselm the Younger introduced it into his monastery at Bury St
Edmonds is proved by two letters, dating from 1128-29, of Osbert
de Clare, a zealous defender of the doctrine. He laments that two
bishops, Roger of Salisbury and Bernard of St Davids, have opposed the
introduction of the feast. They had even held a Synod, and forbidden the
feast as an absurd novelty. This fact, and also the circumstance that
Osbert himself in a sermon on the 8th December made no mention of the
Immaculate Conception of Mary from fear of the opponents, as he himself
says, show how strong the opposition to both feast and doctrine must have
been among the Anglo-Saxon secular clergy of that period.[534]
From what has been said it can be regarded as historically certain
that the feast of Mary’s Conception was observed in many Benedictine
monasteries in England, about the year 1128—in Ramsay, Bury St Edmonds,
Reading, Worcester and Westminster.[535]
Possibly also in some others, but in no case was the feast celebrated
outside the walls of the monasteries.[536] It must have encountered
opposition, for important personages, both ecclesiastical and secular,
looked upon it with disfavour, and it was still very far from gaining
the support of the secular clergy, of bishops and synods. Indeed one
synod of the period forbade the feast altogether. Its adoption followed
only in the fourteenth century. When we bear in mind the ecclesiastical
and civil circumstances of the times, we are astonished to find how such
a novelty—for so the feast is called in the writings already quoted—could
have made its way to England first of all. For, in the eleventh century,
that country was torn by internal strife, and invaded by foreign foes;
while the national clergy, according to the statement of a contemporary
English historian, were sunk in simony and worldliness.[537] That
is scarcely the atmosphere suitable for the inception of a feast so
intimately connected with the inner religious life of the community.
For this some impulse from without was required. Such an impulse came
indirectly from the East through intercourse with Normandy, whence so
many learned and zealous monks and clergy came to England after the
conquest. The political, or rather dynastic, connection of the country
with Normandy dates not only from the battle of Hastings in 1066, but
goes back to the times of King Edward the Confessor, whose wife Emma was
a Norman princess.
The official introduction of the feast of our Lady’s Conception in
England only commenced in the thirteenth century, and only spread
slowly. The provincial Synod of Oxford in 1222, Canon VIII., refused
to recognise it as a feast of obligation, although it established its
private observance. The diocesan Synod of Worcester does not mention
it in its list of festivals. On the other hand it was celebrated at St
Albans in 1228,[538] and the diocesan Synod of Exeter in 1287 formally
adopted it by a decree which naturally affected that diocese alone.
In Normandy the feast, whose celebration found in England precarious
toleration in the retirement of the cloister, was already introduced
by the secular clergy without encountering any opposition. This is
stated by Osbert himself when he remarks in his letter to Anselm how,
on the other side of the channel, the feast had been solemnly kept by
some bishops.[539] If these words do not apply to Normandy, we should
like to know of some other country on the Continent where the feast was
then observed. It is certain that it was kept at Rouen under Bishop
Rotricus (1165-1183), and placed on a level with the feast of the
Annunciation.[540] Owing to the law that, in the province of Rouen,
consisting of six dioceses, the daughter churches must follow in their
ritual and Breviary the use of the metropolitan Church, this feast would
soon be celebrated all over Normandy.[541] When the Corporation of
Norman students at the Paris University chose it as their particular
festival, it was not a mere fancy on their part, but must have had its
origin in the ecclesiastical observances of their home. Still less must
this fact have been the cause why the feast in the middle ages went
by the name of the “Norman’s feast” (_festum nationis Normannicæ_).
This name can only have come into existence because the feast had been
zealously celebrated in Normandy for a long time, by all the people,
before it was kept in any other country of the West. Henry of Ghent,
a member of the Sorbonne, distinctly declares this to have been the
case.[542] The Normans, however, could not have been the originators
of the feast. Doubtless they got their knowledge of it in Lower Italy,
where it had been observed for a long time, after they had begun to
settle there. Those who are unwilling to adopt so rationalistic an
explanation of the matter, draw attention to the fact that the two
Anselms, the earliest known propagators of the feast in England, were
not uninfluenced by other Eastern forms of showing honour to our Blessed
Lady. This is shown not only by Anselm’s hymns on the Mother of God, in
which the refrain, _Ave sponsa insponsata_, has been adopted from the
so-called _hymnus acathistus_, but also by an entry in an Irish Calendar
(upon which too much stress has recently been laid), in which Mary’s
conception is put down on the 3rd May, in accordance with the ridiculous
Greek legend,[543] that Mary was born seven months after her conception.
Granting that this entry really belongs to the ninth century, it is only
evidence of monastic learning, but affords no proof for the existence of
the feast in Ireland. It only shows that the writer knew of the Greek
fable in question, and made use of it for his Calendar.
It may be asked if the feast made its appearance in the West first of
all in Normandy, and in England, which since 1066 had been politically
united with Normandy, or had been observed earlier elsewhere? Could we
believe Passaglia, it had been celebrated already in Spain in the seventh
century.[544] If so, it is impossible to think it could have disappeared
later on without leaving a trace behind. The genuine Mozarabic liturgy
does not contain it, and in the oldest Spanish Calendars, _e.g._ that of
Toledo of the tenth century, published by Morinus, it does not appear.
The Jesuit Leslæus, who wrote the introduction to the Mozarabic liturgy,
admits candidly that the feast came into Spain through France.[545] The
two reasons which Passaglia gives for his opinion are worthless. He
relies upon a spurious life of St Isidore of Seville, which contains
later interpolations, while the genuine life written by Ildefons makes
no mention of it, and upon a passage in the laws of the West Goths. But
this latter passage has to be taken as referring to the Conception of
Christ by Mary in accordance with the terminology then in use. When the
same author wishes to make his readers believe that the feast existed in
Cremona already in the tenth century,[546] it has to be borne in mind
that Bishop Sicardus of Cremona,[547] in the thirteenth century, strongly
opposed its introduction there.
It may be regarded as certain that the feast of our Lady’s conception
was introduced into the Benedictine monasteries of England by the two
Anselms at the end of the eleventh century. We must not, however, regard
England as especially the home of the feast in the Latin Church, for both
St Anselm and his nephew had received their training in Normandy, which
was their second home. From thence they passed in later middle life to
England, for William liked to fill the chief spiritual posts in England
with foreigners.
When the author of the tract _De Conceptione B.M.V._ laments that
the feast met with much opposition both from clergy and laity, his
complaints were well grounded, for the names of a number of famous men
are known to us at the present day as having strongly opposed both
the feast and the doctrine which underlay it. For the most part they
were men of importance. We can name Roger of St Albans, Bishop of
Salisbury, and Bernard, Bishop of St Davids († 1147). The former was
minister and adviser of King Henry II., the latter chaplain to Queen
Matilda. In France the most famous opponent of the feast was St Bernard,
the celebrated preacher Maurice de Sully († 1196), Bishop of Paris,
and Peter of Celle, Abbot of Moutier-la-Celle, from 1181 Bishop of
Chartres.[548] It is especially remarkable that the greatest liturgists
of the middle ages, Beleth, Sicardus of Cremona, and Durandus of Mende,
all opposed the feast.[549] In Germany, the monk Potho of Prüm may be
named, although his views are obscure.
The conduct of St Bernard must be more closely examined. The opportunity
of expressing his views was furnished by the circumstance that the
Canons of Lyons commenced, about 1140, to celebrate the feast of our
Lady’s conception, without having obtained the authority of the Holy See
for this “novelty.” According to the then existing state of canon law,
the bishops had the right of arranging by themselves the festivals to
be celebrated within their respective dioceses. But St Bernard in his
letter to the Canons makes no mention of the bishop. This is explained
by the fact that the letter was written at a time when the Church of
Lyons was without any recognised head, and when St Bernard was exerting
himself with the Pope to obtain the confirmation of Fulco, the bishop
elect.[550] It may well have been that in this matter the canons acted
despotically. St Bernard, however, does not bring this charge formally
against them in his letter, but lays all the stress upon objections to
the inner significance of the feast. It was customary, he says,[551] to
celebrate the day of our Lady’s birth, because she, like Jeremias and
John the Baptist, had been sanctified before birth (fuit ante sancta
quam nata). Mary could not be holy before she existed, but her existence
began at her conception and that was not free from concupiscence. If her
conception was to be regarded as holy, one must logically hold that her
parents were already holy also. Christ our Lord was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, and consequently His conception was holy and a feast of the
Church (Annuntiatio). Before taking any steps in the matter, St Bernard
concludes, the Apostolic See ought to have been consulted, to whose
authority he commits the matter. The Roman Church, to which he appealed,
was, however, in no hurry. More than three hundred years had to pass
before she in any degree broke through her reserve on this question.
The effect of this letter is not known, but there is no doubt that
during the twelfth century the feast made steady progress in France.
Unfortunately we possess only a few data to illustrate its development,
for the investigation into the ecclesiastical history of special
localities requires to be more extensively taken in hand. In Rouen, the
capital of Normandy, it was certainly observed at that period, as we
have already seen. Next, its observance is prescribed by the statutes of
Le Mans, in the Province of Tours, in 1247.[552] In Rheims it appears
between 1261-1271. A more important fact is that the General Chapter of
the Franciscans, held at Pisa in 1263, decreed that the feast should be
celebrated throughout the entire order.[553] Although it did not attain
to the rank of a feast of obligation for clergy and people, yet it
became known throughout the world, and especially at the papal Court at
Avignon, where Franciscan influence was strong. Finally the standpoint
of the thirteenth century with regard to this feast is best summed up
in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “Although the Roman Church does not
celebrate it, she allows other Churches to do so,”[554] and in those of
St Bonaventure who justifies the keeping of a festival on the day of our
Lady’s conception.[555] Accordingly the number of dioceses and provinces
within which it was celebrated was constantly on the increase; for the
fourteenth century we have Canterbury 1328; Treves between 1338 and
1343;[556] Paderborn 1343; Münster 1350;[557] Utrecht 1350; Brixen 1399,
while other diocesan synods, _e.g._ Prague in 1355, did not yet adopt it.
When it is asserted that the feast had been introduced at Liège under
Bishop Albero II. († 1145), it must be urged on the other side that the
list of feasts drawn up by the diocesan synod of Liège in 1287 makes no
mention of it.[558] The synod of Cologne of 1308 does not mention it
either, although it is contained in the Cologne Calendar of the same
century. For Mainz we have the fact that this feast is employed for
dating a decree of the year 1318.[559] In the province of Canterbury, the
feast obtained official recognition only in 1328, _i.e._ two hundred and
nineteen years after the death of those who had first exerted themselves
in its favour.[560]
As far as Canon law and the liturgy are concerned, the feast of the
_Conceptio B.M.V._ remained in the fourteenth century as incomplete as
it had been in the twelfth and thirteenth. Generally speaking, however,
each bishop had then the right of appointing the festivals for his own
diocese, but this right was always restricted to the appointment of
those festivals already recognised and permitted by the Church universal
which he desired should be observed within his own diocese—as, for
example, whether St Mary Magdalene should be kept as a holiday or not.
But in this case it was not a question of a feast already recognised by
ecclesiastical authority, and its opponents could always object with
reason: _Non est authenticum_.
Important if not decisive steps were at length taken by ecclesiastical
authorities in the fifteenth century. In the meantime, the doctrine,
which had been defined and formulated by Duns Scotus was so widely
accepted, except among the Dominicans, and enjoyed so much popularity
among the people, who violently took sides on the question, that it was
possible for the Council of Basel (which began by being ecumenical,
but became schismatical after its quarrel with the pope), to state in
its thirty-sixth session, on the 17th September 1439, in answer to the
petition of the theological faculty of Paris, that the doctrine that Mary
by a special gift of grace had never been subject to original sin was
“pious and agreeable to the worship of the Church, the Catholic Faith,
and the teaching of Holy Scripture.” The Council forbade the contrary
doctrine to be taught. At the same time it renewed the decree in regard
to the feast of “her Holy conception, which was kept on the 8th December
both by the Roman Church and by others.”[561] Granting that the Council
was ecumenical, all circumstances connected with the feast, with regard
to both doctrine and ritual, were now formally settled. This decree was
not without effect, as soon appeared from the fact that in the Mainz
Breviary of 1507 the lections for the second nocturn of the feast are
drawn from it. It also certainly influenced the further spread of the
feast, as soon appeared from its being expressly authorized and received
by a provincial synod at Avignon, held under the presidency of a papal
legate in 1457.[562]
Although the fathers of the Council of Basel were of opinion that the
feast was celebrated by the Roman Church on the 8th December, this was
only partially correct. The fact is that at Avignon, with the full
knowledge of the Papal Court, it had been already celebrated without
meeting with any opposition from the authorities. So, too, in Rome it had
been celebrated by religious in the churches of their monasteries. It
can well have been that Alvarus Pelagius († 1340), as we are informed,
preached on this day in Rome; this, however, does not prove that the
diocese of Rome, or the Papal Court, had adopted the feast at that date,
for that, it would have been necessary to include the day in question in
the Calendar and treat it as a festival in the Missal and Breviary. And
so it would appear that it was kept as a purely ecclesiastical holy day,
and not as yet as a public official holiday with rest from servile work.
Nevertheless there were those at Basel who maintained it was a festival
of the Roman Church.
The Franciscan order, as has been already said, added our Lady’s
conception to the number of the feasts observed by themselves. They
celebrated it everywhere where they had a church of their own, and also
in Avignon and Rome during the residence of the popes. Other orders
followed their example—namely, the Benedictines, Cistercians, Carmelites,
all of which had houses in Rome,[563] and so, since there were many
churches belonging to these orders in Rome, it might well seem as if the
Roman Church herself kept the festival, all the more since the popes
knew of it and tolerated the practice. In Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), a
Franciscan ascended the Papal throne, and he it was who finally took the
decisive step in the direction of recognition instead of toleration.
On the 27th February 1477[564] he published the Constitution “_Cum præ
excelsa_,” in which he granted indulgences on the feast. In particular
he granted to all those who on this day recited the office composed by
the Papal notary, Leonardo Nogaroli of Verona, and assisted at Mass and
the canonical hours, the same indulgences which his predecessors granted
for Corpus Christi. In this way the feast was adopted into the diocese
of Rome, and made its way into the Calendar, Breviary and Missal, but
only as a purely ecclesiastical feast. It must also be observed that no
advance was made in the doctrine concerned, for the pope in his decree
speaks of a _Conceptio immaculatæ_, or, as he expresses himself in
another place, _prælibatæ virginis_, not of an _immaculata conceptio_.
This was not the only official act of Sixtus IV. in favour of the
feast. In 1479 he built a chapel in old St Peter’s, which he dedicated
and endowed in honour of our Lady’s conception and in honour of the
Franciscan saints, Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. In 1483,
however, he was compelled to forbid, by a special constitution, the
supporters and opponents of the doctrine of Mary’s exemption from
original sin to call each other heretics. This proves that the strife
between the two parties had then waxed warm. Even in Germany there
were bitter contentions concerning the point in question in Frankfurt,
Marburg, Heidelberg, and at Bern in Switzerland.
By the decree of Sixtus IV., in 1477, the office for the feast was
finally prescribed for the diocese of Rome as a _duplex_, but not for
other dioceses; these were free as before to adopt it or not. Clement
VIII. raised it to a _duplex majus_. Clement IX., added an octave, and
Clement XI., by a decree of 6th December 1708, prescribed it for the
whole Church.[565] It had already been observed in Spain as a regular
holy day of obligation, for Philip IV. petitioned Innocent X. for it
and the pope had granted his request in a constitution of 10th November
1644.[566] It was only in 1854 that it became, through the zeal of Pius
IX., a holy day of obligation for the whole Catholic world.
The steps in regard to this feast taken by Rome were, as we have seen,
separated from one another by considerable periods of time. With regard
to the significance of the feast, however, in spite of the declaration
of the Council of Trent, a policy of delay and _laissez-faire_ was
maintained. The feast remained a simple _festum conceptionis_, and the
idea of the _immaculata conceptio_ did not receive outward expression,
except that Paul V. permitted the recitation on all free Saturdays of
an _officium conceptionis B.M.V._, in which the _invitatorium_ is,
“Immaculatam conceptionem Mariæ virginis celebremus.”
Pius IX. had a new office drawn up which he prescribed for use on the
25th September 1863, in which the idea contained in the _invitatorium_ is
expressed beyond all doubt. Hymns expressing the same idea were inserted,
and the bull “Ineffabilis” was drawn upon for some of the lections, while
for others the preference was given to the homilies of the later Greek
writers. The pope’s letter elevating the feast to the rank of a holy day
of obligation for all Christendom received an enthusiastic reception
everywhere. The rank of the feast was not increased. It was only by Leo
XIII. that it was placed on an equality with the three chief festivals of
the year.
In tracing out the long process of development by which this feast passed
from Byzantium by Lower Italy to Normandy and England, and from thence
throughout the entire West, our attention has been drawn especially to
the conduct of the Roman See. Passaglia endeavours by every means to
magnify the part it played, and to date its intervention as far back as
possible. Still he is finally obliged to own that the Roman Church was
not the first to pay a special cultus to the Mother of God as conceived
without original sin. But, he adds, she has done everything during the
space of five hundred years[567] for the glorification of this feast and
for the spread of the doctrine which forms its basis. It is difficult to
see what is gained by magnifying the part of the Roman See at the cost
of historical truth. Others regard with satisfaction the fact that Rome
in no way pressed matters forwards. In a question so much debated, Rome
could not have adopted a better course than to wait until the conviction
of all Christendom, in so far as it was interested in the question, had
arrived at maturity. The Immaculate Conception had been the dominant
doctrine for a long period, and wanted nothing but the formal approbation
of the teaching church.
6. _The Lesser Feasts of Our Lady_
While the number of lesser feasts of our Lady according to the existing
Roman rite is very considerable, yet only a few of them come much before
the public, and the history of the most of them affords no points of
general interest. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the following:—
1. The Feast of the Name of Mary owes its origin to the devotion of
the faithful, and was first authorised by the Apostolic See for the
diocese of Cuença, in Spain, in 1513. It was abolished by Pius V., but
re-established by Sixtus V., and finally prescribed by Innocent XI. to
be observed by the whole Church on the Sunday after the Nativity of our
Lady. This was done in 1683, on the occasion of the deliverance of Vienna
from the Turks.[568]
Maria, or Miriam, is the Greek form of Miryam, a name over the etymology
of which many opinions were held in antiquity. Eusebius explains it
to mean “illuminatrix una vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris vel
stella maris.”[569] St Peter Chrysologus and St John Damascene derive
it from the Syrian _mar_ (feminine _martha_), lady, which appears
also in the Roman breviary along with the other explanation, “stella
maris.” In the Middle Ages this was the usual, and even yet is the
favourite, explanation. O. Bardenhewer maintains that the only derivation
permissible is from מָרָא, fat or stout, in the sense of the imposing
or stately one. Those to whom Bardenhewer’s derivation does not commend
itself will be glad to hear that Professor Macke has had the happy
thought to refer back to the first bearer of the name, Miryam, the sister
of Moses, and to derive the names of both brother and sister from the
Egyptian. In Egyptian it would be: _Meri jom_, which would be equivalent
to Friend of Water, or Bride of the Sea, and so approaches more to the
meaning of _Stella Maris_.
2. The Presentation of our Lady in the Temple[570] (Præsentatio B.M.V.,
21st November). The story that Mary at the age of three years was brought
by her parents to the temple in fulfilment of their vow, there to be
educated, appears only in apocryphal writings,[571] but it fell in so
completely with the ideas of religious, both in ancient and modern times
in East and West, that it was not long before it asserted its influence
on the cycle of our Lady’s Feasts. The commemoration appears officially
for the first time in the constitution of Manuel Comnenus, published in
1166, as a fully recognised festival on which the law courts did not sit.
The date is the same as at the present day.[572] The feast was introduced
into the West by a French nobleman, Philip de Maizières, who spent some
time at the Court of Gregory XI. at Avignon in 1371 as representative
of the King of Cyprus. He represented the manner in which the day was
celebrated in the East in such a way as to move Gregory to ordain it as
one of the festivals of the Papal Court. It soon made its way in other
places also—in Navarre in 1374, in Treves in 1381, in Metz in 1420, in
Cologne and elsewhere. In Rome it was introduced by Sixtus IV., and an
office for it was added to the Roman breviary without its recitation
being imposed (_inter festa ad libitum_ and _pro quibusdam locis_). It
was only Sixtus V. who, in 1585, ordained it for the whole Church after
it had been for a time suppressed by Pius V. The original office was
altered under Clement VIII. Although the feast at first was regarded as
unimportant, it attained in Prussia to the rank of a feast _in foro_,
and this in an unexpected way, in 1893. It falls in Prussia on the third
Wednesday in November, and occupies a position midway between the movable
and immovable feasts.
3. The Visitation (_Visitatio B.M.V._) was formerly included among
the lesser feasts of our Lady, although the most prominent and popular
of them. At the present day it has a higher rank (_duplex II. cl._),
and, in certain localities, it has an octave. It used to be kept as
an entire holiday. It is not only grounded upon Scripture, but the
event it commemorates is one of the most important related in the New
Testament, both on account of the sanctification of St John the Baptist
in his mother’s womb, and because of its being the occasion on which the
Magnificat was first uttered. Nevertheless this feast does not exist
among the Greeks, but, on the 2nd July, they celebrate the translation of
the Holy Virgin’s garment in the church of the suburb of Constantinople
called Blachernæ, which took place under the Emperor Leo I. in 469.[573]
The earliest traces of the feast are found in the thirteenth century.
They appear in different localities at about the same date, which may
be due to the fact that the newly founded order of the Franciscans had
adopted the feast and promoted its celebration. It appears among the
Franciscans as early as 1263, and received official recognition during
the great schism from Urban VI., and Boniface IX. in 1389. After the
schism was healed, the Council of Basel was compelled in its forty-third
session, on 1st July 1441, to issue a decree authorising the feast, and
granting indulgences to those who assisted at divine service on the
day. They felt obliged to adopt this measure, the feast not having been
adopted within the obedience of the anti-pope.
There is nothing to show why the 2nd July was chosen for this feast, and
one must needs have recourse to surmise. There seem to be indications
that it is connected with the date of the Annunciation on the one hand,
and, on the other, with the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the octave
of which it immediately follows. It was regarded as probable that Mary
had chosen the time of Elizabeth’s confinement for her visit, and had
remained some time with her afterwards.[574] Perhaps, however, the real
reason was that the Greek Church had already for some time kept this
festival of our Lady on the 2nd July. The feast was, moreover, kept on
different days in different countries. In Paris, for example, it was kept
on the 27th June; Archbishop John II. of Prague, who introduced it into
his province in 1385, placed it on the 28th April. Its proper place, if
the main idea of the ecclesiastical year were carried out, would be in
Advent.
4. The Feast of the Holy Rosary (_Sollemnitas SS. Rosarii B.M.V._).
Towards the end of the twelfth century we find it had become usual to
use the angelic salutation (St Luke i. 28), along with the salutation
of Elizabeth (St Luke i. 41), as a prayer. This prayer was authorised
and imposed by many councils. We have evidence to this effect from a
synod of Paris under Bishop Odo de Sully (1196-1208),[575] and, in the
period immediately following, from the synods of Orleans, Durham (1217),
Treves (1237), and elsewhere.[576] The new prayer was joined to the “Our
Father” in such a way that ten “Hail Marys” were recited after one “Our
Father” fifteen times, each prayer being counted on a string of beads.
The originator of this form of prayer, called the Rosary, is generally,
but without foundation, considered to have been St Dominic. The custom
of using a string of beads on which to count a stated number of prayers
had already been in existence for a long time, and only became general
when the custom grew up of reciting one hundred and fifty “Hail Marys”
to correspond to the number of the psalms. This was called the “Mary
Psalter,” the Rosary, or the “Psalter of the Laity.”[577] When this form
of prayer took shape is not exactly known, but it has quite recently been
maintained that St Dominic did not originate it, as is often affirmed.
His biographer and other contemporaries do not ascribe the invention of
the rosary to him. It is only at the end of the fifteenth century that a
Dominican, Alanus de Rupe (de la Roche), produced this story,[578] which
unfortunately has found its way into the breviary. A notable improvement
was made in this devotion in the fifteenth century, by adding after the
name Jesus in each Hail Mary the mention of some event in the lives of
Jesus and Mary bearing on the work of salvation, beginning with the
message of the angel and concluding with the descent of the Holy Ghost
and the Assumption. Among these, the five points taken from the Passion
of Christ—the so-called “sorrowful Mysteries”—form the centre, and
thus the entire rosary now falls into three parts, each complete in
itself.[579]
By this means the devotion gained a more definite meaning. The mere
recitation of the prayers is closely connected with meditation, and
each mystery has more or less reference to some feast of our Lord or of
our Lady, and so is brought into relation with the different liturgical
seasons. It can thus to a certain extent be connected with the whole
cycle of festivals of which indeed it was a sort of summary.
In its completed form the Rosary became the favourite devotion of all,
high and low, clerical and lay, and a special confraternity, favoured
by the popes and endowed with indulgences, was formed for its spread
and encouragement.[580] The Rosary was a source of innumerable graces
not only to individual believers, but even Christendom as a whole had
recourse to its assistance in times of general distress and danger,
especially when pressed by the Turks. Remarkable answers to prayer,
among which was numbered the victory of Lepanto (7th October 1571),
first moved Pius V. to institute a feast in thanksgiving. Gregory XIII.
gave stability to this feast by ordering in 1573 that in every church
possessing a chapel, or at least an altar of the Rosary, it should be
celebrated as “the Feast of the Holy Rosary” on the first Sunday in
October. Clement X. granted the feast to the whole of Spain without this
proviso. Clement XI. extended the feast to all Christendom in consequence
of the victory gained at Peterwardein by Prince Eugene on the 5th August
1716.[581]
A commemoration much beloved by the people, is that of the Seven Dolors
of Our Blessed Lady, which cannot be regarded as a festival in the usual
sense of the term. It takes place on the Friday after Passion Sunday.
Its introduction was prepared by the ascetic literature of the twelfth
century, in which also its roots are to be sought. The pious monk Eadmer
in his treatise “On the Excellencies of the Virgin Mary” chapter v.
(see App. x., page 446) deals with the share taken by Our Lady in the
sufferings of her Son. The writing of an unknown author (_De Passione
Christi et Doloribus et Planctibus Matris Ejus_, MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
clii.), attributed to St Bernard, while full of deep piety, is yet rather
effeminate and sentimental. The third treatise belonging to this subject
is composed by Amadeus, a disciple of St Bernard, Abbot and afterwards
Bishop of Lausanne († 1159), whose fifth homily is entitled _De Mentis
Dolore et Martyrio B.M.V._ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxxxviii., 1325-1331).
He deals with Our Lady’s share in her Son’s sufferings in a merely
general way and in outline. At a later date, the matter was treated in
more detail and with additions, so that the Seven Dolors of Our Lady
were the result. In this form, the matter was taken up by the Servites,
whose order came into existence in 1240, and to whom Innocent IX. in 1688
granted a second feast of the same name to be celebrated out of Lent on
the third Sunday in September.
7. _The Feast of St Joseph.[582] The Cultus of SS. Joachim and Anne_
During the first centuries of the Church’s existence it was only the
martyrs who, as we have said, enjoyed religious veneration. It was
probably owing to this custom that no cultus was paid even to those
personages who had been closely related to our Lord during His earthly
life. St Joseph, our Lord’s foster-father, is a striking instance of this
law. Although mentioned as a “just” man in Holy Scripture, and the object
of occasional eulogies in patristic literature, he received universal
public veneration only at a late date. While we possess much information
concerning the tombs of the Apostles, and while even the graves of the
Old Testament prophets have frequently had attention drawn to them,
tradition has nothing to report concerning the death, burial, and relics
of St Joseph.
The earliest traces of a direct cultus appears in one of the Coptic
calendars[583] published by Seldenius. In this “Joseph the Carpenter”
is entered on the 20th July, as also in the somewhat later _Synaxarium_
in Mai,[584] which at latest may belong to the ninth century. The
date, 20th July, had no influence upon other churches. The menology
of Constantinople does not contain St Joseph’s name, and even the
_Basilianum_ only mentions him by the way on the 25th December, in the
form of a commemoration. After the Nativity of our Lord, the Magi are
first mentioned, and then St Joseph as spouse and protector of the Holy
Virgin (ὁ μνήστωρ καὶ φύλαξ τῆς παρθένου). He has no special day of his
own.
In the West, an Antiochene martyr called Joseph, otherwise unknown,
appears in the so-called martyrology of St Jerome on the 20th March.[585]
This cannot refer to the foster-father of Christ on account of the
mention of Antioch and the absence of any indication of the saint’s
condition, although this transformation has taken place in some
martyrologies. With the unmistakeable title of foster-father of our Lord
(_nutritor Domini_), St Joseph appears first in the martyrologies of the
tenth century, as in one belonging to Fulda[586] and in others. As these
are of private origin, and of merely local importance, it cannot be said
that the cultus of St Joseph had therefore become universal. Throughout
the whole Middle Ages it remained rather a private devotion, although
numerous traces of the esteem in which St Joseph was held, and even of
external veneration paid to him by individuals are to be found.[587]
It was through the private devotion of many important or holy members
of the Church that the public cultus of St Joseph came into existence.
Among these may be named St Bernard, St Gertrude, St Brigid of Sweden,
and St Vincent Ferrer. Among the most enthusiastic and influential in
this respect was the Chancellor John Gerson, following the lead of his
master Peter d’Ailly, and, at a later date, the Abbot Trithemius. In
1400, Gerson composed an office in honour of the Espousals of Joseph with
Mary, and urged the Council of Constance to take steps for the spread
of the devotion. The way had been already prepared by the Franciscans,
especially St Bernardine of Siena, and Bernardine de Bustis, who showed
great zeal for the worship of St Joseph.[588]
These attempts resulted in the approval given to the cultus by Sixtus
IV.,[589] who inserted St Joseph’s day in the Roman Breviary as a
feast with one lection (_festum simplex_). Under Clement XI. it was
changed into a feast with nine lections. Accordingly, at the end of
the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, the 19th March
began to be kept as St Joseph’s day in the Missals and Breviaries of
many religious orders, _i.e._, the Carmelites, Hermits of St Augustine,
Premonstratensians, Dominicans, Knights of St John; these were followed
by the Benedictines and Jesuits, while the service-books of the
Carthusians, Camaldules, Cistercians and Cluniacs of the same period
remained without it.[590]
Owing to the fact that later on, several royal personages such as the
Emperors Ferdinand III. and Leopold I. of the House of Habsburg, and King
Charles II. of Spain, were devoted to the cultus of St Joseph, Gregory
XV. raised his festival to the rank of a festival of obligation in 1621.
Benedict XIII. inserted his name into the Litany of the Saints, and Pius
IX., on the 8th December 1870, conferred upon him the office of Patron of
the Universal Church.
Among the Greeks, the parents of Our Lady enjoyed a religious cultus
from a comparatively early date, although all that was known of them was
derived from the apocryphal _Proto-evangelium_ of James. Joachim and Anne
already had their own commemoration on the 9th September in the menology
of Constantinople, and Justinian I. is said to have built a church in
honour of St Anne in Constantinople.[591] Their names are mentioned by
Epiphanius[592] and appear in the oldest Neapolitan Calendar on the 9th
September, a circumstance which shows Byzantine influence, for among the
Syrians their festival is kept on the 25th July.
In the West, however, their legend was received with considerable
reserve, and although Pope Leo III. had their pictures placed in the
church of _Maria ad Præsepe_, no trace of any liturgical commemoration
appears in calendars before the Middle Ages. It is no proof that any
special cultus was paid to them, that we find them occasionally mentioned
in writings and spoken of as saints. It was only in 1378 that Urban VI.
authorised the worship of St Anne for the English at their own request.
Sixtus IV. especially approved of it,[593] and Gregory XIII., in 1584,
appointed the 26th July for her feast. In the fifteenth century she was
venerated with special devotion in Germany, the town of Annaberg being
named after her.
As regards Joachim, Julius II. is said to have approved of his being
commemorated with a special office on the 22nd March. Gregory XII.
introduced a new and improved office, and fixed the commemoration for the
Sunday within the octave of the Assumption. Leo XIII. raised it to the
rank of a feast of the second class.[594]
Baillet has some remarks concerning Our Lady’s parents which are worthy
of notice. He thinks that Mary at the time of her espousals to Joseph was
an orphan; consequently, since her parents died before the death of the
Redeemer, they were considered as belonging to the Old Testament, and
were not made the object of a cultus. Whether they were actually named
Joachim and Anne is doubtful,[595] for Anna in Hebrew means “Grace,” and
Joachim, “Preparation of God.” It is possible that owing to ignorance
of their real names, these appellations were chosen for them. The names
appear in Epiphanius only at the end of the fourth century.
8. _The Festivals of the Apostles in General_
The cultus of the apostles followed the same lines of development as that
of other saints. At first it was merely local, but although the tendency
to observe the festivals of the apostles throughout the whole Church
was stronger than in the case of other saints, still their festivals
did not attain earlier to universal observance than those of ordinary
saints, that is to say, at the period of the compilation of universal
martyrologies, though there were, of course, some exceptions.
The earliest calendars of particular churches have, on the average, only
a few feasts of apostles, usually only one or two. It was only in course
of time that the longing for completeness appeared, which in the tenth
century was carried to such a pitch by the Greeks that they set down in
their calendars not merely every personage who had received honourable
mention in the New Testament, but even the Seventy Disciples, although
there was but slender authority for their names.
From the first a difference was made between the apostles who had lived
and worked within the existing boundaries of the Roman Empire, and those
who had ended their lives in barbarian countries. In the far East, there
was a second world-power similar to the Roman power in the West, _i.e._,
the empire of the Parthians, or that earlier Persian Empire of the
Achæmenides, which in its turn, again, had risen from the ruins of the
ancient empires of Babylon and Assyria. The Jews had obviously numerous
relations from old time with this Eastern Empire in consequence of their
historical connection with it. After the return from exile, many Jews
had remained there, and probably many others returned thither at a later
time. In fine, the circumstances attending on the first Whitsunday show
that many Jews were scattered throughout those provinces. The Eastern
Empire consisted of a number of vassal states, which recognised a
supreme sovereign, the King of Kings, but, in other respects, remained
independent and sovereign, as for example, Armenia, whose inhabitants
were moreover closely allied by blood with the Persians.
The Jews, as Semites, had naturally more sympathy with these Easterns,
once their ancient grievances had been forgotten, than they had with the
Greeks and Romans who, at the beginning of the Christian era, were their
oppressors. This explains why some of the apostles, some for life and
others only temporarily, betook themselves thither, and spent their lives
there in mission work and even ended their days in those parts. This is
also the reason why we have so little reliable information concerning
their life and work, and why the days of their deaths were not celebrated
for so long a period in the West. The apostles who devoted themselves
to the Eastern Empire were probably Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Simon
Zelotes, and Jude. Thaddeus also laboured there for a time in Mesopotamia
and Osrhoëne. No traces remain of the labours of Matthias who is said to
have preached to the Ethiopians, and of whose life, a writer of the ninth
century, Autpert, Abbot of Monte Cassino, confesses nothing is known.[596]
Several of the apostles have been commemorated from the first in the
calendars, and always on the same day, while others, on the contrary,
appear on different days in different parts of the Church, a circumstance
which seems confusing to the historical investigator, but which can
easily be explained when one has correctly grasped the principles which
operate in liturgical matters. With regard to those who have everywhere
been commemorated from the first on the same day, one can usually be
certain that they died as martyrs in the Churches in question.
Although the only correct view is to maintain that the commemorations
of the apostles were treated in the same way as the days devoted to the
memory of the martyrs, and that their names appeared in the calendars
on the day of their death (_dies natales_), still this is true of only
a few indeed of their commemorations in the calendars actually in use.
For the majority of the apostles died in barbarian countries with no one
on the spot to collect information, and only much later a few floating
pieces of information concerning them were collected from popular
tradition. Another difficulty may have arisen from the different systems
of chronology in use, and so even when the day of an apostle’s death was
set down it was probably not understood by the Greeks and Romans, and so
was forgotten. For these and other reasons it came to pass that, later
on, when the commemoration of a certain apostle had to be fixed in the
calendar, the date of the invention or translation of his relics was
generally chosen, or finally the date was fixed simply by chance.
As absolutely trustworthy, I can, therefore, regard only the day of the
death of St Peter, St Paul, and St Andrew, perhaps also the day of the
death of St Mark and St Luke, since they ended their days in civilized
countries, at a period when the hierarchy of the Church had already been
established in those parts. With regard to St John, the question is open
to doubt, first, because he did not die a martyr’s death, and secondly,
because he did not preside as bishop over a particular congregation. Had
he done so, the list of bishops for that particular city would have been
careful to inform us of the fact.
Although the cultus of each apostle was originally local, yet there
are early traces that the cultus became universal. Thus already in the
fifth century a day within the octave of St Peter and St Paul seems
to have been dedicated to the cultus of all the apostles in common.
We find in the so-called Sacramentary of Leo I. the following prayer:
_Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui nos omnium apostolorum merita sub una
tribuisti celebritate venerari_, etc. The same prayer appears also in the
Gelasianum, where it is found in _lib._ 2, No. 33.[597]
A mediæval liturgist, Beleth, gave expression to the view that the
separate apostles had no special festivals in the primitive Church, but
that all together were commemorated on the 1st May,[598] and that finally
only St Philip and St James continued to be commemorated on this day. The
facts, however, as far as we have been able to learn, do not bear out the
opinion of this writer which he inferred from the greater calendars, but
the festivals of each of the apostles came into existence one by one,
from the ninth century onwards, until they reached their full number.
The council of Erfurt in 932 raised all feasts of apostles to the rank
of holy days of obligation for Germany. Pope Boniface VIII. in 1293 made
them all _duplicia_.
Even before the meeting of the Nicene Council, Constantine had built
a church in honour of all the apostles[599] in Constantinople, in
which he was afterwards buried.[600] It was rebuilt under Justinian
and re-dedicated on the 29th June 550, the feast of St Peter and St
Paul.[601] This church had considerable influence upon the cultus of the
apostles inasmuch as under Constantius attempts were made to provide
it with their relics, obviously with the intention of resembling Rome
as closely as possible. The relics of St Timothy were first translated
thither from Ephesus on 1st July 356, which caused a great increase
of devotion to this saint. He had lost his life in a popular uprising
in Ephesus under Nerva on 22nd January 97, of which his successor,
Polycrates, has given us an account.[602] The church became possessed
of a still greater treasure in the following year when the relics of St
Andrew and St Luke were placed in it.
As we should expect from what has been said above, there exists
historical material for the feasts of only a certain number of the
apostles, while others, as, for example, the feasts of St Matthew, St
Matthias, St Bartholomew, and St Thomas, are of no further interest than
to mark the translation of their relics.
In conclusion it may be useful to draw attention to the actual increase
of the festivals of the apostles in the calendars. The _Leoninum_ has
only two, the 29th June and the 30th November. The lectionary of Luxeuil
in the seventh century has the same number, _i.e._, the 22nd February and
the 29th June, that of Silos, about 650, has four (22nd February, 29th
June, 30th November, 27th December), and, in addition, the feast of St
Peter’s Chains. The calendar of St Geneviève (between 714-731) has the
same number, omitting St Peter’s Chains. From this point the number of
feasts of the Apostles increases rapidly; the calendar of Charlemagne
of 781 has eight already, and subsequent calendars contain ten or more.
A singular peculiarity appears in the calendar of Polemius Silvius (see
below) where we find only one feast of apostles, the 22nd February,
“Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli.” The ancient Neapolitan calendar brings
the number up to sixteen days, giving two commemorations to some apostles
and including the disciples Thaddeus and Barnabas.
9. _The Festivals of the Apostles and Evangelists in Particular_
(1) ST PETER AND ST PAUL
The 29th June, the commemoration of the martyrdom of the two chief
apostles, is the only feast of apostles that is still observed as a
public holiday. It can be regarded under two aspects as a universal and
as a local festival. It is important as a local festival, because, since
a constant tradition maintained that St Peter and St Paul were put to
death in Rome under Nero on the same day, it is only natural that this
day should be kept in Rome as the _dies natalis ss. apostolorum_, in
the customary manner from the first, and so was never forgotten. But
even in other localities, apart from Roman influence and tradition, we
find efforts made in antiquity to devote a day to the commemoration of
these same two apostles. This is proved by the fact that in the Arian
martyrology in use in the East, it had already a place, on the 28th
December, after St Stephen and the apostles St James and St John. This
is by no means an isolated phenomenon, for in the Armenian calendar it
has a corresponding place, _i.e._, on the 27th December, while in the
Nestorian calendar it appears on the second Friday after Epiphany.[603]
In Cappadocia, or at least in Nyssa, we find the Christmas season
again considered to be the suitable time for a collective feast of the
apostles, for the commemoration of the apostles Peter, James, John and
Paul follows the Feast of St Stephen.[604] Even in the upper valley of
the Rhone, it was felt necessary to observe the day of the death of the
two chief apostles, for the calendar of Polemius Silvius, which belongs
to this region, contains the entry: _depositio ss. Petri et Pauli_, but
on the 22nd February, the day on which in other parts of Gaul the Feast
of St Peter’s Chair was celebrated. That this calendar gives no feast of
any sort on the 29th June, shows that in his choice of the day, Polemius
was quite independent of the Roman tradition. The considerations which
weighed with him in so doing will be explained further on.
In other parts of Italy, the true day of the apostle’s death was
well known, and observed, as for example, at Milan in the time of St
Ambrose.[605] Among the sermons of Maximus of Turin, belonging to the
fifth century, we find no fewer than ten[606] for this feast. The sermons
of St Augustine, among which are five for this festival, show that in
North Africa the day was kept as a holy day; he speaks of it as a _dies
festus_ and a _sollemnitas_.[607] Moreover St Augustine belongs to the
number of those Fathers who expressly state that although both apostles
died on the same day of the month, they died in different years,[608] a
fact which the historical and biblical science of the day persistently
overlooks, which naturally must cause serious misgivings as to the
reliability of the principles on which its chronology is constructed.
Among the numerous sermons of St Peter Chrysologus there are none for
this day. As regards St Chrysostom, while we have seven sermons of his in
honour of the apostle Paul, we have only one “on Peter and the Prophet
Elias” conjointly, in which St Peter is only briefly mentioned in the
introduction and treated as of secondary importance. There is nothing to
show that it was preached on the 29th June.[609] The fact that neither
of these saints preached on this day, is an indication of the practice
followed at Ravenna and Antioch.
With regard to Rome, the local tradition, which regarded the 29th June
as the day on which both apostles were put to death, was committed to
writing by the chronographer of 354, and all later chronographers. A
western tradition, supported by many of the great Fathers of the Church,
adds further that, though both apostles died on the same day of the
month, they died in different years. This idea appears in St Augustine,
in the _Leoninum_, Arator, Gregory of Tours, and in three Greek writers,
but scholars have so far ignored it. It is further evident from the
_Depositio Martyrum_ that the day of their death was specially chosen
for a translation of their relics which took place in 258. The special
festivities observed in Rome are described for us by Prudentius from what
he had seen himself when he visited the city about 405. According to him
the whole city was in commotion: the faithful visited the tombs of the
apostles and in the two churches erected in their honour, pontifical mass
was celebrated.[610] This is in complete agreement with the tradition
according to which devotion to the martyrs was closely connected with
the spot where they suffered and with the date on which they suffered,
and the chief commemoration consisted in the offering up of the Holy
Sacrifice over their tombs. Owing to the distance which separated the
two churches of the apostles from one another, it was most fatiguing to
celebrate mass at both places, and so in course of time the festival was
divided into two parts, and the Mass in honour of St Paul took place
on the 30th June. An examination of the earliest Roman missals shows
that in the _Leoninum_ there is a number of masses for this day, all
commemorating the two apostles together, but, in the _Gelasianum_, on the
contrary, there is only one mass for the two apostles conjointly (_III.
Kal. Jul. in Natali SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli_), and, in addition,
one for each of them separately. It may be that the division of the feast
was then customary, but the 29th June continued to be called _Natalis SS.
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli_. As early as the fifth century the feast was
kept at Rome with a vigil and octave.[611]
At an early date, the 29th June, which had hitherto been celebrated
chiefly in the West, _i.e._, in Rome and the surrounding districts, began
to be observed as a universal festival of the whole Church, inasmuch as
it began to be celebrated in Constantinople. The Roman Senator Festus,
who had been sent on matters of state to the new Emperor Anastasius,
in 491, moved the emperor, according to Theodorus Lector, to celebrate
this feast solemnly in Constantinople.[612] Although the feast may have
been kept already in Constantinople before this time, it now began to
be celebrated with greater pomp. The day must certainly have been known
in Constantinople before this date, but can hardly have been kept as a
festival.
After this the 29th June appears in all Calendars and martyrologies as
the commemoration of the two chief apostles. In the West we find it
first in the Calendar of Perpetuus of Tours. The Carthaginian Calendar
is unfortunately defective, but that the day was kept there cannot be
doubted on account of the evidence given by St Augustine’s sermons. It is
also found in the later oriental Calendars, with the exception of a few
belonging to Egypt.[613]
While this feast, like the festivals of all martyrs, was originally
local, and was celebrated only in Rome and in the churches dependent upon
Rome, the esteem in which the Roman Church and the apostles were held
early gained for it the character of a universal feast.
(2) THE FEAST OF ST PETER’S CHAINS
The Roman breviary bases the foundation for this feast upon the following
legend. Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II.[614] since 421, was presented
with a chain at Jerusalem which was believed to have been that with which
St Peter was bound while imprisoned, as recorded in Acts, chap. xii. She
brought this chain to Rome, where another chain was already preserved in
the Church of St Peter on the Esquiline.[615] This is said to have been
the chain with which St Peter was confined during his Roman imprisonment.
Both chains appeared to be of the same workmanship, and united themselves
together of their own accord. Whereupon the church was rebuilt at the
Empress’s expense, and received the name of _Eudoxiæ ad Vincula_. There
is no trustworthy proof for the presentation of the second chain by
Eudocia, although there is evidence that in Rome the faithful prided
themselves on possessing a chain of St Peter before this supposed gift
of the Empress.[616] Under Benedict XIV. it was proposed to suppress the
lections in the breviary containing these legends.
The feast of St Peter’s chain is not in the _Gelasianum_, and appears
only in Calendars of the eighth century, as, for example, in that of
Bede, but not yet as a feast of obligation. The decree of the Emperor
Manuel Comnenus raised it to this rank in 1166. The spread of the feast
was undoubtedly facilitated by the circumstance that in 969 a courtier of
the Emperor Otho I. was healed in Rome by touching the chain.[617] That
the commemoration was fixed for the 1st August does not imply that this
was the day on which the apostle was set free from imprisonment; but in
this, as in other cases, the date of the Church’s dedication caused this
day to be chosen.
(3) THE CONVERSION OF ST PAUL
The Conversion of St Paul was kept as a holiday of obligation in
several dioceses of France and Germany, and especially in England.
It is uncertain where and when it first became so. It is not in the
_Gelasianum_ nor in the older editions of the _Gregorianum_, but appears
in the later texts of more recent editions, as a later addition, for
it is still frequently lacking in later MSS. and Calendars.[618]
Nevertheless it appears in Ado and Usuardus. The 25th January seems
originally to have had another signification; for in the recent critical
edition of the _Hieronymianum_ of De Rossi and Duchesne, the two oldest
recensions give on this day a translation of the relics of St Paul,
which is said to have taken place in Rome (_Romæ_, _Translatio B. Pauli
Apostoli_). The most recent of the ancient codices, that of Metz, now in
Bern, belonging to the tenth century, has a translation and conversion of
St Paul on the 25th January. The idea of the conversion soon replaced
that of the translation, and fixed the character of the feast. As such
it spread, and soon attained to universal acceptance. The translation
which the feast originally commemorated is believed by De Waal to have
taken place in the time of Constantine, when the basilica of St Paul was
erected[619] (_Translatio et Conversio S. Pauli in Damaso_, the words
_conversio_ and _in Damaso_ being added by a later hand).
(4) ST ANDREW AND ST LUKE THE EVANGELIST
We can deal with the festivals of these two saints together, for in the
year 357, on the 3rd March, their relics were solemnly translated at the
same time to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople.[620] Until
this date the tomb of St Andrew was in Patras, where he had suffered
death. The previous burial place of St Luke is not specified, but it
may have been either in Patras or somewhere in the neighbourhood.
The possession of St Andrew’s relics was of great importance to
Constantinople, because he was regarded as the apostolic founder of
the Christian community there, and the catalogue of bishops, which,
historically speaking, only begins with Metrophanes (315-325), has
been carried back to him, inasmuch as it was maintained he had
ordained Stachys as first bishop of the See. More certain, from an
historical point of view, is his martyrdom at Patras, of which we have a
trustworthy account.[621] Besides this, there is a well-known encyclical
letter to the priests and deacons of Achaia, which in all essential
points agrees with the account of the martyrdom, although in some other
respects it is open to criticism.[622] The so-called martyrology of
Jerome on 5th February commemorates St Andrew’s ordination as Bishop of
Patras.
The date for St Luke’s death never varied and seems to be correct. Both
dates, the 18th October and the 30th November, appear in the oldest
Neapolitan Calendar, which contains no other festival of an apostle
except St James the Less (27th December). From the fact that the relics
of St Andrew and St Luke happened to be translated at the same time,
many ancient and modern writers drew the hasty conclusion that St Luke
had also died in Patras and been buried there. A document which, though
certainly late, can yet be traced back to Philostorgius,[623] gives the
true place of his death and burial as Thebes, which Paulinus of Nola
confirms. His relics may well have been translated thence at the same
time as those of St Andrew were brought from Patras. They were carried to
Constantinople at the command of the Emperor Constantius by the official
Artemius, who had also brought the relics of St Timothy to the capital.
(5) ST JAMES THE GREAT
James, the son of Zebedee and brother of St John the Evangelist, was a
native of Galilee. His labours, after the Crucifixion, were not of long
duration, for in the year 42 or 43 he was beheaded at the instigation
of King Herod Agrippa I., who had enjoyed indeed the dignity of king of
Judea since 37, but only during the last years of his reign did his power
extend over Jerusalem. According to the usual custom he came to Jerusalem
for the Passover, and then, in order to gain favour with the Jews, he had
St James seized and made away with shortly before the feast; and when
he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also, in
order to make away with him too, after the feast. This happened not long
before the death of Herod himself, which is narrated in the same chapter
of the Acts (Acts xii. 1-4 and 23).
The day of St James’s death was shortly before Easter, or, as we should
say, in Holy Week, and, in accordance with this circumstance, the Copts
keep his commemoration on the 12th April,[624] and the Syrian lectionary
of Antioch on the 30th of the same month. Although these do not exactly
represent the actual day of his death, they are not far off from it.
The observance of the actual day was, moreover, interfered with by the
circumstance that it came at a season when the thought of our Lord’s
passion prevented the celebration of a martyr’s feast. In the menologies
he is mentioned only in the _Basilianum_ on the 9th October.
The bodily remains of St James, as well as those of St James the Less,
were still in Jerusalem in the sixth century.[625] In the ninth century
we find them in Spain, at Compostela, where they were an object of
great veneration, as we learn from Notker Balbulus.[626] They must have
been taken there some time between the seventh and ninth centuries. An
account of the translation, such as we possess in other instances, is
not extant; there is no information in any author to show when or by
whom the translation was carried out. The translation itself can well be
historically true, although the opinion that St James preached the gospel
in Spain is only a legend.[627] One is led to think that the relics were
secretly carried off by Christians from Jerusalem from fear of the Arabs,
and finally found a second resting-place in Spain.
The Roman breviary and martyrology place his feast on the 25th July,
which is marked as the day of a translation of his relics, without
giving any further particulars. The _Gelasianum_ does not mention St
James, and he appears in liturgical books only at the end of the eighth
century. His name is entirely absent from the older liturgical books of
the ancient Spanish Church, an inexplicable circumstance had he been
the apostle of Spain. The veneration for him begins to show itself in
Spain only from the ninth century. In Western Calendars he appears in
that ascribed to Charlemagne of 781, published by Piper, and also in
the later MSS. of the _Gregorianum_, but not in the sacramentary of
Mainz dating from 840. The entries in the different recensions of the
_Hieronymianum_ are noteworthy. The Weissenburg codex on the 25th July
has simply a martyr James, with no other specification except _Portus
Romanus_ as an indication of place; the Echternach codex describes
this martyr as _apostolus_ and _frater Joannis Evang._,[628] and adds
_Hierosolym_; the codex of Bern has briefly _Passio S. Jacobi_. It is not
evident on what grounds the two later recensions have made James, the
martyr of _Portus Romanus_, into the apostle. The _Neapolitanum_ does not
mention an apostle James on the 25th July, although it does on the 15th
November,[629] and, along with Philip, on 1st May. Although he is found
in Bede, he is absent from the Calendar of St Geneviève, dating from
731-741.
(6) ST PHILIP AND ST JAMES THE LESS
It is well known that in early days lists were drawn up containing the
names of those bishops at least who had presided over the chief sees,
along with the duration of their episcopates. Since some apostles had
acted as bishop in certain cities for a length of time, while others—as,
for example, St Paul—never settled down for long in one place, the
former, in addition to their martyrdom, had a yet further claim to be
commemorated. This is the case with St Peter, St James the Less, and St
Mark.
St James the Less, son of Alpheus or Clopas, immediately after Christ’s
death was entrusted with the office of Bishop of Jerusalem by the other
apostles, which he held for thirty years.[630] His death was caused by
the High Priest Ananias II., who availed himself of the interregnum
that intervened between the death of Porcius Festus and the arrival of
the new procurator Albinus. Gessius Florus succeeded Albinus in A.D.
64. St James’s death, according to St Jerome’s precise statement, fell
in the seventh year of Nero. According to St Jerome’s way of reckoning,
which agrees with the official method, Nero reigned fourteen years and a
half, and his seventh year corresponds with the sixtieth of the Christian
era.[631]
St James was commemorated in the East on the 27th December. This is his
date in the Arian martyrology, which is followed by the very ancient
Carthaginian Calendar. Although the latter incorrectly adds that he
was killed by Herod, it is evident that St James the Less is intended,
for all the Eastern documentary sources place the commemoration of St
James the Less in the Christmas season. They differ as to the day, some
commemorating him on the 26th, some on the 28th, the Neapolitan and
Mozarabic Calendars on the 29th, and the Syrian lectionary has his name
both on the 28th December and on the 23rd October.
In accordance with these ancient witnesses we would willingly place
his death on the 27th December, but there are strong reasons against
this. First, in these documents he is coupled for the most part with
St John the Evangelist, and it is unlikely that both of them died
on the same day. Secondly, in the most ancient document of all, the
Arian martyrology, immediately after St James and St John, on the 28th
December, come St Peter and St Paul, who suffered death on a different
date altogether; the compiler simply placed the chief personages
connected with our Lord on the days after Christmas. Thirdly, the church
built by Helena on the Mount of Olives, in which St James and St John
received special veneration, was dedicated on the 27th December.[632]
Here again, as in so many other cases, the date of the church’s
consecration became the date of the festival of the saint specially
connected with it. Of course it may be thought that the church was
consecrated on the day of the saint’s death, but for this there is, at
any rate, no proof concerning this particular church. And so we must give
up the 27th December as the real day of St James’s death. It may have
been the day of his appointment to the episcopate.[633]
That this is so is further confirmed by the accounts written by pilgrims,
in which it is stated that St James was buried in the church on the
Mount of Olives, and that he had owned a house in Jerusalem and a burial
place, in which he had buried Zachary and Simeon.[634] It is true that
later Latin authorities expressly give his _dies natalis_, _i.e._ the
actual day of his death, on the 27th December,[635] but their evidence
is not conclusive. In marked distinction from the Eastern tradition, the
_Hieronymianum_ gives his death on the 25th March: “Hierosolyma passio
Jacobi Justi,” or, as in the Bern codex, “fratris Domini.” This date
coincides strikingly with the statement of Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, 2,
23, 11), that the death of St James happened during the season of Easter.
The Constantinopolitan authorities, like the Roman, take an independent
line. The most ancient among the former do not mention St James the Less,
but the _Basilianum_ names him on the 23rd October and the 30th April,
both times with the title then only given to martyrs (ἄθλησις). We shall
have occasion to refer elsewhere to the arbitrary and singular character
of this work.
With regard to the Roman service-books and those derived from them, they
agree, beginning with the _Gelasianum_, in placing St James along with
St Philip on the 1st May. This is owing to the fact that in the sixth
century a church was erected in honour of these two apostles in Rome,
which is known at the present day as the Basilica of the Apostles. Pope
Pelagius I. (556-561) commenced the erection of the church, which was
completed by his successor John III.[636] It was dedicated on the 1st
May, and so it came to pass that the commemoration of these two apostles
is celebrated in the Roman rite on this day. Later on, the 1st May came
incorrectly to be considered their _dies natalis_.
The commemoration of St Philip in the menology of Basil, and in the
_Neapolitanum_, is on the 14th November. A monastery of St Philip existed
in Constantinople as early as 511.
(7) ST JOHN
As regards St John the Apostle and Evangelist, we have seen his
commemoration was joined with that of St James the Less, on the 27th
December, although this was not the date of their deaths. In course
of time St John gradually eclipsed St James and gained possession of
this day for himself alone; yet in the _Hieronymianum_ and in the
Gothico-Gallic missal, ascribed by Mabillon to the eighth century, St
John and St James are still commemorated together (_Natalis Jacobi et
Joannis_). In the _Gelasianum_, and also in later Roman and Frankish
martyrologies, and in Bede, St John alone is commemorated, as at the
present day.
St John died and was buried in Ephesus. When his grave was opened,
probably under Constantine, who built a church in his honour in the part
of Constantinople called Hebdomon, no remains of his body were found in
it, but only powder, which was called manna. The intention evidently
was to provide this church in Constantinople with relics of its titular
saint. It is not surprising that the idea became prevalent among the
Greeks that St John, like our Blessed Lady, had been taken up bodily into
heaven. This opening of his grave must have taken place on the 8th May,
for the menology of Constantinople makes mention on this day of the manna
mentioned above.[637] The 26th September seems to have been regarded as
the day of his death, for the same authority mentions the “Departure”
of the apostle (μετάστασις τοῦ ἁγίου Ιοάννου τοῦ θεολόγου)[638] on
this date. So, too, does the Calendar of Naples under the name of his
Assumption (_Adsumptio Joannis Evangelistæ_). Among the Jacobites of
Antioch also the 26th September was kept as the day of his departure
(_decessus Joannis Evang. ex mundo_).[639] Where there is so much
divergence, nothing certain can be determined. Most probably Morcelli is
correct in supposing that the 26th September was the day on which St John
died in Ephesus, and that on the 27th December some church or chapel, or,
at least, an altar, was dedicated to his honour.[640]
The 6th May appears already as a festival of St John the Evangelist in
the Gothico-Gallic missal, without any further specification, but simply
with the rubric: _Missa S. Joannis Apostoli et Evangelistæ_. The Roman
festival on this day, “Joannis ante Portam Latinam,” was introduced on
the ground of Tertullian’s statement.[641] The oldest recensions of
the _Hieronymianum_ do not mention it, nor yet the recension of Metz
belonging to the ninth century.
(8) ST SIMON AND ST JUDE (THADDEUS)
The apostles Simon and Jude, like St Philip and St James, are constantly
commemorated together in Western Calendars, but in their case there is
an inner reason for this arrangement. According to a tradition, which
appears in the pseudo-Abdias, the two apostles spent thirteen years
together in Persia labouring for the spread of Christianity, and there
suffered death at the same time in the city of Suanir.[642] The day of
their death is here given as the 1st July, which is also given in some
Western martyrologies—such as those of Naples and Toledo, which plainly
derive their information from this source.
In the Roman Calendar, and in those dependent upon them, the two apostles
are indeed constantly commemorated together, but on the 28th October. No
reason has been discovered for the choice of this date. It does not seem
to have been due either to the _Hieronymianum_ or to Bede. The former
has “In Suana, a city of Persia, the birthday of the apostles Simon
and Jude”[643] (_Cod. Epternac._). As far as Roman sacramentaries are
concerned, St Simon and St Jude appear only in the later recensions of
the _Gregorianum_.
The menology of Constantinople does not contain St Simon, but it has
Thaddeus on the 20th August. The _Basilianum_ has an apostle Simon on
the 29th April who is called Jude, and on the 10th May the apostle Simon
Zelotes, and, further, an apostle Jude on the 22nd May and 19th June.
All this is obscure and arbitrary. The fact that these apostles are
not joined together, but have each their separate day, agrees with the
Eastern service-books. The lectionary of the Syrians of the eleventh
century has St Simon on the 10th May, Jude on the 16th May. The Coptic
Calendar in Seldenius has Jude Thaddeus on the 20th May.
A remarkable proof of the obscurity hanging over the apostles is found in
the circumstance that in some calendars which commemorate them together
on the same day other saints of the same name are found in addition.
Thus in the _Neapolitanum_ there is a Jude on the 26th May and a “passio
S. Simonis Ap.” on the 10th September, as well as the commemoration of
them both together on the 1st July. In the Parisian lectionary of St
Geneviève, in the Calendar of Charlemagne, and in the _Gelasianum_, there
is no mention of St Simon and St Jude.
(9) ST MARK THE EVANGELIST
According to a constant and universal tradition, he was the first Bishop
of Alexandria, and his name appears first in all lists of the bishops
of that See. However, as far as calendars and martyrologies go, his
name does not appear in those of the West until the ninth century, nor
in the _Constantinopolitanum_ until the same period. Unfortunately the
most ancient Coptic Calendar in Mai is imperfect for the month of April.
It is only in the _Synaxarium_ of the ninth century, published by Mai,
that he appears. His name appears in all later Coptic Calendars, in the
_Neapolitanum_, which mentions him a second time on the 17th May, and in
the _Basilianum_. There is not much to be said in support of the 25th
April as the day of St Mark’s death. Moreover, the _Hieronymianum_ gives
the 23rd September as the date of his death, but the Paschal Chronicle
puts it down on the 1st Phormathi, _i.e._ the 26th March.[644] St Jerome
in his chronicle gives the year of his death as the eighth of Nero.
That the processional litanies take place on St Mark’s day is a mere
accident, as is proved by the circumstance that in the oldest Latin
Calendars—as, for example, in that of Fronteau, and in the Mainz edition
of the _Gregorianum_—the _Litania major_ alone is put down on the 25th
April without any mention of St Mark.
(10) THE FEASTS OF ST PETER’S CHAIR
(_18th January and 22nd February_)
The historical investigation of these two feasts necessitates the
consideration of two questions which must be discussed separately—first,
their name and significance, and, secondly, the dates on which they are
celebrated.
_Cathedra_, when used in its literal sense by the oldest ecclesiastical
writers, means the bishop’s seat in the apse of the church behind
the altar, upon which he sat, when not otherwise engaged, during the
performance of divine service. Figuratively, the _cathedra_ is the symbol
of episcopal authority in general and of the bishop’s teaching authority
in particular, just as the throne is the symbol of royal authority.
_Cathedra Petri_, then, signifies especially the teaching authority of
St Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, or, in other words, the
Primacy. This can easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, and
the evidence for it has often been set forth in writings and treatises
dealing specially with this question, and so it need not be repeated
here.[645] That the feast was intended to celebrate the bestowal of the
Primacy on St Peter is clear from the oldest liturgies, and will become
sufficiently evident in the course of our remarks.[646]
But how came it to pass that the Feast of St Peter’s Chair—we
are considering at present only the more ancient of the two
commemorations—was fixed for the 22nd February? This question can only
be answered by a critical investigation into the history of the feast.
The two feasts present entirely different peculiarities. The second half
of February among the heathen Romans was marked by popular festivities
partly religious and partly secular in character; on the 13th February
commenced the great festival of the dead, _Parentalia_, and lasted
eight days, the concluding day being called _Feralia_. During this time
no marriages were celebrated, the temples remained closed, and the
magistrates laid aside the external insignia of their office. Upon the
commemoration of the departed followed immediately, on the 22nd February,
the festival of surviving relatives—the _Chari_—named in consequence
_Charistia_ or _Cara Cognatio_. This celebration had no recognised place
among the functions of the official worship of the State, and no public
festivities presided over by the colleges of priests were provided for
it.[647] Nevertheless, it was a very popular feast, and stuck its roots
deeper into the life of the people than any of the official festivals.
All ranks joined in celebrating it; the portraits of the ancestors of
each family were adorned with garlands, a sacrificial meal was presented
to the household gods, incense was burnt, and a pig was offered in
sacrifice; where quarrels had broken out in a family, harmony was again
restored, and the religious ceremonies were performed amid the rejoicings
of all; the deeds of famous members of the family were recited, and the
day concluded with a banquet, which lasted until a late hour.[648] In
addition to this, the _Charistia_ was also a festival in the schools;
the walls were hung with garlands, and presents were given to the
teachers.[649]
Such a festival must have been highly popular. It seems to have been
observed everywhere wherever Latin was spoken, in Africa as well as in
Gaul. In Gaul the feasting customary on this occasion continued to take
place long after it had been given up elsewhere.
These banquets are censured in two sermons, attributed to St Augustine,
but not by him, though they are ancient, and date from about the sixth
century. From these we see that the _Feralia_ and the _Charistia_ are
no longer separate; the preacher speaks only of the meals and gifts
which were offered on behalf of the departed.[650] These continued on
into Christian times, and in Gaul took place on the 22nd February,
although this was not the correct day for the _Feralia_.[651] It seems,
then, that in many places the memory of both living and dead relatives
was celebrated on one and the same day, and this was always the 22nd
February. About 1198 an Englishman, who lived in the North of France,
informed Beleth[652] of the feastings which took place on this day.
Accordingly it cannot be mere accident, when we find a Christian feast
very early fixed for this day. Gregory the Great recognised that people
must not be all at once deprived of the old customs; he ordered that in
England, at the dedication of churches and on the feasts of the martyrs,
the newly converted Christians might retain some of the heathen customs
which had been usual on similar occasions.[653] Instances in which this
principle was put into practice are, for example, the processional
litanies and the customs observed at the New Year. It is clear that the
appointment of a Christian feast on the _Charistia_ is another instance
of the tendency to deprive the heathen festivals of their harmful
character.
That this held good of the feast in question, and that a determined
attempt was made to give it a Christian character, is shown by the fact
that in other countries a different feast was appointed for this day.
Polemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, in the upper valley of the Rhone,
composed a calendar for the year 448, the most ancient Christian calendar
in existence, which he dedicated to Bishop Eucherius of Lyons.[654] In
this document the heathen festivals are omitted, everything especially
heathen has been removed, and only historical and meteorological notices
remain; it contains some saints’ days, although very few in number. On
the 22nd February we find the entry, _Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli_,
along with a note on the _Charistia_, which shows that the intention of
the writer was to supplant the heathen feast of the _Cara Cognatio_.
Again, it is noteworthy that an event was chosen for this purpose
which was commemorated in Rome, _i.e._ the burial of the two chief
apostles. The 29th June was not then kept as a festival of the apostles
in the upper valley of the Rhone, which belonged at that time to Gaul,
and probably was not kept either in the whole province to which Sion
(_Sedunum_) belonged.[655]
The idea of Polemius Silvius in making the 22nd February into a
commemoration of St Peter and St Paul found no imitators, but the custom
of celebrating instead the _Cathedra Petri_ on this day became general
in the Gallican liturgies. The significance of this feast is expressed
in the words of the collect for the day: “God who on this day hast given
Blessed Peter to be head after Thee to the Church” (_Deus qui hodierna
die B. Petrum post te dedisti caput ecclesiæ_); _i.e._ the occasion
of the feast was not the foundation or organisation of one particular
church, either Rome or Antioch, but the appointment of St Peter to be
head of the whole Church in general, or, in other words, the bestowal of
the Primacy upon him, or his ordination as bishop (_natale episcopatus_),
as others prefer to have it.[656] In this connection it must be borne
in mind that, in antiquity, it was already the custom to celebrate the
anniversary of the bishop’s consecration, and that special masses exist
in the old sacramentaries, and among the sermons of St Leo the Great
there are some for such occasions.
From the fourth to the ninth century, we find this feast of the 22nd
February (Cathedra Petri), without further specification, in the
greater number of calendars and martyrologies, especially in those of
Gaul. As the latest which give only one feast of this name, we may
mention the martyrology of Wandlebert, the Calendar of Corbie of 826 in
d’Achery,[657] and also the Gothic Calendar. Nevertheless, there are
some Frankish calendars which contain no feast of this name, as, for
example, that of St Geneviève, published by Fronteau, and the Calendar of
Charlemagne. It is not in the _Neapolitanum_, nor in certain lectionaries
of the same period, such as the _Comes Albini_, the lectionary of
Spires, and, finally, the Roman sacramentaries.[658] It is remarkable
that neither the _Gelasianum_ nor the _Gregorianum_ have a feast of St
Peter’s Chair, yet it is certain that the feast was known in Rome in the
fourth century, for the chronographer, referred to on page 295_n._, in
his _Depositio Martyrum_ sets down: “VIII. Kal. Martias, Natale Petri de
Cathedra.”
A remarkable alteration now took place, doubtless caused by another view
being taken of the meaning of the feast. When the words _Cathedra Petri_
were no longer taken as referring to the bestowal of the Primacy or
the episcopal and teaching office in general, but as referring to some
definite episcopal See, then the question was asked, Is Antioch meant or
Rome? For although the official lists reckon Evodius, and not St Peter,
as first bishop of Antioch, still there were writers of antiquity, such
as Origen, who represent St Peter’s residence in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) as
his Antiochene episcopate. This view led to the division of the feast
into a Roman and an Antiochene Feast of St Peter’s Chair; for reasons
which are unknown, the 18th January was chosen for the former, while the
latter continued to be celebrated on the 22nd February.
The martyrology of the Venerable Bede marks the date at which this
division of the feast came into existence. In the original recension,
given by the Bollandists, the feast of the 18th January does not
appear, but the feast of the 22nd February has the note attached, “At
Antioch.” It is possible that Bede considered the feast commemorated
the commencement of a particular episcopate, and since, according to
his idea, the Antiochene episcopate of St Peter preceded his Roman, and
Antioch must have been the first See occupied by the apostle, he added
the words, “At Antioch, where the disciples were first named Christians.”
The separation is complete in Ado and Usuardus, and appears in the oldest
editions of the _Hieronymianum_, and, in defect of further information,
the compiler of this document may be regarded as the originator of the
separation.[659] There thus arose a threefold practice—either both feasts
were kept, or neither, or that of the 22nd February; the last was the
case in only a few dioceses. The Cologne Calendar of the fourteenth
century had only one feast, but the more ancient calendar belonging to
the ninth century had both.[660]
This diversity of usage, resulting from the independence of each diocese
in the adoption of festivals, was put an end to by Pope Paul IV. at the
advice of Cardinal Sirleto, when, on the 6th January 1558, he ordered
that both feasts should be observed throughout the entire Catholic
world.[661] At the consultations concerning the reform of the Breviary in
1742, it was considered that the two feasts should once more be joined
into one, but this, however, was not done, which,[662] from a historical
point of view, is to be regretted, for neither Eusebius nor the official
lists of bishops know anything of an Antiochene episcopate of St Peter.
The pseudo-Clementines make use of St Peter’s activity in the See of
Antioch for their own ends,[663] and to them must be traced back the
statements of Origen, Jerome, and others, for in antiquity, as well as in
the Middle Ages, they enjoyed more consideration, and were more widely
read, than at the present day. In the ninth century it was regarded as
an inviolable principle of canon law—as we know from the case of Pope
Formosus—that a bishop must not be translated from one See to another.
How could this principle have been maintained in the face of so striking
an instance of translation?
The Feast of St Peter’s Chair was unknown to the Greeks and Easterns in
antiquity, but the modern Uniats have naturally adopted it.
10. _The Festivals of St Mary Magdalen, St Cecilia, and St Catherine_
(_22nd July, 22nd and 25th November_)
The saints which have occupied us until now were all prominent figures
throughout Christendom, and stood in close relation to the Redeemer
and His work; in consequence, their festivals were kept as feasts
of obligation in the Middle Ages, at a period when it seemed almost
impossible to do too much towards the development of the cycle of
feasts; a large number kept this rank until recent times. Other saints
of less importance enjoyed the same distinction through their being the
patrons of particular countries, dioceses, or localities; it would take
too long to deal with such here; besides, their festivals are not of
historical importance. Still, among festivals of this sort there are
some which formerly were kept as feasts of obligation; of these several
are deserving of notice, since they attained a rank above that of a mere
local festival, either because of some special circumstance, or because
the life of the particular saint in some way or other caught the popular
fancy.
(1) ST MARY MAGDALEN
This is especially the case with regard to St Mary Magdalen, whose
feast, not indeed in Rome, but throughout the South of France, and even
elsewhere, as in Cologne, was kept as a feast of obligation in the Middle
Ages.
According to the general opinion, Mary, the sinner of Magdala, who took
her name from that place, either because she was born there, or because
it was the scene of her excesses, was the sister of Lazarus and Martha
of Bethania; she was the same person who humbly bathed the feet of our
Blessed Lord with her tears and anointed them with ointment. According to
another opinion, prevalent in the Greek Church, there were three Marys
connected with our Lord—Mary, the sister of Lazarus; Mary of Magdala,
on the Lake of Gennesaret; and the sometime sinner mentioned in St Luke
vii. 37. This latter opinion distinguishes Mary Magdalen from Mary,
the sister of Lazarus. The Latin tradition, on the other hand, from
Tertullian downwards, regards them as identical; the sister of Lazarus
having lived a life of sin at Magdala, came, after her repentance, to
live with her brother and sister at Bethania, but was still popularly
known as Mary Magdalen. She was also the same person, mentioned by the
other two synoptists (St Mark xvi. 9; St Luke viii. 2), who was possessed
by seven devils.[664] Both opinions received support from the words of
the gospels; but the Roman liturgy has adopted the latter, and even the
lections drawn up for St Martha’s Feast are influenced by it. This office
of St Martha is only of late introduction in the Liturgy.
In addition, we must take into account the adventures of the Magdalen
and her family after our Lord’s death, or rather the adventures ascribed
to her. Our information is scanty; the pseudo-Clementines state that
Lazarus followed St Peter in his missionary journeys in Syria;[665]
other documents mention Cyprus as the scene of his labours and death.
Absolutely no information concerning the further doings of his sisters
has come down to us from antiquity; however, Western mediæval documents
dating from the thirteenth century are remarkably rich in details; in
these it is admitted, indeed, that he was Bishop of Cyprus, although this
would have been incompatible with the actions here ascribed to him. This
information is contained in a voluminous work which has been audaciously
ascribed to Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda, although it is difficult to
see how he, in his retired monastery, surrounded by forests, could have
gained possession of such information.[666] The greater part of this
work, chapters i.-xxxv., is devoted to a description of the life of St
Mary Magdalen and her family, which follows and elaborates the biblical
narrative; but it contains several additions to the facts mentioned in
the New Testament; especially there is a great deal said about Marcella,
as the housekeeper of the family at Bethania is said to have been called,
who later on played an important part in the legend. The second part
begins with the thirteenth year after Christ’s Ascension, when St James
the Great had been beheaded and St Peter was in prison. Then, according
to the story, Herod Agrippa drove the faithful from Palestine, and
twenty-four of the disciples of Jesus, with Maximinus at their head,
were sent by the apostles as missionaries to Spain and Gaul. St Mary
Magdalen joined them, and Martha and Lazarus followed her example, the
latter being at the time Bishop of Cyprus; they embarked unmolested,
and were carried by the south-east wind to the shores of Southern Gaul,
where Maximinus became Bishop of Aix in Provence. The other disciples
distributed themselves over the other provinces, of which there were
seventeen in Gaul and seven in Spain—twenty-four in all, just the number
of the disciples. As a matter of fact, Spain and Gaul did comprise this
number of provinces, not however in the time of Christ, but in the fifth
century, as the _Notitia Dignitatum_ shows. This betrays the late origin
of the legend. St Mary Magdalen is said to have lived at Aix with Bishop
Maximinus, and to have often preached there to the faithful. According
to other accounts, she is said to have passed thirty years in a life of
solitude and penance in the cave of the Ste Baume, near Marseilles, while
Lazarus is said to have been Bishop of Marseilles, where he died a martyr.
More trustworthy, though not so interesting, is the information which
we find in Greek sources concerning Lazarus and his sisters. From these
we learn no more than that the Emperor Leo VI. in 887 built a church in
his honour in Constantinople, and in 899 a monastery;[667] thither the
relics of Lazarus, but not those of his sisters, were translated from
Citium in Cyprus, where they had hitherto reposed. The menology of Basil
and the calendars of the Copts and Syrians show that St Mary Magdalen
was honoured in the Greek Church on the 22nd July. The resurrection of
Lazarus was specially commemorated in the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus
on the second Saturday before Easter.[668]
In the West the earliest traces of the cultus of St Mary Magdalen are
found in Bede, and then in the martyrologies of Rabanus, Ado, and
Usuardus, always on the 22nd July, and with the designation, “Natale.”
The _Hieronymianum_ does not mention Lazarus and St Mary Magdalen,
but the name of Martha occurs five times; however, the sister of
Lazarus cannot be intended, for the days (29th July and 17th October)
are not those on which she is commemorated. Although the first-named
martyrologies contains the mention of St Mary Magdalen, it knows nothing
of her voyage to the South of France. Usuardus, indeed, puts Lazarus
and Martha together on the 17th December, but merely says that a church
was erected in their honour at Bethania. As far as the service-books
are concerned, the name of St Mary Magdalen appears for the first time
in a missal of Verona of the tenth century, and then in some missals
of the eleventh century, but the missals of the Roman rite (secundum
consuetudinem Rom. curiæ) mentions her only in the thirteenth century;
it is the same with regard to St Martha.[669] Even to the present
time Lazarus has not obtained a place in the Roman Breviary, but his
commemoration is sanctioned for certain localities on the 17th December.
The lections for his office contain no account of his life.
The attitude of the Roman Breviary is significant as indicating the
change of views. The lections for St Mary Magdalen are simply taken
from a homily of St Gregory, and contain no references to her life,
while those of the much later office of St Martha (29th July) contain
the more recent form of the legend with the later additions. They know
nothing, however, of the pseudo-Rabanus, according to whom St Mary and
her companions were forcibly placed by the Jews on board a boat without
rudder or sail, and yet, notwithstanding, reached Marseilles in safety.
With regard to St Mary Magdalen in particular, the tradition must not
be overlooked which states that she was originally buried in Ephesus;
this is maintained by Gregory of Tours at the end of the sixth century,
and then, at the beginning of the seventh century, Bishop Modestus of
Jerusalem states that St Mary joined St John at Ephesus after the death
of our Lady, and there suffered martyrdom; the third witness is Bishop
Willibald of Eichstätt, who visited her grave in Ephesus.[670] In 887, as
we have said, Leo VI., the Philosopher, placed her relics in the Church
of St Lazarus, which he had built in Constantinople, but the writers
who mention this fact do not imply that her relics were translated from
Cyprus, as some modern writers arbitrarily assert, on account of the
mention of St Lazarus’ relics being brought from that island on the same
occasion.[671] However this may be, the tradition says nothing about St
Mary Magdalen being the sister of Lazarus; in fact, she is described by
Glycas as a daughter of Simon the Leper. This tradition furnishes fresh
grounds for the belief that the account of the translation of St Mary’s
relics refers to a truly historical event.[672]
The investigation of scholars have brought to light the following facts
as throwing light upon the Provencial legend: (1) An early sarcophagus
at Marseilles, belonging to a certain Lazarus, Bishop of Aix (407-417),
who was thought to be the Lazarus mentioned in the New Testament; (2)
the existence of reputed relics of St Mary Magdalene in the Monastery of
Vezelay in the diocese of Autun. The earliest official mention of Lazarus
is in a decree of Pope Benedict IX. of the year 1040[673]; this pope
consecrated the Church of St Victor at Marseilles, and from this date the
legend developed rapidly. Its complicated history has been clearly set
forth in the investigations of L. Duchesne and J. Rietsch; the latter
shows that it is probable the Emperor Leo VI. presented the relics of St
Lazarus to the widowed Empress Richardis on her visit to Constantinople
during her travels in the East; she probably gave them to the Convent of
Andlau in Alsace, over which she presided.
Among the numerous works on this subject we may mention: M. Faillon,
_Monuments Inédites sur l’Apostolat de Sainte Marie Madeleine en
Provence_ (a collection of all documents genuine and otherwise bearing
on the question), Paris, 1848. Lacordaire, _Vie de Sainte Marie
Madeleine_, Paris, 1860, popularised the legend, and made it a point of
national honour to defend it. L. Clarus (Volk), _Geschichte des Lebens,
der Reliquien und des Kultus der heiligen Geschwister Magdalena_,
_etc._ Regensburg, 1852, is uncritical, but pleasantly written. L.
Duchesne, _Sainte Marie Madeleine_, Toulouse, 1892. J. Rietsch (_Die
Nachevangelische Geschichte der Bethanischen Geschwister_, _etc._,
Strassburg, 1902) has probably settled the question of the relics by his
careful investigations.
(2) ST CECILIA
A parish church was dedicated to St Cecilia in Rome as early as 499,
to which two priests were attached, and a cemetery was named after
her fellow-sufferers, Tiburtius and Valerian, in the sixth century.
No further information respecting her cultus has come down to us from
antiquity, and in the literature of the patristic period, with the
exception of Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth century, her name is not
mentioned. Her cultus was apparently limited to Rome, although she had a
chapel or church in Ravenna,[674] as the poet just mentioned states.
A change took place when Pope Paschal I. in 821 discovered the saint’s
body, in consequence, as he said, of a vision; until then it was believed
that the Lombards had carried it away with them. Paschal had the body
taken from the cemetery of SS. Sixtus and Prætextatus, where he found it,
and brought to her church in Rome, where it still remains. Immediately
after her death, according to the statement in her _Passio_, her body
must have been placed in the papal crypt.[675] Her name was then inserted
in the martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, and Rabanus Maurus, and placed
under the 22nd November, which is certainly the day of the translation
of her relics, for the _Hieronymianum_ in its oldest recension gives the
16th September as the day of her death (_Natalis_). St Cecilia appears in
Bede and in the Frankish calendars of the eighth century composed under
Roman influence, but in the most ancient calendar of Carthage, one looks
for her name in vain.[676] After the miraculous discovery of her relics
and their translation, on account of the interest taken in such matters
in the ninth century, her fame spread throughout the whole Christian
world; and churches were dedicated to her, even in the recently converted
North Germany.
From the point of view we are considering, sufficient has been said about
St Cecilia, still we cannot omit the opportunity of making some remarks
on the date and circumstances of her martyrdom. We have a full account
of it in the _Passio S. Cæciliæ_, which, according to Fachmäuner, was
drawn up at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century.
This document states that Cecilia was condemned to death and executed
by a prefect of Rome called Turcius Almachius; a Roman bishop (papa
urbanus) placed her body in the papal crypt, and dedicated her house as
a church; this pope had already been a confessor for the Faith on two
occasions before the death of St Cecilia. These statements cause great
difficulty, since Pope Urban I. (223-230), who can alone be meant here,
lived during the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, who was very
well disposed towards the Christians, and during whose reign they were
free from persecution. It is exceedingly improbable that a high official
could have persecuted them in Rome, under the eyes of the emperor, in the
way described in the _Passio_. It is impossible that Pope Urban I. could
have twice been a confessor at this time, and no evidence of such a thing
exists; moreover, we have no evidence for the existence of a prefect of
Rome called Turcius in that period, but we do find persons of this name
in official positions in the time of Constantine and later. All this,
taken along with the circumstance that it was a time of much unsettlement
in Rome, agrees well with the fourth century, when the emperor was seldom
in the capital, but does not suit the reign of Alexander Severus.
The fact that St Cecilia appears neither in the ancient Roman Calendar,
the _Depositio Episcoporum_, nor in the chronographer of 354, points
to the conclusion that she must belong to the reign of Julian. All
the indications of time agree with this date; the only thing against
it is the name of the contemporary pope—Urban; this may be an error,
but how the name found its way into the _Passio_ can be explained on
various grounds; either the original text did not contain the pope’s
name, which was introduced by mistake at a later date by some redactor
of the original document, or, if the words “papa urbanus” were in the
original document, they are to be taken in the sense of “Bishop of the
city of Rome.”[677] This falls in with the pontificate of Liberius all
the better, since, in the years 355-365, he was opposed by an anti-pope,
Felix, who had a small following, and spent his time mostly outside Rome,
where also he died.
The circumstance that the pope, whatever his name may have been, had
been twice a confessor for the Faith also suits Liberius, who had been
banished under the Arian Constantius to Berœa (355-357). After the
Councils of Seleucia and Rimini in 359, Constantius even desired his
death, because he refused to subscribe to the Arian Creed, and he was
obliged to remain in hiding for two years in the catacombs until the
death of the tyrant (November 361).[678]
The opinion that the martyrdom of St Cecilia took place under Alexander
Severus has hitherto received the most support, and the difficulties have
been explained on the supposition that it happened while the emperor
was absent from the capital; this, however, is arbitrary, and does not
really remove the other difficulties. There is no need to dwell upon the
dates which have been assigned in more recent times. With regard to the
more ancient dates, Ado, Usuardus, and De Rossi place the martyrdom under
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, plainly on account of the use of the plural
by the prefect when he said (c. 24) “the emperors” had commanded that
the Christians should be punished by death, but this general command was
repeated during all the persecutions from Nero to Diocletian. Less wide
of the mark is the most ancient attempt of all to fix the date, _i.e._,
made by the first compiler of the _Liber Pontificalis_, for although not
remarkable for historical knowledge, he places the death of Cecilia under
Diocletian.
The family of the Turcii did not belong to Rome, but came from Samnium,
where one of the name in the third century is mentioned as a proprietor
of brick works in Aufidena.[679] Various members of the family quickly
made their way to high offices in the State,[680] and in the summer of
363 a Turcius Apronianus was prefect of Rome, where he distinguished
himself as a persecutor of the Christians. His wife, however, was
a sister of the elder Melania, St Jerome’s pupil, through whose
influence the whole family was baptised in 397. As a Christian Turcius
Apronianus enjoyed the friendship of St Paulinus of Nola and the priest
Rufinus.[681] His descendants flourished all through the fifth century,
at the end of which a Turcius Asterius Secundus was consul. All this,
taken in conjunction with the influential position of the family, easily
accounts for the absence, in ecclesiastical literature of a subsequent
period, of references to St Cecilia, at whose death a Turcius had played
such an evil part. Otherwise it would be incredible that the preacher and
poets of that date should have passed over a story which presented so
many points of interest.[682] Nothing more is known of Turcius Almachius
than what is related in the passion of St Cecilia. He must have been
prefect from the end of 361 to the autumn of 362.
When all has been said, we must admit that the account of St Cecilia’s
martyrdom, as it has come down to us, gives rise to serious difficulties
from whatever point of view we regard it. Tillemont and Baillet were
inclined to regard it as lacking all authority. The only way to give full
force to all the facts of the case is to place it in the period to which
it really belongs, _i.e._ to the reign of Julian the Apostate.
(3) ST CATHERINE
The Festival of St Catherine, though only of late introduction,
quickly spread throughout the whole of Western Christendom; not only
did Faculties of Theology select her as their patroness, but her day
(25th November) was widely adopted for annual fairs, and her name
was frequently given to children of both noble and lowly families.
The original form of her name was Æcaterina (Αἰκατερίνα), the modern
Russian Jekaterina; its derivation from the Greek _katharos_ cannot,
therefore, be maintained. Catherine is said to have been a noble virgin
of Alexandria, who, according to the legend, expostulated with the tyrant
Maxentius on account of his cruelty during the Diocletian persecution,
and was, in consequence, seized by him and forced to hold a disputation
with fifty philosophers. Not only did St Catherine hold her own against
the philosophers, but even won them over to Christianity; whereupon the
empress, who had heard of her wisdom, visited her in prison, escorted by
two hundred soldiers. The soldiers, however, along with their captain,
were converted also, and condemned to death in a body by the emperor.
The martyr herself was next tortured, milk, instead of blood, flowing
from her wounds, and then put to death by the sword. So far the legend as
given by Metaphrastes; the carrying of her body by angels to Mount Sinai
is a later addition.
It does not require much exercise of the critical faculty to realise
the improbabilities of this story, and at the present day critics are
all but unanimous[683] in rejecting it; and so we need only concern
ourselves with it here in so far as it has given rise to the Feast of
St Catherine. In this connection we observe that not only the ancient
Church as a whole knew nothing of St Catherine, but, what is still more
to the point, neither the Syrian nor Egyptian Calendars published by
Selden and Mai make any mention of this remarkable martyr. Among the
Greeks, the _Menologium Basilianum_ is the first to mention her, while
in the Latin Church she does not appear until the fourteenth century.
Durandus, although he treats of all the important saints’ days, does
not name St Catherine, neither does the _Liber Ordinarius_ of Siena
concluded in 1263. In the numerous Italian missals consulted by Ebner,
St Catherine is usually found only in the supplements which date from
the fourteenth century. In the body of the missal, she appears only in
the missal of Trani, belonging to the end of the thirteenth century.
It is not difficult to fix the period at which the legend met with
general acceptance, for St Catherine is absent from the menology of
Constantinople, but is commemorated as a martyr of the second class in
that of Basil. To this period belongs three Latin poems found among the
works of Alfanus,[684] Abbot of Monte Cassino, and later Archbishop of
Salerno (1058-1085). Alfanus, whom St Peter Damian calls a lover of
truth, but who is proved to have been very credulous by a story which he
tells of some unnamed Byzantine monarch,[685] appears to have been the
first to make the legend known in the West. The origin of the story is
lost in obscurity, and, as in the case of the legend of St Lazarus, we
have hitherto been unable to discover reliable data on which to base any
conclusion. The story of St Catherine may well be one of those popular
tales, drawn up in a historical form, which were circulated in the Middle
Ages, and occupied the place of poetic fiction. Its excision at any early
date from the service-books is much to be desired in the interests of the
respect due to them.
11. _The Festival of All Saints_
The Festival of All Saints has no intimate connection with the
ecclesiastical year, but is of the nature of an addition from without,
and, like the saints’ days, is fixed for a special date. In the earliest
ages the Church paid an external cultus to the martyrs alone, among whom
she included, at an early date, St John the Baptist, but it was only in
the course of centuries that other saints, not martyrs, attained to this
distinction. The cultus of simple confessors, however, formed at first
quite the exception, and only became general along with the introduction
of canonisations. Thus in the early ages there was no Festival of All
Saints, but only a commemoration of all the martyrs, the intention being
that no martyr might be left unhonoured. Their number had been increased
to such an extent by the Diocletian persecution, that it was no longer
possible to celebrate a special commemoration of each one separately, and
so many martyrs had to be passed over; thus a commemoration of all the
martyrs was instituted as a matter of course.
As far as we know at present, we first meet with this commemoration in
the Church of Antioch, which, on the first Sunday after Pentecost, kept
a commemoration of all the holy martyrs. We have some sermons of St John
Chrysostom preached on this day.[686] In course of time the feast became
general throughout the East, and an All Saints’ Sunday finds a place in
the Eastern calendars, while the Uniats have accepted the Roman date for
the feast.
In the West the festival passed through the following phases. The Emperor
Phocas († 4th October 610), as master of Rome and lord of Central Italy,
gave the Pantheon to Boniface IV. at the pope’s request. The building had
been erected by Agrippa in honour of Augustus in 27 B.C. The learned are
not agreed as to whether it was originally a temple or a bath (Laconicum
sudatio), but it had certainly statues of the gods in the niches which
adorn its interior; however, in the seventh century it no longer served
its original purpose, and its maintenance was a source of expense to the
imperial treasury. The pope had the building cleansed and made into a
church, which he dedicated to our Lady and all the martyrs;[687] the day
of the dedication was the 13th May (609 or 610), which thus came to be
observed in Rome as a commemoration of all the holy martyrs.
A second stage in the early development of the feast was reached in the
next century, when Gregory III. (731-741) dedicated an oratory in St
Peter’s to “the Redeemer, His holy Mother, all the Apostles, Martyrs,
Confessors, and all the just and perfect who are at rest throughout
the whole world.” In this oratory the monks were to celebrate vigils
and say mass in honour of the saints.[688] Here we have the same idea
manifested which underlies the Festival of All Saints. A Roman basilica
had been already dedicated in honour of all the apostles, and the day of
its dedication, the 1st May, probably served as a commemoration of all
the apostles. The Church of “S. Maria ad Martyres,” the Pantheon, was,
moreover, thoroughly restored by Gregory III.[689]
The third and decisive stage in the progress was reached under Gregory
IV. (827-844). A mediæval, but, in this case, well-informed writer states
that a great number of pilgrims went annually to Rome for the Feast of
all the Martyrs (13th May), and that, since the supply of provisions in
Rome in spring was insufficient for the support of both pilgrims and
inhabitants, Gregory IV. changed the feast from the 13th May to the 1st
November.[690] Frankish writers of the same period inform us that this
pope exhorted Louis the Pious to introduce the festival into France, and
that Louis, with the consent of all the bishops of Gaul and Germany,
accordingly ordered it to be observed throughout his empire in 835.[691]
Many writers on this account give this as the year in which the festival
was instituted, and attribute its origin to Louis the Pious, but in this
they are mistaken. Sixtus IV. (1471-1484) provided All Saints’ with an
octave.[692]
12. _The Commemoration of All Souls_
The pious duty of prayer for the departed (2 Machabees xii. 46) finds
expression in private and public devotions. The public prayers usually
take place on stated days, _i.e._ the day of the death, the seventh
and thirtieth days after death, and the anniversary; the observance of
these devotions is left in the hands of the relatives and friends of the
deceased. The religious Orders began at an early date to observe these
pious customs with regard to their own departed members.[693] Besides
this, for the last thousand years a particular day in the year has been
set apart for the commemoration of all the departed in general; this was
the 2nd November, or, if the 2nd fell on a Sunday, the 3rd. The impulse
which led to its introduction into the ritual of the Church came from
Cluny, for in 998 the Abbot Odilo issued an ordinance to this effect
(the so-called _Statutum S. Odilonis pro Defunctis_)[694] to all the
monasteries of his congregation. In this it was directed that in all
monasteries of the Order on the 1st November, after vespers, the bell
should be tolled and the office of the dead recited, and on the next day
all the priests of the congregation were to say mass for the repose of
the faithful departed.
This example found imitators without there being any legislation on the
point. Other Orders speedily took it up, such as the Benedictines and
Carthusians, etc.;[695] but it was longer before the secular clergy
adopted this practice in each diocese. The date of its introduction
varies greatly in different countries; it will be sufficient for us to
give a few dates for which we have certain information, which have a
special interest for us.
The first diocese to adopt All Souls’ Day seems to have been Liège,
where it was introduced by Bishop Notker († 1008).[696] It appears in
the martyrology of Besançon, called after Bishop Protadius, and compiled
between 1053 and 1066; it is mentioned in the fourteenth of the Roman
Ordos, which belongs to the thirteenth century; it is not found in
the Cologne Calendar of the same century, nor in the more ancient one
published by Binterim; it is also absent from a calendar put out in
1382.[697]
We have more detailed information respecting the Church of Milan. Bishop
Otricus (1120-1125) had already introduced the observance of All Souls’
Day, but placed it on the day following the dedication of the cathedral,
_i.e._ the 15th October. This arrangement continued to the time of St
Charles Borromeo, who in 1582 adopted the Roman, or rather the original
date.[698] In the Greek and Russian Churches the commemoration of the
departed is kept on the Saturday before the Sunday “Apoecros,” which
corresponds to our Septuagesima Sunday. The Armenians keep it on Easter
Monday.
13. _The Festivals of the Angels_
The existence of higher and purely spiritual beings formed part of the
religious belief of the Jews; they are mentioned in countless passages
of the Old Testament, but no worship was paid directly to them by the
Synagogue. In the Christian Church the cultus of the angels, especially
of St Michael, can be traced back to remote antiquity. In more recent
times special days have been set apart in honour of the other two angels
named in the Holy Scriptures, and also of the Guardian Angels; St Gabriel
is honoured on the 18th March, St Raphael on the 24th October.
The first Christian emperor built a church in honour of St Michael on
the headland called Hestiæ on the Bosphorus. It was built on the spot
called Anaplus, distant from Constantinople seventy stadia by land and
thirty-five by water. The place afterwards took the name of Michaelion,
after the church. On the opposite headland on the Asiatic shore Justinian
also erected a church of St Michael. Nicephorus makes Constantine the
founder of both churches, but Theophanes speaks only of one built by
him.[699] According to Du Cange, there is said to have been no fewer
than fifteen churches and chapels of St Michael in Constantinople and
the neighbourhood in the Middle Ages. Other towns also erected, at an
early date, churches dedicated to St Michael, as, for example, Ravenna in
545. St Michael enjoyed special veneration at the same period at Chonæ
in Phrygia,[700] an ancient and celebrated place of pilgrimage, and the
chief centre in the Byzantine Empire of the cultus of the angels.
Chonæ, the present Khonas on the Lycus, situated on a tributary of
the Mæander in the ecclesiastical province of Laodicea, is the name
given since the ninth century to the ancient Colossæ, to the Christian
community of which city St Paul addressed one of his epistles, wherein
he already speaks of the worship of angels. Even in the time of the
apostles there existed a half-Jewish, half-Gnostic sect which disturbed
the peace of the local church by teaching that Christ was inferior to the
angels, who must be worshipped and invoked in preference to Him; St Paul
(Colossians ii. 18) rejects this teaching as heretical, nevertheless, it
did not die out, for in the fourth century the Council of Laodicea was
compelled to censure this false worship of the angels in its thirty-fifth
canon.[701] This was not a prohibition of the cultus of the angels in
general, for at the same period St Ambrose and St Hilary in other parts
of the Church exhorted the faithful to invoke them.[702] The true worship
of the angels existed also in Colossæ, for Metaphrastes tells us that an
apparition of the Archangel Michael himself took place there, in honour
of which Manual Comnenus later on prescribed that the Festival of the
Apparition of St Michael should be kept as a festival of the second class
on the 6th September (Apparitio S. Michælis in Chonis).
The first church dedicated to the Archangel in Rome, or rather in its
neighbourhood, seems to have enjoyed great veneration. The oldest Roman
sacramentary, which goes by the name of Leo the Great, gives no less than
five masses for the anniversary of its dedication; in three of them St
Michael is mentioned by name in the prayers or prefaces. From the fact
that in the other masses the angels in general are spoken of without
special mention of St Michael, we must not conclude, as many liturgical
writers have done, that they deal with the cultus of the angels in
general. The church was situated, according to subsequent information,
on the Via Salaria at the sixth milestone from Rome; but beyond this
nothing further is known about it. These masses for the day of the
Consecration of the Basilica of the Holy Angel in the Via Salaria[703]
are placed on the 30th September in the _Leonianum_. As regards later
Roman sacramentaries, the prayers for a mass in honour of St Michael are
given in the _Gelasianum_ on the 29th September. The _Gregorianum_ gives
on the same day the dedication of the basilica of St Michael without the
addition “in via Salaria.”[704] It is probable that another church of St
Michael is meant here whose dedication took place on the 29th and not the
30th September. The day of this church’s dedication has continued to our
own time to be kept as the Festival of St Michael the Archangel.
In the city itself there was also a church erected in honour of St
Michael, the date and founder of which are both unknown. Among the
ecclesiastical buildings of Pope Symmachus (498-514) in the city of
Rome, the _Liber Pontificalis_ says that he enlarged and beautified the
basilica of St Michael.[705] A church of St Michael was also built by a
pope of the name of Boniface near the Circus Flaminius,[706] and, in the
ninth century, the Church of St Michael _in Sassia_ was also erected.
The Churches of the West accepted the Roman date, the 29th September,
for the Feast of St Michael,[707] and in the Middle Ages it ranked as
a holy day of obligation, especially in England, where King Ethelred
in 1014 provided it should be observed with a vigil and a preparatory
fast of three days.[708] In Germany the Council of Mainz (813) in its
thirty-sixth canon established it as a festival; and the imperial banner,
to be carried in battle, bore the figure of St Michael. In France the
feast was established by the sixty-first canon of the diocesan Synod
of Tours in 858. In Constantinople the feast was observed on the 8th
November; it is marked in the menology as the Synaxis of the Archangel
Michael, while in the _Basilianum_ the same day is called only a Synaxis
of the Archangel. In the later Coptic Calendar of Calcasendi, St Michael
occurs no less than six times (7th April, 6th June, 5th August, 9th
September, 8th November, and 8th December). In the Syrian lectionary he
is set down in the 6th September.
In the course of the sixth century a second Festival of St Michael began
to be celebrated in the West, in consequence of an apparition near
Sipontum on Monte Gargano which took place on the 8th May; the year,
unfortunately, is not known, but the Bollandists place it in the interval
between 520 and 530. Since Monte Gargano, like Chonæ in the East, became
a famous Western place of pilgrimage, this local festival gradually
came to be observed in other places in the West. The calendars and
martyrologies frequently confuse it with the feast of the 29th September,
as, for example, the two oldest recensions of the _Hieronymianum_,
those of Metz and Weissenburg; and similar mistakes occur in other
calendars.[709]
Gabriel and Raphael have no special commemoration either in the
_Hieronymianum_ or in other ancient martyrologies and calendars of the
Latin Church, neither do they appear in the Greek menologies; it is only
in the tenth and eleventh centuries that in a few instances we find
them commemorated on special days.[710] Although Gabriel appears in the
most ancient Coptic Calendar, it is doubtful whether the day chosen for
his commemoration, the 18th December, is not in the first instance a
commemoration of the Annunciation, and only secondarily and accidently a
feast of the Archangel. In the same way, his name appears in the Syrian
lectionary on the 26th March, the day after our Lady’s Annunciation.
A special festival in honour of the Guardian Angels was first celebrated
in the sixteenth century in Spain on the 1st March,[711] and afterwards
in France on the first free day after Michaelmas. Pope Paul V. permitted
the whole Church to celebrate the Feast of the Guardian Angels (27th
September 1608), and, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand II.,
prescribed its observance throughout the imperial dominions. Clement IX.
in 1667 placed the feast on the first Sunday in September, and provided
it with an octave. Clement X. in 1670 made it a _festum duplex_ of
general obligation, and gave it a fixed place in the calendar on the 2nd
October; the older date, however, still remains in Germany and in a part
of Switzerland.[712] Leo XIII. raised it to a duplex majus.
14. _The Two Festivals in Honour of the Holy Cross_
(_3rd May and 14th September_)
The discovery of the true cross is ascribed to St Helena, the mother of
Constantine the Great. Helena was born about 246 at Drepanum in Bithynia,
of humble origin, having served as maid in an inn (stabularia) where
Constantine Chlorus made her acquaintance about 273. From their union
sprang the future Emperor Constantine, born on 27th February 274 at
Naïssus, now Nisch in Servia. When Constantine Chlorus was raised to the
rank of Cæsar on 1st March 292, he, like his colleague, had to separate
from his wife (whether Helena or another is disputed), in order to form
a more influential alliance, with Theodora, daughter of Maximianus
Hercules, by whom he had three sons.
But in 306, when Constantine after his father’s death became the
emperor’s colleague and Cæsar, he raised his mother to a position
of honour and brought her to the court. When, in 311, he professed
Christianity, Helena also followed his example, and at the age of
sixty-four or sixty-five became a Christian. The misfortunes of her
son’s family life disturbed her last years, and she was especially
grieved at the death of her grandson Crispus, whom Constantine caused to
be murdered in 326, at the instigation of his stepmother Fausta.[713]
As a pious Christian she found consolation in the performance of good
works, to which she devoted herself. She died in 326, and her body was
buried at Rome in the Via Lavicana, but two years later it was taken to
Constantinople.[714] In her honour Constantine changed the name of her
birthplace to Helenopolis, and bestowed upon her the title of Augusta; on
medals she is called Flavia Julia Helena.
She obtained great honour after her death, and in Jerusalem especially
her memory was held in veneration by the religious virgins of the
locality;[715] St Ambrose calls her a woman of good and holy memory;
St Paulinus of Nola had a high idea of her worth, and speaks of her as
deserving all veneration, and Theodoret, although imperfectly informed
as to the facts of her life, praises her exuberantly.[716] As to her
admission among the ranks of the saints, this was effected only at a late
date, and in a few instances. We find her name, indeed, in the eighth
century in the menology of Constantinople set down along with that of
her son on the day of his death (21st May). This shows that the author
of the menology was ignorant of the day of her death, and also that no
cultus was paid to her immediately after her decease; still, to both the
term saint is applied in this document. No trace of her cultus appears
in the West before the ninth century. The most ancient MSS. of the
_Hieronymianum_ do not contain her name; she is not to be found either
in Bede or Ado; Usuardus has placed her in his martyrology under the
18th August,[717] and from him her commemoration passed into the Roman
martyrology on the same day, but in the other liturgical books she has
no place.[718] When we find “S Helena” in a graffito or in an itinerary,
this cannot be regarded as a fact of much importance.[719]
Soon after he became sole emperor, Constantine decided to erect a church
over the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. According to Eusebius,[720] the
heathen had filled up the place with rubbish, raised the level of the
ground, and built a temple to Venus on the site. This was now destroyed,
the rubbish removed, and deep under the surface the cave of the Holy
Sepulchre was discovered.[721] The emperor’s letter to Bishop Macarius
of Jerusalem concerning the building of the church is given in full
by Eusebius. The erection of the building was undertaken at once, and
Eusebius has given us a full description of it.[722] At this point
Eusebius begins to speak of Helena, and relates how she came to the East
and visited the holy places, and on this occasion she gave rich presents
to the churches which her son had built both in Bethlehem and on the
Mount of Olives.[723] Whereupon Eusebius relates the death of Helena,
but of her discovery of the Holy Cross he says not one word; it is only
in his Commentary on the Psalms (lxxxvii. 11; cviii. 29) that certain
mysterious expressions are found which may refer to it.[724] This silence
is all the more remarkable since Jerusalem belonged to the ecclesiastical
province of Cæsarea, and Eusebius must in any case have known of the
event.
Later historians and writers, beginning with Socrates and Sozomen,[725]
have a great deal to say upon the subject. According to them, the cross
of our Lord, and those also of the two thieves, along with the title
written by Pilate, were all found deep under the surface of the ground;
but the cross on which our Lord suffered could not be distinguished from
the other two. Bishop Macarius solved the difficulty by obtaining a
miracle from God, in answer to his prayers; the three crosses were laid,
one after another, upon a sick woman, in the belief that she must be
cured when touched by our Lord’s cross. And so it happened, as the third
cross touched her body, she recovered. This healing of a sick person
has become in later writers, as, for example, in Paulinus of Nola,[726]
a resurrection from the dead, showing in this, as in other cases, the
development of the legend. In addition, the nails of the cross were also
found, and these, along with half of the cross, were sent by Helena to
her son in Constantinople; the other half was preserved in Jerusalem in a
silver shrine in a chapel specially built for its reception.
Socrates, from whom these details are taken, places these events after
his account of the Nicene Council; many writers place them in the year
after the Council, but this is incorrect, since in that year Helena died;
the Alexandrine Chronicle alone, which in such matters is very reliable,
gives the day and the year for these events, _i.e._ 14th September
320.[727] Other authorities give a yet earlier date; indeed, a Syrian
legend relates that a certain Protonika had discovered the Holy Cross
during the reign of Tiberius.[728]
The day of the discovery of the Holy Cross was kept annually at Jerusalem
with great ceremony, all the more as the consecration of the church was
kept on the same day. The two principal churches in Jerusalem, the one on
Golgotha, which bore the title of _Martyrium_ and _Ad Crucem_, and the
other, also built by Constantine, and called the _Anastasis_, were both
consecrated on the same date, _i.e._ the 14th September.[729] Already in
the fourth century numbers of pilgrims came to Jerusalem to celebrate
this festival; they came from distant countries, from Mesopotamia and
Egypt, and among them several bishops were to be found. The Gallic
pilgrim, of whom we have so often spoken, was present at this festival,
and has left an interesting description of it, and a later pilgrim, the
penitent Mary of Egypt, was converted on the occasion of the festival. We
have already related how the Holy Cross was exposed for the veneration of
the faithful every year in Jerusalem on Good Friday.
The 14th September was at first only a local festival at Jerusalem and
in those other towns which possessed portions of the Holy Cross, such as
Constantinople and Apamea; it spread afterwards to other places, and soon
became universal in the East. It is called in the East the Exaltation of
the Cross (ὕψωσις τοῦ τιμίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυραῦ, or τῶν ἁγίων ξύλων),
from which is taken its Western name, _Exaltatio Crucis_, but the pilgrim
Theodosius, who visited the Holy Land about 530, employs the correct
term, the Finding of the Cross (inventio crucis).[730] According to the
menology of Constantinople, the festival was preceded by a preparation of
four days (10th to 13th September). On the three last days of Holy Week
the court and all the high officials took part in the public worship of
the Holy Cross, as we learn from a writer[731] of the seventh century.
The Coptic calendars usually prolong the celebration during three days.
In the seventh century the relic of the Holy Cross was connected with an
event of great importance. Chosroes II., King of Persia, began to make
war against the Eastern Empire at the time when Heraclius ascended the
throne; he captured the cities of Apamea and Edessa, and defeated the
Greeks in several engagements; in June 614 his general Salbarus took
Jerusalem with great slaughter. He laid waste the churches, and carried
off to Persia, with the rest of the booty, the portion of the Holy
Cross which was preserved there. The course of the war still remained
unfavourable to the Greeks until Heraclius, having made peace with
the Bulgarians, himself led the full strength of his army against the
Persians in 621. The fortune of war changed, and the Greeks reconquered
their lost territory, being aided in this by internal discord among
the Persians. Chosroes was deposed and murdered in 628; his successor,
Siroes, hastened to make peace with the Greeks, and restored to them
the wood of the Holy Cross. At the end of the year Heraclius returned
as victor to his capital, and at the beginning of the following year he
set out for Syria, taking the Holy Cross with him. He brought it himself
from Tiberias to Jerusalem,[732] where he handed it over to the Patriarch
Zacharias on the 3rd May, if the traditional date be correct. Tradition
further adds that, arrayed in his royal robes, he essayed to carry it
upon his shoulders, but at the foot of the hill of Calvary he found
himself unable to proceed further until, upon the advice of Zacharias, he
laid aside his royal apparel. No festival in commemoration of the event
was introduced in the East, although it was in the West.[733]
With regard to the spread of these two festivals throughout the Church,
we must call attention to a remarkable fact; the day of the discovery
of the Holy Cross by Helena (14th September) naturally existed as
a festival from the first in Jerusalem, from whence it soon spread
throughout the entire eastern half of the Church, but in the West,
although the discovery of the cross was already well known in the fourth
century, the festival in honour of the event was not adopted, at least
not at once.
It was just the opposite with regard to the recovery of the cross by
Heraclius; the grief at the news of its loss was equalled by the joy
which the whole Christian world felt at its recovery. While in the East
people remained content with the already existing feast, in the West the
day of the recovery of the cross was kept as a solemn commemoration, and
was placed in the calendars and martyrologies at an early date; we find
it mentioned by the name “Day of the Holy Cross” (_dies sanctæ crucis_)
in the lectionary of Silos, which belongs to about 650—probably the
earliest mention of the festival. The ancient Gallic liturgies published
by Mabillon, both the lectionary and sacramentary, contain the Festival
of the Holy Cross in spring, but call it “The Finding of the Cross”
(_Inventio Sanctæ Crucis_).[734] None of these service-books mention the
feast of the 14th September. The _Gregorianum_ has both feasts, so has
the _Gelasianum_, at all events in Thomasi’s edition, but the second is a
later addition.[735]
The way in which the _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_ treats these feasts
is worthy of notice. The Weissenburg Codex, written about 750, has both
days; the Echternach Codex, which represents the oldest form of the text,
has neither, and the Bern Codex, the latest of the three recensions,
has only one, _i.e._ the 3rd May, which, in common with all Latin
authorities, it calls the Finding of the Cross.[736] The authentic text
of Bede has only the 3rd May, so too has the sacramentary of Padua,
belonging to the first half of the ninth century.[737]
These notices might easily be increased, but they are sufficient to show
how that in the West, when it was known that the Holy Cross had been
recovered from the Saracens, the feast of the 3rd May was, in the seventh
century, immediately introduced, but the feast of the 14th September
only became known in the eighth century, and won its way to acceptance
slowly and partially. In many churches it was received quite late, as for
example in Milan in 1035.[738]
PART III
THE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR IS BASED
1. _The Documentary Sources in General_
The sources from which the history of the ecclesiastical year and the
festivals of the saints is drawn are first of all official documents,
namely service-books, decrees of councils, papal constitutions and bulls;
in the second place come the information derived from ecclesiastical
writers of various periods and countries which must be used and brought
into connection with the official sources.
Among the liturgical books of the Church, the missals and breviaries hold
the first place. In earlier times these were differently arranged and had
different names from those which they bear at present. The collects and
psalms in particular employed at the mass were not included in one volume
as they are now, but were taken from a number of books. The essential
prayers of the mass were contained in the so-called _Sacramentarium_,
in which were also to be found the collects, prefaces, and, in certain
cases, even the whole canon. The lections from Holy Scripture, the
Epistles and Gospels, were collected together in the Lectionaries, either
all together, or the Epistles and Gospels in separate volumes; another
name for this kind of book was _Comes_. The psalms and other portions to
be sung by the choir were contained in separate books, the Antiphonaries,
Graduals, and Hymnaries, etc. It was only in the Middle Ages that
for the sake of convenience all the different parts of the mass were
contained together in one volume, called a _missale plenarium_, but the
separate volumes still continued in use for certain occasions.
In the course of our investigations, we have often had to refer to the
so-called sacramentaries, of which the three most ancient belonging to
the Roman Church are also the most important. These are:—
1. _Sacramentarium Leonianum._ This is a collection of older formularies
which had been already drawn up by an unknown author, some of which may
well be the work of Leo the Great; the title, which gives rise to the
opinion that Leo was the author of the book, is due to the first editor.
The only existing codex is in Verona, and is unfortunately imperfect,
being deficient in all that relates to Lent and Easter. Since it contains
a prayer for Pope Simplicius († 483), Rome must be regarded as the place
where it was drawn up, and where it was used, while the date when it took
its present shape was the pontificate of Felix II. (483-492).
2. The _Gelasianum_, so called after Gelasius I. (492-496). This pope did
actually compose some liturgical books, but the _volumen sacramentorum_,
ascribed to him by Gennadius, cannot have been one of them, since it
contains the four festivals of our Lady which were celebrated in Rome
only after Gregory the Great. On the other hand it does not contain the
stations for the Thursdays in Lent introduced by Gregory II. (715-731);
consequently, it represents the liturgical usages of the seventh century,
_i.e._ of the period after St Gregory the Great, and bears the name of
Gelasius incorrectly. It consists of three books: (1) _De Tempore_,
beginning with Christmas; (2) _De Sanctis_, beginning with the 1st
January; and (3) masses for the ordinary Sundays, votive masses, and
masses for the dead. The number of prefaces contained in the sacramentary
amounts to over a hundred. The Stowe Missal, which is independent of the
_Gelasianum_, gives the _canon Gelasii Papæ_. This book was drawn up in
Rome and was intended for local usage, but we only possess the MSS.,
which were meant for the churches of France; the most ancient belongs to
the end of the seventh century, and was written apparently for the Abbey
of St Denys (Cod. Vat. Reg. Sueciæ, 316). The other existing codices only
give an edition specially adapted from the original Roman book for use in
the Frankish Empire; this is shown by the prayer, “Respice propitius ad
Romanum sive Francorum imperium.”
3. _The Gregorianum._ This represents the Roman rite of the period of
Pope Adrian I. (772-795) and Charlemagne. It is entirely a compilation of
Roman origin belonging to the eighth century, destined originally for the
use of the popes but afterwards adapted for general use. The canon stands
at the head of the work, which commences with Christmas, but Advent comes
at the end of the _Proprium de Tempore_. The _Agnus Dei_, added to the
text of the mass by Pope Sergius I., is given here in its place, while it
is absent from _Gelasianum_.[739] The earliest mention of this work is in
the collection of letters of the popes of the eighth century known as the
_Codex Carolinus_, in a letter of Adrian I. to Charlemagne who received
a copy of the work from Adrian between 784 and 791,[740] from which date
it was introduced into the Frankish Empire, copied, and circulated, and
also added to. In his letter Adrian ascribes a personal share in the
production of the work to his predecessor Gregory, relying, of course, on
the tradition of his Church.[741]
4. This last-named book gradually supplanted the ancient liturgies
and service-books of Gaul; of these we possess the _Sacramentarium
Gallicanum_, along with its lectionary, the _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_,
and the _Missale Francorum_;[742] the Mozarabic missal and breviary are
also very important documents.
The ecclesiastical calendars and martyrologies come next under
consideration. As regards the former, the service-books of which we have
been speaking were on the whole drawn up in accordance with the local
calendar and added both the movable and immovable feasts as best they
could. In proportion as the number of feasts increased the calendars were
regarded as independent catalogues of festivals, and are found both as
separate documents, or bound up with the other liturgical books; in the
latter case, they are usually placed at the beginning of the volume.
While the calendars give merely the names of the saints or the date of
their feasts, the martyrologies or _Synaxaria_ contain more detailed
notices, giving the place, time, and circumstances of the saints’ death,
rank, etc., according as the compiler had more or less material at his
disposal; in many instances these notices have grown into considerable
historical narratives, and on this account, the character of the
different martyrologies varies greatly. As to their employment for
historical purposes, the shorter the contents the higher the value and
trustworthiness of a calendar. The martyrologies were usually compiled
by private individuals, even when intended for ecclesiastical use, but
the calendars shared in the official character of the liturgical books
of which they formed part, since alterations could not be made in them
without the knowledge and consent of the authorities of the church or
corporation to which they belonged.[743]
Manuscript calendars belonging to earlier centuries exist in large
numbers, for all missals and breviaries were provided with them. Their
value for historical research depends upon their age, and also upon our
knowledge of the locality for which they were drawn up, the best data
for discovering this latter point being afforded by the names of local
saints contained in the calendar itself. No calendar can be set aside
as altogether useless, for in case of need all can throw light upon the
history of at least their own locality. For this reason, and for others
as well, an increasing amount of attention has been given to them in
recent times, and a large number of them have been printed (see sect. 10
of this part). The days marked in the calendars are those of the saints’
deaths (_vid._ _ante_, p. 213); but the days on which their relics were
translated to some particular church are also marked as festivals in the
calendar of the church in question. When in different calendars different
days are given to the same saint, the date in the calendar belonging to
the church where he died is usually to be regarded as the day of his
death; the others are days on which his relics were translated.[744]
Another class of documents consists of the ordos drawn up for divine
service belonging to particular countries, dioceses, or the more
important ecclesiastical foundations (ordines, ordinaria; in Greek,
typica). These were not originally drawn up for the course of merely
one year, like our present ordos, but contained the list of recurring
festivals and fasts observed from year to year in some monastery or
cathedral, along with detailed directions for the performance of divine
service. The most important of these are the thirteen oldest ordos
of the Roman Church, collected and published by Mabillon, but other
dioceses and monasteries as well as the Church of Rome had similar ordos,
some of which have been already printed,[745] while others still await
publication.[746]
2. _The Earliest Christian Calendars_
The worship of the saints, especially of the martyrs, asserted itself in
various ways in the liturgy of the Church. Among the Latins, it appeared
even in the liturgy of the mass, since special masses in honour of the
saints were composed at an early date for the commemorations of the
most celebrated saints. These were included in the sacramentaries, and,
finally, as their number continued to increase, they were placed together
in a separate division of the book (_proprium sanctorum_), instead of
being distributed, as formerly, over the whole year. Among the Greeks,
this was not possible, since they repeat the same mass daily, and employ
only two or three mass formularies throughout the entire year.
In the second place, the cultus of the saints gained a footing in the
Canonical Hours, the Psalter, both among Latins and Greeks. It was
customary among the Latins as early as the sixth century to read a
portion of the account of the martyrdom (passiones martyrum), as Aurelian
of Arles tells us;[747] this was the commencement of the existing
lections of the breviary. Then collections of lives of the saints for the
whole year were drawn up on the lines of the calendar, which came to be
called martyrologies on account of the character of the larger part of
their contents. In course of time, two kinds of martyrologies came into
existence, those containing legends of greater length more suited for
private reading, and those distinguished by the brevity of their notices
intended for employment in the services of the Church. Even these have no
immediate connection with the liturgy, although the names of the saints
for the day were read at Prime, a custom which possibly the Council of
Aix-la-Chapelle of 817 had in view in its sixty-ninth canon.[748] These
martyrologies developed out of the diptychs and calendars of particular
churches, by way of compilation and expansion; like the calendars,
they contain simply the names of the saints, but with the mention of
the locality to which the saint belonged, and, in many cases, with an
indication of the date at which he lived.
The martyrologies aimed at completeness in other directions. First, it
was attempted to unite together the names of all the martyrs who had
ever suffered throughout the whole Church, along with the day of their
death, and secondly, an attempt was made, but only in later times, to
fill up the calendar by allotting every day in the year to at least one
saint. This latter attempt was made in the West only in the seventh and
eighth centuries, and achieved considerable success. While the first
efforts in this direction attained to only relative completeness, since
they took into consideration only a part, and not the whole, of the
universal Church, as the Arian and Carthaginian martyrologies had done,
yet the tendency towards universality appears unmistakably at a later
date, especially in the so-called _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_.
With regard to the Greek service-books, menology means the same thing
as martyrology—a catalogue of saints arranged in the form of a calendar
according to the days of the month, and merely giving the name of the
saint against the particular day set apart by the Church in his honour.
The lives of the saints arranged according to months and days are
called Menæa or Meniæa, and the shorter abstracts from it are called
Synaxaria.[749]
The list of calendars opens with two documents, the most ancient of
their kind possessed by the Roman Church, _i.e._ the lists of popes and
martyrs with the days of their death, which have often been referred to
already—the _Depositio Episcoporum_ from Lucius to Julius I., and the
_Depositio Martyrum_, a catalogue of the martyrs of the city of Rome,
extending only to 304, three martyrs not belonging to Rome being included
in this list, Cyprian, Perpetua, and Felicitas. The connection of these
two lists to one another is shown in their titles (_item_), and also by
the fact that Sixtus, who is placed among the martyrs, is omitted from
the list of popes. This latter list comprises the period from Lucius
(† 255) to Julius († 352) only; either the compiler had no material at
hand for the earlier period, or he set it aside as not bearing upon the
point he had in view. The list of martyrs contains the names of popes
who were also martyrs, such as St Peter, St Clement, St Calixtus, St
Pontianus, St Fabian, and St Sixtus; of martyrs, not bishops, we have
here the most famous saints of the city of Rome, St Agnes and St Lawrence
(but not St Cecilia), as well as many other quite obscure names. In
reply to the inquiry what principle was followed in drawing up this
list, Mommsen,[750] relying on the title which connects the document
with Carthage, replies that it contains “the names of those martyrs and
bishops whose commemoration was celebrated annually in the Church.” Both
these lists were first published by Ægidius Bucherius (Gilles Boucher),
and form a portion of the work on the Calendar of Dionysius Philocalus
(see above, p. 136 _seqq._).
Next in order comes a Calendar of the North African Church belonging to
the fifth century, and edited by Mabillon from a codex of the seventh
century formerly belonging to the Monastery of Cluny. The original
must have been completed after 505, for Bishop Eugenius of Carthage is
mentioned in it. It contains St John the Baptist, some apostles and
martyrs not belonging to North Africa, Sixtus, Gervasius and Protasius,
Lawrence, Clement of Rome, Eulalia, Felix of Nola, Agnes, Agatha,
Vincent, and the Machabees, who belong to the Churches of Rome and Spain.
Unfortunately, the list is not quite perfect owing to the bad state of
the MS.
The Calendar of Philocalus for the year 352 contains nothing definitely
Christian.[751] On the other hand, the Calendar of Polemius Silvius,
Bishop of Sion, drawn up between 435 and 455, is interesting as showing a
mixture of Christian and heathen entries. Destination, character, place,
and time of the compilation can be learnt from the calendar itself; it
was not drawn up for one particular year, at least there is nothing by
which to determine the year, for Dominical letters, movable feasts, etc.,
are all wanting; among heathen festivals we have the _Carmentalia_,
_Lupercalia_, _Terminalia_, _Quinquatria_, and _Lavatio Cereris_, all of
which recall heathen religious customs. The _Saturnalia_ are included on
account of their popular, not on account of their religious significance,
and appear as _feriæ servorum_ on the 17th December, as well as _feriæ
ancillarum_ on the 7th July. In addition, there are many other popular
commemorations, such as the 7th January, 13th September, etc., and a
great number of _natales_ of emperors. The number of ecclesiastical
feasts is very small, being limited to Epiphany, the 25th and 27th of
March as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christmas, and six
saints’ days—_Depositio Petri et Pauli_ on the 22nd February instead
of the 29th June, Vincent, the Machabees, Lawrence, Hippolytus, and
Stephen on their usual days. Besides these we have the _natales_ of
authors—Cicero and Virgil, and finally, the days are marked on which
the Senate usually held sittings and games were given in the circus.
In comparison with the Calendar of Philocalus, the number of such days
is much reduced; in the former there are over a hundred, here only
fifty-three. The meteorological entries are numerous. The calendar was
evidently intended for the provinces of the western half of the empire,
and takes into account both the ecclesiastical and civil requirements,
although it deals with the former to a limited extent.
3. _The Arian Calendar of the Fourth Century_
(_About 370-380_)
One of the most interesting documents in connection with our subject in
virtue of its age, contents, and plan is the Arian martyrology, published
by W. Wright in 1865.[752] As is well known, the Arians were an active
party who, until about 380, attempted with some success to gain the upper
hand in the Church. As a means to this end, it was to their interest
to invest their followers as much as possible with the appearance
of sanctity, and the Arian historian Philostorgius devoted himself
especially to this; he characterises as saints and workers of miracles
Agapetus and a certain Theophilus who worked in India, and also Aëtius,
Eunomius, and Leontius, the ringleaders of thorough-going Arianism.[753]
As a consequence of this the Arians encroached in various ways upon the
domain of liturgy also. It goes without saying that they did not wish
to figure as heretics, but as forming the true Church, and so they
exhibited a corresponding activity in hagiology.
While, generally speaking, the local churches confined themselves each
to its own diocese, and the principle of individualism continued to hold
its own for a long time throughout the whole Church, the Arians early
abandoned this method, and even while they did not completely adopt the
principle of universality, yet they did so partially, their position as
a minority among Christians giving them an impulse in this direction.
Thus we find their martyrology embraces Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Mœsia,
Illyria; in fact, the entire eastern half of the empire, and even Italy
and North Africa are not passed over altogether.
We must first of all turn our attention to the external and historical
side of the document. Wright found it in a Syrian MS., belonging to
Nitria in Egypt, of the time of Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch (404-413),
and written in the year 411.[754] It consists of two different parts,
of which the first is a martyrology drawn up in accordance with the
calendar, and originally composed in Greek. Unfortunately, the section
from the 1st to the 25th December is missing. This part is the original
document, and was early translated into Syriac, although, as we shall
see later, it is full of defects. The fact that, nevertheless, it
was considered worthy of being translated, and that by an orthodox
translator, shows that it was regarded as a remarkable piece of work.
What impressed its contemporaries was its universal character, then quite
a novelty. At the end, there is a somewhat mutilated appendix consisting
of a list of Persian martyrs arranged, not by the date of their death,
but according to their rank in the hierarchy, into three groups—bishops,
priests, and deacons.
The second part, originally composed in Syriac, was an addition of the
Syrian translator. Among the persons named in this part, it is noticeable
that there are no Arians, nor even Nestorians, who, when expelled from
the Roman Empire by Theodosius II. in 435, made themselves masters
of the Persian Church. Of the sixteen bishops mentioned in the first
section, at least eight are known to have been orthodox Persian martyrs,
all belonging to the period before 400, _e.g._ Simon Bar-Sabai, Bishop
of Seleucia-Ctesiphon († 17th April 344), his successor, Schahdust (†
346), and Sapor, Bishop of Beth Gormai.[755] Miles (Milles), Simeon,
Barbasimas, Joannes, Sapores, Gudiab, Sabinus, Abdos, Paul, and Ebedjesus
are mentioned by Sozomen as Persian martyrs of the reign of Sapor I.[756]
This very primitive calendar contains only the names of martyrs to the
exclusion of other persons who were even regarded as saints, such as
Mares, the second bishop of Seleucia († 82).[757] The compiler calls
those whom he included in his calendar the Holy Martyrs who had been put
to death in the East, while he regards those named in the first part as
the Holy Confessors of the West, regarding the Roman Empire as the West
in respect to Persia.
The first part, which concerns the West, differs from the second in many
respects. It was drawn up by another hand, and was written originally
in Greek. The latter is a document entirely historical in character,
while the former is liturgical; the one belongs to Persia, the other
to the Roman Empire, and probably to Nicomedia. It was then employed
in Antioch, where it was enlarged, and finally, as it appears, was
translated into Syriac at Edessa. It forms one of the most remarkable
documents of ancient Christian literature.
That this Arian martyrology belonged to the Roman Empire, and especially
to its eastern part, is proved by the calendar employed therein, _i.e._
the Julian, with the addition of the Chaldean names for the months,
the days of the month being given simply without reference to calends
and nones and ides. The author is well-informed with regard to the
eastern half of the Roman Empire; he knows names and date of death of
eight bishops of Antioch, the name Antioch occurs in all twenty-four
times, Nicomedia is named thirty-two times, but the name of no bishop
of Nicomedia is given, Alexandria is mentioned nineteen times,
Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem only twice.
The date of this work is fixed by the mention of the celebrated Bishop
James of Nisibis on the 15th July. He was alive after 350, when the
Persians besieged Nisibis, and flourished, according to the somewhat
vague expression of the Chronicle of Samuel of Ani, in the 283rd
Olympiad, _i.e._ 353-356.[758] Thus the martyrology was written in the
period between 370 and 400, and sometime about 380, when Arianism was the
dominant religion in the eastern half of the empire.
The Arian character of the martyrology is shown by the fact that Arius
himself is mentioned in it, while none of the adherents of the Nicene
faith of that date are included, and the only orthodox bishop whose name
appears is James of Nisibis. Since he was orthodox, and since Nisibis
belonged to Persia, his name could not have been in the Greek original,
which, besides being Arian, was limited to worthies belonging to the
Roman Empire, but the insertion of his name is probably due to the
orthodox Persian translator.
The compiler drew his information from the works of his predecessors,
to which he made additions of his own. One of these sources he names,
for he states with regard to the names of eleven personages, that they
are taken from the “Number of the Ancient Confessors.” He also used an
old list of martyrs, which he does not further describe. To judge by
the character of the quotations from this document, it must have dealt
with the same part of the Church as the new compilation. Antioch (four
times), Synnada, Nicomedia, Pergamus, and Heracleia are named in it,
while Alexandria is not mentioned. By the “Ancient Confessors” are to be
understood the martyrs before Diocletian, and it is probable that they
were taken from the lists of “Depositions” belonging to each city, just
as the chronographer has preserved for us those of Rome.[759]
As regards the contents, they resemble those of similar documents of
earlier and later date, and are fully described in the superscription,
which states that it “contains the names of the Lords, _i.e._ the saints,
confessors, and victors, and the days on which they received their
crowns.” One would expect to find the place of their death mentioned as
well, but many saints are given without any indication of the locality
to which they belonged, perhaps on account of imperfect information on
the part of the author. The date of death is on the whole correctly
given, a remarkable instance to the contrary being the commemoration of
SS. Peter and Paul, which is placed on the 28th December. This cannot
throw doubt upon the date observed in Rome itself, for the Greeks were,
as a rule, very imperfectly informed concerning ecclesiastical events
in the Latin portion of the empire. The sources from which the compiler
drew his information cannot have been very full, for there is no mention
of the famous Western martyrs, Agnes and Lawrence, and, indeed, beyond
the mention on the 1st Ab (August) of Aksitus, Bishop of Rome, by which
Xystus II. is probably intended (the day of St Xystus’ death was the 6th
and not the 1st August), and of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, correctly
given on the 7th March, no Western saints are commemorated.[760]
Among the bishops of Alexandria there are two mentioned whose names do
not occur in the official lists, Artemon on the 3rd September, and Hodion
(Orion) on the 16th August. Similarly, among the bishops of Antioch,
there are two not mentioned elsewhere, Amphimelus (4th March) and
Philippus (27th March). Can these have been Arian prelates?
Besides St Peter and St Paul, the only two apostles commemorated are St
John and St James, who held the most important place in the eastern half
of the empire; they are placed together on the 27th December, on which
day the latter especially was formerly commemorated. St Stephen, also
called an apostle (schelico), appears on the day still consecrated to
his memory (26th December).
The bishops, priests, and deacons appear with their proper titles; all
the others have the designation, confessor (mandaya). This designation
implies martyrdom, for in the first three centuries _confessor_ means a
martyr whose sufferings stop short of death. It is also worthy of notice
that some who appear not to have been martyrs have to be content with
a mere commemoration (dukrana = _commemoratio_), as, for example, St
Xystus, James of Nisibis, Eusebius of Cæsarea, etc. The names, again, of
others are merely mentioned without any addition or title.
Finally, there are still some peculiarities in this menology which
ought to be mentioned. Some of these may be due to oversight, or to
the ignorance of the compiler, others seem to be mistakes made in
transcribing the document, and ought not to appear in documents of an
official character. Thus Marcianus of Tomi appears twice (on the 5th and
on the 10th June), Dius once as confessor and once as presbyter (11th
and 12th June). Especially remarkable is the circumstance that three
individuals, whose names occur in no other calendar, not even in the
_Menologium_ of Constantinople, are given three times, namely, Cosconius,
Melanippus, and Zeno, sons of Theodota, once for Nicea on the 19th
January, once for Asia on the 23rd February, and once for Nicomedia on
the 2nd September. As slips of the pen, we may notice Hadriopolis for
Hadrianopolis, Pedinthus for Perinthus, Tunjus (10th June) for Tomi,
which is elsewhere spelt correctly, Sindus for Synnada, which once (30th
June) has the addition, “in Phrygia,” and once (15th June) is without it.
The proper names are frequently wrongly spelt, or so confused as to be
unrecognisable.
Of the Church festivals, only Epiphany and Easter are marked. The MS.
is, unfortunately, imperfect where we should expect to find the 25th
of December. On the Friday after Easter the Commemoration of all the
Confessors, _i.e._ Martyrs, is set down.
The relation of the Arian martyrology to Eusebius’ work on the Martyrs of
Palestine deserves to be considered. One would expect to find this work
often referred to, but it is not so, and the compiler seems to have had
no knowledge of it. This is all the more remarkable since Eusebius always
gives the dates of the death of the martyrs. The two works have, however,
very few points of contact, but they confirm one another in the points
where they do coincide. Both place the death of the priest Pamphilus
and his eleven companions at Cæsarea on the 16th February; both mention
the martyr Romanus at Antioch, Eusebius placing his death on the 17th
November, the martyrology on the 18th—a trifling discrepancy which proves
their independence of each other. Hermes the Exorcist, Domnion of Salona,
James of Nisibis, etc., are given on the dates which they occupy in the
calendars of other Churches.
The so-called martyrology of St Jerome has many names in common with this
Arian martyrology. St Jerome often assigns to one place and day more
martyrs than this Arian Calendar, as, for example, on the 25th March,
Dulas, on the 4th, 18th, and 21st April, etc. Sometimes the Arian gives
more names than St Jerome, _e.g._ on the 11th March, the 2nd May, etc.,
while in some places they are in perfect agreement, _e.g._ on the 13th
March, Modestus and twenty-one companions—the _Hieronymianum_ gives the
names of the whole twenty-one, while here only the number is given—on
the 16th April, Leonidas and eight companions in Corinth, etc. We cannot
infer from this that the compiler of the _Hieronymianum_ incorporated the
work of his Arian predecessor in his own, but he certainly was acquainted
with it, and made use either of it or of common sources.
The comparison of the Arian martyrology with that of St Jerome has
further led to a curious discovery,[761] _i.e._ that the entries from the
6th (or more correctly from the 8th) to the 30th June are indeed included
in the martyrology of St Jerome, but have been bodily transferred to
the corresponding dates in July.[762] This latter month has only three
entries, and it has been thought that the mistake is due to the Arian
compiler or his transcribers, but it is just as likely that the change
of date was made by the author of the _Hieronymianum_. How this fact
is to be explained must be left to conjecture. Another important point
bearing upon the connection between the two documents is the fact that
the one mentions Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea on the 30th May, but the
other in more detail on the 21st June, as follows: _In Cæsarea Palæstinæ
Dep. Eusebi Epi. Historiographi_. Which is correct? Certainly the
Syrian document, which also gives correctly the day of Arius’ death.
The entry on the 6th June clearly exhibits the Arian character of the
document: “In Alexandria, Arius Presbyter.” The fact that he is merely
commemorated, proves that it is incorrect to suppose, as many do, that
another Arius, a reputed, but otherwise unknown, martyr of Alexandria is
intended. The martyrs in this document are treated to more than a mere
commemoration (dukrana). Accordingly he did not regard this particular
Arius as a martyr.
From the description which we have given of this highly important
document, one is led to expect that it will throw fresh light on certain
historical questions, and so, as a matter of fact, it does. For instance,
we can fix the death of Arius by its assistance on the 6th June 336.
Arius died on a Saturday shortly before sunset. On the following day he
was to have been solemnly received into the Church.[763] The only year
which can be taken into consideration is 336, for in it the 6th June fell
on a Saturday.[764]
The historian Eusebius died about the time when Athanasius returned to
Alexandria from his first exile. This was shortly after Constantine’s
death († 22nd May 337). Since Eusebius died soon after he had finished
the life of Constantine, whom he did not long survive, his death is to
be placed on the 30th May 338. This takes for granted that the Bishop
of Palestine mentioned on the 30th May is identical with the historian,
which can scarcely be called in doubt. Cæsarea was the ecclesiastical
metropolis of Palestine, and this accounts for his title, Bishop of
Palestine.[765] His successor and heir and biographer was the energetic
Acacius.
A more important fact is that the martyrdom of Bishop Babylas of Antioch
can now be definitely established. We have in this document reliable
evidence that he suffered on the 24th January, which corresponds with the
evidence of Chrysostom, who stated that the Festival of SS. Juventinus
and Maximin, which was kept on the 4th February, followed closely on
that of St Babylas.[766] Moreover, St Babylas was generally commemorated
on the 24th January. According to Eusebius,[767] Babylas died in prison
under Decius, and, according to Jerome, in the first year of his reign.
Decius reigned from October, or, according to other authorities, from
August 249 to 27th July 251, and one of his first acts was to inaugurate
the persecution against the Christians. Accordingly the death of Babylas
must have happened on the 24th January 250. Since all authorities agree
in stating that he had been bishop for thirteen years, we are now able to
fix the year of the death of Zebinas, his predecessor, _i.e._ 237, and
the day of the month is given as 13th January in the Arian martyrology.
This document must be regarded as a thoroughly reliable source for the
dates of the death of the Antiochene bishops in particular, and we
can, therefore, place the death of Maximin, the seventh in the list of
bishops, on the 4th February 191, and the death of Serapion on the 14th
May 215.
It is scarcely necessary to observe that this calendar, although it is
an Arian document, contains not merely the names of Arian worthies, but
many which belong to Catholic antiquity. It is chiefly to this that it
owes its importance for the history of the Church, and it is also due to
this that it was capable of being combined with the catalogue of Persian
saints, which is an essentially Catholic document. On the other hand, it
is by no means a complete martyrology, and is in itself a liturgical, and
not a historical, document intended by its unskilful compiler to serve
party ends.
The Goths in Italy had also a menology of their own, of which a fragment
was discovered by A. Mai. Unfortunately, it contains only the month of
November. It is noteworthy that it mentions the Apostle Andrew, whose
name does not occur in the similar martyrology of which we have just
been speaking. The fragment, with this exception, contains Gothic names
alone. St Clement and St Cecilia do not appear, which proves its freedom
from Roman influence, and shows that it was essentially a national
production.[768]
4. _The so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum_
(_Second Half of the Seventh Century_)
Already in the time of St Gregory the Great there existed in Rome a
complete and universal list containing merely the names of the martyrs
and the place where they suffered, arranged according to the days of the
year. Eulogius, the contemporary bishop of Alexandria, besought the pope
to send him the complete collection of the acts of the martyrs drawn
up by Eusebius in the time of Constantine. He believed these were to
be found in Rome. He had doubtless in view the “Collection of Martyrs”
(συλλογὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων) just mentioned. St Gregory replied that they had
in Rome a collection of the names of all the martyrs in one volume, but
no complete collection of their acts.[769]
The work of Eusebius here referred to was not forthcoming in Alexandria
either, and was already regarded as lost, but the fact that such a work
had once existed was not forgotten. A work of the same kind was also
attributed to St Jerome, which is also no longer in existence. The
senator Cassiodorus exhorts his monks to read diligently the histories
of the martyrs (_passiones martyrum_) who have lived throughout the
whole world, in order to stir themselves up to the practice of virtue.
These they will find in the letter written by St Jerome to Chromatius
and Heliodorus. These last words are somewhat obscure, for it would be
impossible to deal with the acts of all the martyrs in one letter.[770]
However, so much is plain that Cassiodorus ascribed to St Jerome a work
of this kind. Finally, it must be borne in mind that St Jerome had
translated some of the historical writings of Eusebius. This may have
given rise to the idea that he had also translated his collection of the
martyrdoms. It is not impossible that he may have done so, although we
have no evidence of the fact. Bede also speaks of a martyrology of St
Jerome, but with some uncertainty, for he had never seen it himself, and
thought St Jerome may have been only the translator and not the author of
the work.[771] In Bede’s day the so-called _Hieronymianum_ was already
in existence, as the researches of De Rossi and Duchesne have recently
shown. That it was also known to Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus cannot
be maintained, especially as the words of the latter are so obscure. It
is, however, certain from his words that Cassiodorus believed Jerome to
have been the author of a work of this kind. Further evidence for this
is, unfortunately, lacking, though the thing is not impossible in itself.
Abbot Hilduin, a writer of the ninth century, referred also to this
point, and was of opinion that Constantine had collected all the acts of
the martyrs from all parts of the empire, and had sent them to Eusebius
at Cæsarea.[772] This statement, however, is not of much importance,
since it represents a view originating in the interpolated letter of St
Jerome already referred to.
However this may be, there have existed since the eighth century
numerous MSS. of a collection of the names of the martyrs of all times
and countries belonging to the Roman Empire which went by the name
of the _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_, and to which was attached two
reputed letters of St Jerome to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia, and to
Heliodorus, Bishop of Altinum. The work corresponds to that mentioned by
Cassiodorus.
Upon close examination, it is quite clear that the work, as we have
it now, cannot have been composed by St Jerome. It includes the names
of many persons who lived at a date subsequent to St Jerome, as, for
example, to name one out of many, St Gregory the Great on the 12th March.
In other respect the names do not extend beyond the seventh century, as
appears upon an inspection of the earliest codices. In later recensions
we naturally meet with the names of many persons who lived at a still
later date.
As regards the date of composition, the personality of the compiler and
kindred questions, we are face to face with an historical and literary
problem resembling that of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the
Donation of Constantine. Still some light has now been cast upon these
difficulties, since we have at last a thoroughly critical text of the
document, the investigations of De Rossi and Duchesne having determined
which of the existing MSS. is the earliest.[773]
Among the MSS. belonging to the eighth century, is one written for the
Monastery of Weissenburg in the diocese of Spires, now preserved in
Wolfenbüttel, _Codex Wisseniburgensis_, 23. De Rossi believed it was
written shortly before the death of Abbot Wando († 756) of Fontanelle
in the diocese of Rouen, because his death has been added by a later
hand on _XV. Kal. Mai_. It is certain that the codex was written before
772, because this date is referred to in it. Of about the same period is
the Parisian Codex 10 837, belonging to Echternach. It is written in an
Anglo-Saxon hand, and is perhaps somewhat later than the former, but is
derived from an original MS. certainly older than the Weissenburg Codex.
This view which is that of De Rossi gains support from the fact that the
two festivals in honour of the Holy Cross are not contained in the codex,
while they appear in the Weissenburg and all later codices. Both codices
are full of errors of grammar and spelling. The codex from the monastery
of Hilariacum originally belonging to Metz and now at Berne, is more
correct and better written, but unfortunately only extends to the 21st
November. The latest entries made in it by the first hand belong to the
year 766 and refer to Bishop Chrodegang. The text dates from the time of
Clotaire II. (584-628).
These three most ancient recensions do not differ from one another to any
great extent, but the MSS. belonging to later times, when the work was
often copied and used, show much greater divergencies, for alterations
and additions were continually being made in it corresponding to the
requirements of the local churches and monasteries where it was employed.
Since the two learned editors have succeeded in detecting the original
matter common to the three recensions, we are in possession of the
following result: the martyrology which formed the original source of
all later texts as far as they are known to us was written in Auxerre
between 592 and 600. The grounds for this conclusion are briefly as
follows: the compiler is evidently well informed as to ecclesiastical and
secular events in Gaul, in fact far better than with regard to any other
country. In naming the cities of Gaul, he gives the provinces in which
they are situated, and gives also many unusual details respecting the
individuals named, as for example when he gives in the case of bishops,
not only the day on which they died, but the date of their ordinations
as well; the names are also always given correctly, while in other
documents they are often frightfully distorted. A circumstance which
especially points to Auxerre as the locality from which the martyrology
originated is that this not very important city is mentioned thirty
times while the neighbouring and much larger city of Lyons is named
only twenty-six times. Moreover, all the bishops of Auxerre, with one
solitary exception, are named, while there are many gaps in the lists
of the bishops of Lyons and Autun. Thirdly, a _litania_ is enjoined on
the first of each month, and this custom was peculiar to the Church of
Auxerre, having just been introduced at that time by Bishop Aunarius.
Again, the day of the ordination of this not very famous Bishop Aunarius
is marked (II. Kal. Aug.), but not as we might have expected the day of
his death. The same holds good of Syagrius, Bishop of Autun; the date of
his consecration (natale suscepti episcopatus) is given, but not the date
of his death which happened in 599 or 600. The last Gallic bishop whose
death is noticed is Avitus of Clermont († 592).
On account of these facts, Duchesne arrived at the conclusion that
the so-called _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_ originated at Auxerre
between 592 and 600. This conclusion is not weakened by the fact that
personages belonging to the seventh century are included,[774] such as
Desiderius of Vienne († 606-7), Columbanus († 615), Eustasius, Abbot of
Luxeuil († 629), and Abbot Attala, the date of whose death is unknown.
Desiderius, indeed, appears in the Berne and Weissenburg Codices, and
the three others in that of Echternach, but they have been added by the
transcribers, and both De Rossi and Duchesne are agreed that none of
these codices represent the original text composed at Auxerre.
The editors go yet further, and show that the compiler was also very
well informed concerning ecclesiastical matters in Italy, especially in
Northern Italy and Milan; while he has comparatively little to say about
Spain, Rhætia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, and nothing at all about Scotto-Irish
saints. This postulates the existence of a yet older work, used by the
compiler of Auxerre, which may have been identical with the work familiar
to Cassiodorus.[775] This document, however, has entirely disappeared
without leaving behind it any other documents derived from it. If one
follows the perspective thus opened out, the connecting links may finally
come to light which connect this document with the work of Eusebius,
referred to by Eulogius of Alexandria and in the two letters attributed
to St Jerome.
However, we shall not follow these interesting suggestions further, but
shall content ourselves with the fact that in the _Hieronymianum_, in
the earliest form in which it has come down to us, we have a primitive
martyrology,[776] with additions and alterations made to it by a
Frankish transcriber or compiler between 592-600. In its original form
it contained only saints belonging to the Græco-Roman empire, and this
accounts for the absence of the Irish saints and those of Mesopotamia.
Thus at last the so-called _Hieronymianum_ has been made serviceable for
use in historical and liturgical investigations; the learned editors, in
giving us as far as possible the original text, have given us for the
first time a reliable edition of the document, and the Bollandists have
rendered the work still more serviceable by the addition of a reliable
alphabetical index, thus considerably lightening the labours of those
who use this work. This is no common gain for liturgical study, since
the _Hieronymianum_, obtained in the course of time, an increasingly
prominent position, more prominent indeed at last than it deserved;
moreover it has not been without its influence upon later martyrologies
and calendars, and has had an appreciable effect even on the development
of the Church’s cycle of festivals.
To know the number and condition of the Christians who had laid down
their lives for the faith within the limits of the Roman empire would
be of the highest interest now and always; to record the name, date,
and locality of each with statistical accuracy would have been a work
deserving the thanks of posterity. It might have been done immediately
after the cessation of the Diocletian persecution, but only with the
assistance of the secular authorities. Eulogius and the writer of the
letters ascribed to St Jerome were on the right track in thinking that
Eusebius had undertaken to furnish a work of this character with the
assistance of the emperor; the latter informs us that Eusebius actually
did so, and that the collection contained the names of from five to eight
hundred martyrs for every day of the year, thus giving a total of between
182,500 and 292,000 martyrs.
Our Latin compiler indeed has not brought together so many names, and he
states in the reputed letter of St Jerome that he only admitted those
martyrs whose commemoration was celebrated with special solemnity (qui
sunt in amplissima festivitate). However he has brought together in
round numbers 6000 names—quite a respectable number when compared with
the _Menologium Basilianum_, which belongs to a much later date, and it
remains a question how it was possible for a Frankish scholar of the
sixth century to get together so many names. Some of them certainly are
distorted, others are repeated in a remarkable way, and others again
have an unreal sound,[777] but when all deductions have been made, there
still remains so much that is historical and unexceptional that the whole
work cannot be dismissed as devoid of all authority. With regard to the
origin and value of this mass of names, one finds oneself confronted by a
question which seems equally insoluble, whether the compiler was a native
of Gaul, of North Italy, or of anywhere else. He certainly incorporated
into his martyrology the older lists of martyrs existing at his day,
many of which are known to us, and the two editors have displayed both
industry and insight in making this clear in several cases; yet all these
lists of martyrs taken together contain scarcely a thousand names. From
what sources has the compiler obtained the rest? This is the question
which still awaits an answer. On the other hand the compiler has given
expression to an important principle to which is due his influence on the
hagiology and liturgy of later ages. The Arian Calendar of which we have
spoken, concerned itself with the eastern half alone of the empire, and
is composed almost entirely of names belonging thereto, but the author
of the _Hieronymianum_ set to work on quite another principle; he had
in view the entire Christian world, East and West, Africa and Gaul. His
point of view is infinitely wider than that of his predecessors, and even
of many of his successors, and he made use of the fruitful principle of
universalism, rejecting all particularism in the ecclesiastical sphere.
While there had been calendars in the West containing the names of
martyrs belonging to a particular diocese or country, the compiler of
the _Hieronymianum_ regarded the Church as a whole—as catholic. The
meaning of this will be seen from a glance at the service-books, the
sacramentaries especially. In the ninth century and later, the Roman
sacramentaries, even those intended for use in other countries such as
those of St Gall, Mainz, Cologne, and Essen, contain only Masses for the
Roman saints, confining themselves to one or two local saints in the
supplement. The principle of universality only very gradually affected
the formularies of the Mass, and did not reach its full expression until
the sixteenth century, but it came to the fore much earlier in the
martyrologies, as early indeed as Ado, Usuardus, Notker, and Rabanus
Maurus, chiefly owing to the influence of the _Hieronymianum_.
This document is not without peculiarities of its own. In all recensions
of the text, the 25th March is given as the day of Christ’s death, and
since James the Lord’s brother, here called also “The Just,” died at
Easter, his death is placed also on the 25th March. In the Berne Codex
the sacrifice of Isaac is commemorated on the same day. There is a goodly
array of Old Testament names, _e.g._ Aggeus, Habacuc, Job, Joel, Aaron,
Eliseus, etc. In the Berne Codex, the 28th September is given as the day
of Noe’s going out of the ark, the 7th January as the day of the Exodus,
and the 1st May as the commencement of our Lord’s preaching.
Now that the date of its composition has been fixed, the _Hieronymianum_
is specially valuable for the information which it gives concerning
Frankish hagiography and its gradual development. Whoever will
devote himself in the future to investigating St Denys of Paris, St
Ursula, etc., must pursue his studies in the various recensions and
transcriptions of the _Hieronymianum_. It will well repay the trouble,
if someone would investigate how many of the reputed martyrs of Lower
Germany are named in this important document. It only knows of two
martyrs at Cologne, Asclinius and Pamphilus, in addition to the Moorish
martyrs whose numbers, however, vary greatly in the MSS.; their commander
is named Gereon. No saints are given for Mainz. For Treves we have
Valerius, Paulinus, Maximinus, and a Bishop Militius; Palmatius Thyrsus
and his Innumerable Company had not yet been discovered or invented. For
Bonn the connection in which Cassius, Florentius, and Mallusius stand to
one another on the 10th October is worthy of notice. We find some African
martyrs first of all on this day, and then, without indication of Bonn or
any other locality, we have: “Et alibi Cassi, Eusebi, Florenti, Victoris,
Agrippinæ, Mallusi cum alii trecentos xxx.” (_sic_). The later legends
omit Eusebius, and put Mallusius instead, who was buried at Birten and
discovered by Bishop Evergisil; the martyr Victor is said to have been
also originally buried at Birten.[778]
With regard to the Roman martyrs and the succession of the popes, the
_Hieronymianum_ is not altogether independent of the Philocalian list,
although it is fuller. The earliest pope mentioned in it is Cornelius,
and the last St Leo I., while the Philocalian list begins with Lucius
(† 254), and ends with Boniface I. († 422). The _Hieronymianum_ gives
also the days of the consecration of some of them, _e.g._ Miltiades,
Liberius, Innocent I., and Boniface I. On the other hand the earlier
martyrs are omitted with the exception of Clement I.
The indications of place are dealt with on various principles. For the
most part the city is naturally given where the martyrdom took place;
occasionally only the province is given, as, for example, Achaia, Asia,
Campania, Sardinia, and Sicily, this being especially the case in regard
to the last-named island. Remarkable on account of its vagueness is the
phrase _in Africa_ which occurs more than a hundred times without the
name of any town being given, but, nevertheless, in the case of many
African martyrs the town is given.[779] Often so many personal names
follow one another that one suspects that some indications of place have
dropped out, a conjecture to which one is all the more inclined as the
indefinite expression _et alibi_ is very often employed.
The martyrs themselves are only distinguished by their rank in the
hierarchy, when they belonged to the sacred ministry, _i.e._ deacon,
presbyter, bishop, but by far the larger number of personages are without
any indication of place, date, etc. In many cases it is evident that the
same person has been entered twice or oftener,[780] and mutilations,
disfigurements and alterations are very numerous, more especially in the
later MSS. The transcribers allowed themselves considerable freedom,
adding supplements and corrections, apart from the unintentional mistakes
they made. A hint of a literary nature is given by the remark, “cujus”
or “quorum acta habentur,” indicating the existence of the acts of such
and such a martyr. Later transcribers were not satisfied with this, but,
when the acts were forthcoming, added larger or shorter notices from them
to the text.[781] Had we the work as it came originally from the hands
of the compiler of Auxerre, these imperfections would disappear to a
considerable extent. A glance at any entry in the three recensions shows
how freely the earliest transcribers dealt with the original text; in the
new edition the three recensions are printed in parallel columns.[782]
All these remarks have an intimate bearing upon the question of the
sources and origin of the work. With regard to sources, the Roman
_Depositio Martyrum_ has been incorporated bodily, and a great part of
the Carthaginian Calendar as well, but the compiler must have had the
Arian Martyrology in a better copy than that which has come down to us,
or even in its original form; this is shown by the fact that frequently
he has quite correctly enlarged some of its indefinite entries.[783]
His use of this martyrology is clear from his inserting Eusebius among
the saints, in ignorance of his Arianism; he inserted the name in all
simplicity, a mistake avoided by the Greek menologies, and the same may
possibly have been the case with regard to Arius in the Weissenburg
Codex.[784]
This employment of earlier sources coupled with the numerous correct
entries in the _Hieronymianum_ entirely excludes the view that the
document is a fabrication. Indeed its composition can safely be said
to have come about in the following manner:—in the two first centuries
the persecutions were on the whole local, and the number of martyrs not
very large, although the persecution at Lyons in 177 caused the death of
more than forty martyrs, not counting confessors; a change took place
in the third century, when persecutions were commanded by the emperors
for the whole extent of the empire, and, under Diocletian, the martyrs
were to be reckoned, if not by millions, at least by thousands. At the
conclusion of the persecutions, it must have occurred to many to ask
how many had lost their lives in this troublous period, and the idea of
drawing up statistics of the martyrdoms must have sprung up. We have no
evidence of anything of this sort actually having been done, but in the
sixth century there was a widespread opinion that a work of this kind
had been accomplished by Eusebius under Constantine, and the passages
quoted from Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great show it was believed a
list of the martyrs for the whole year existed in Italy or in Rome. If
this work contained merely a list of names and dates, its interest must
have been merely statistical and in no wise scientific, since little
could be learnt from the names by themselves. In the seventh century,
however, either in Auxerre or in North Italy, it seems to have been held
in greater esteem; it found a transcriber and reviser, and finally was
brought into connection with the liturgy owing to its being read at the
choir-offices in monasteries and convents, and by this means, it won its
way to a position of widespread importance, which, however, did not have
an advantageous effect on the purity of the text.
With regard to the printed editions, there are several published
by various scholars who relied upon late MSS. of little value. We
may mention the editions of Fiorentini, Lucca 1668 (incomplete), of
D’Achery in the _Spicilegium_, ii. 1 (Migne, xxx.), and of Galesinius,
Milan, 1577. It used to be disputed which of these editions gave the
earliest text, but they are all quite superseded now. There are also
many abstracts of the _Hieronymianum_ in mediæval handwriting, as, for
example, the _Martyrol. Gallicanum_; Martène, _Ampliss. Coll. VI._,
called after Chauvelin (Migne, _Patr. Lat._, xxx. 607); the _Fuldense_;
_Anal. Boll. XIII._; the Reichenau martyrology, etc., but they are of
small scientific importance.
5. _The Lectionary and Martyrology of Silos_
Since the appointment of special Masses in honour of the saints is a
distinguishing feature of the Latin rite, Western liturgical books are
in themselves a source from which we can increase our knowledge of
the saints’ festivals, the most important in this respect being the
sacramentaries, but the other books used at the celebration of Mass, the
collections of epistles and gospels especially, also throw light on the
subject.
In addition to the books of this kind already named, the _Lectionarius_
of Silos has, in recent times, attracted much attention in this
connection.[785] It is of the highest importance both for the history
of the development of the ecclesiastical year and for the festivals of
the saints, for as it belongs to the period preceding the Carolingian
liturgical reform, it represents a very ancient rite of which, until its
discovery, all trace had disappeared. This rite is not the same as the
southern Spanish rite of the Province of Boetica from which the so-called
Mozarabic rite is derived, but belongs to the ancient ecclesiastical
province of Toledo. The codex in which it is contained was written
before the year 1062, for a later event, _i.e._ the translation of St
Isidore’s relics from Seville to Leon, is added by a later hand. This
codex, originally belonging to the monastery of St Sebastian at Silos and
now in the National library of Paris, contains two distinct documents, a
lectionary giving the lections from scripture for the whole of the year,
and a martyrology; the latter was compiled between 925 and 1000; but the
lectionary much earlier. Its antiquity is proved: (1) By the limited
numbers of saints’ days; (2) by the circumstance that the catechumenate
is still in force; (3) that the Saturdays in Lent are not fast days,
agreeing with the eastern custom; (4) the Sundays after Epiphany and
Pentecost do not appear as forming part of the ecclesiastical year, and
are not even numbered, but, as in the _Gelasianum_, there are added
twenty-four Masses called “dominicæ quotidianæ”; (5) there are five
Sundays in Advent; (6) with regard to saints’ days, Anastasius the
Persian is not yet placed along with St Vincent on the 21st January, and
the Apostle James is also omitted along with all reference to the Spanish
legend connected with his name. From this it is plain that St James, at
the time when this work was compiled enjoyed no special worship in Spain.
On these grounds the first editor, G. Morin, regards the lectionary as
certainly belonging to 650.
The book represents a rite hitherto entirely unknown but which can be no
other than the ancient rite of Toledo, since in it the Annunciation is
placed on the 18th December as is prescribed by the first canon of the
tenth council of Toledo. It differs from the Mozarabic rite as to the
number of Sundays in Advent, of which the latter reckons six, and also in
the eight Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; another
peculiarity is that the Innocents’ Day is omitted on the 27th December,
but an “Allisio Infantium” is kept instead in the 8th January. None of
the Roman and Byzantine feasts of our Lady are mentioned, and only one
feast of the Holy Cross on the 3rd May, omitting the other on the 14th
September; all Masses for saints’ days have two epistles.
The martyrology of Silos also is an important document on account of its
original character, although it is some three centuries later than the
lectionary. It is entitled, _Martyrum Legium_, and it is considerably
richer in names of saints than the lectionary, and is quite independent
of the _Hieronymianum_, though influenced in a slight degree by the Roman
rite. The martyrs in the Moorish persecution, under, Abdurrhaman II.,
which lasted from 850 to 860, appear in large numbers. The historian of
this persecution, the priest Eugenius of Toledo, who was put to death
on 11th March 859, is entered, but placed on 1st June, the day of the
translation of his relics; St Pelagius of Corduba, who suffered death on
26th June 925 under Abdurrhaman III. is also entered, and this date gives
one limit in fixing the date of the work, the other limit being the year
1000. There are five additions by a later hand, _i.e._ on 12th March,
_Gregorii Papæ_; on 1st May, _Transitus Philippi Apostoli_, without St
James; on 28th April, _Prudentii et Sociorum ejus_; on 21st December,
_S. Thomæ Apostoli_, and on 22nd December the _Translatio corporis S.
Isidori_. Some personages are entered, who are not called saints, but
only _Domnus_, four of whom belong to Toledo, two being bishops: Julian
(† 6th March 690) and Eugenius II. († 29th May 647); on 14th January,
another Julian, and, on 13th March, _Depositio Leandri_. Half of the
entire names belong to Spain, the other half to Rome and the East; of the
Frankish martyrs, Denys of Paris, Afra of Augsburg, and Boniface of Mainz
are commemorated. As regards the feasts of our Lady, besides the ancient
Spanish feast on the 18th December, we have only the Assumption on 15th
August. Litanies are appointed for 10th September, 7th November, and
15th December, besides a fast on 2nd January. The name of the Apostle
St James is absent from the martyrology as well as from the lectionary.
Bishop Torquatus and his companions are placed on 1st May, in both
documents, but in the martyrology they are not described as disciples
of the apostles, which is favourable to their historical existence. The
Apostles Simon and Jude are on the 1st July instead of the 28th October,
and there is also a _Symon Apostolus_ on 19th October as well. Although
traces of later influence appear in this martyrology, it has still
preserved the independent character of the early Christian Calendars.
6. _Egyptian (Coptic) Calendars and Synaxaria_
The anglican archeologist, John Selden († 1634), has given us the
earliest Egyptian calendars in his work on the Jewish Sanhedrin which
was left unfinished when he died. In the third book of this work, Selden
intended to deal with the rite for the dedication of Christian churches,
although this lay beyond the immediate purpose of his investigations,
and he thought that some Arabic Calendars in his possession might have
some bearing on the question.[786] Unfortunately, he gave no information
concerning the MSS. from which these calendars were taken, and they seem,
moreover, when discovered, to have been by no means in a good condition.
Ludolf declared himself dissatisfied with these publications, and
Wüstenfeld remarked: “The Arabic MSS. employed, must have been faulty,
and were made still worse by the faulty reading and transcribing of the
editor and the printing is so incorrect that some words would be almost,
and others quite unintelligible, were there not other helps to their
meaning at hand.”[787] Still, in spite of these well-founded criticisms
from specialists, Selden’s work cannot be over-looked. There seem also to
have been gaps and undecipherable passages in the MS. itself.
There are three calendars edited by Selden: two short, and one long,
the latter being of later date than the others. The two first have a
supplement to each month, called _ordo alter_, both appear to have been
originally drawn up for the use of monasteries, but are distinguished
from one another in important points. We shall designate them by the
letters A and B. A is at any rate of Egyptian origin and is monophysite
in character, because the heresiarch Severus, who lived in the sixth
century, twice appears in it, on 8th February and 29th September. Other
peculiarities in the document are: 1. It has two feasts of the Holy
Cross, on 6th March _Inventio Crucis_, by which doubtless the recovery
of the Cross by Heraclius in 629 is meant, and _festum crucis gloriosæ_
on 14th September. 2. The Nativity of our Lady is on 26th April. 3.
The commemorations of the Mother of God in use in Egypt, are given on
the 21st of the months January, March, May, July, and October: B omits
these feasts. 4. A has the archangel Gabriel on the 18th December, but
no festival of the Annunciation, while B places _Evangelismus_ on the
25th March, and no feast on the 18th December pointing onwards to the
impending Nativity of our Lord. 5. A has the four living creatures of
the Apocalypse on the 4th November who appear also later on in Coptic
calendars: B omits them. 6. In A the conquest of Egypt by the Mahometans
is seven times mentioned, _e.g._ 26th May, 10th December, etc. 7. A
does not mention St Ignatius of Antioch, but B places him on the 20th
December. 8. B has the Emperor Theodosius on the 3rd March, St John
Chrysostom on the 7th May and 13th November, also Ephrem Syrus on the 9th
July, and Dioscorus of Alexandria on the 31st August.
From these entries we see that B is catholic and Syrian, and A
monophysite and Egyptian. Both certainly belong to the same period. B was
probably also used in Egypt, for the Patriarch Isaac I. of Alexandria is
mentioned, who died on the 10th Athyr = 6th November 688 or 689.[788]
The Athanasius mentioned on the 6th September must have been Athanasius
II. who became patriarch of Antioch in 629.[789] These calendars and
the following one as well are contained in the Arabic translation of
Abulaibsan Achmed Calcasendi who has prefaced them with a list of
Coptic festivals (see above p. 26). Had they come down to us in better
condition, they would be of the utmost importance in the investigation
of our subject, notwithstanding their heretical character. The third of
the calendars published by Selden has fared little better; it certainly
belongs to the same period as the others, although somewhat later in
date. The latest person mentioned in it seems to be the Patriarch
Isaac I., named already in A. It was thought that this was the second
monophysite patriarch of that name who died in 954, but it is not so, for
this personage is named on the 10th Athyr = 6th November, and the Coptic
Synaxarium, translated by Wüstenfeld, which mentions him on the same day,
expressly states that he was the immediate successor of John, surnamed
Semnudæus from the place of his birth, Sebennytos, who died on the 9th
Athyr 686, after having pointed him out as his successor. The predecessor
of Isaac II., however, was Sophronius, and his successor was called Job.
Accordingly Isaac I. must be intended here, and thus the calendar belongs
to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.[790]
Its monophysite character is proved from the mention of the heresiarch
Severus three times, _i.e._ on the 26th April (_festum Severi_), on the
4th September, and on the 1st December. It has no feast of St Peter and
St Paul on the 29th June, but only a _Planctus Pauli_ on the 18th March.
The following points are worthy of notice:—25th March is the day of the
Crucifixion, the 28th May is kept as the _Inventio ossium S. Lucæ_ and
the 6th March as the _Manifestatio Crucis_, where the later calendar
adds, _per Heraclium imperatorem_. We have the beginnings of the Egyptian
custom of commemorating the Mother of God on the 21st of each month,
_i.e._ on the 21st Payni and the 21st Phaophi. The _festum Dominæ_ on the
2nd August is certainly a feast of our Lady, but the _festum Mirjam_ on
the 22nd July is probably a festival of St Mary Magdalen. There are many
things in this document the meaning of which can only be surmised.
A welcome addition to our knowledge of liturgical matters among the Copts
exists in a calendar of the ninth century in the Vatican library; it is
found along with a Coptic _Evangeliarium_ in a codex written in 1328.
The document is described and translated into Latin by A. Mai in the
fourth volume of his _Nova Collectio_.[791] The date is determined by
the fact that the Patriarch Amba Zacharias, who is entered as a saint
in the later Synaxarium on the 13th Athyr,[792] does not appear in the
calendar; he was patriarch, according to Le Quien from 1005 to 1032. The
last Jacobite patriarchs mentioned are those who succeeded one another
from Alexander to Michael (Chail). Michael was succeeded by John, after
a vacancy of ten years, who ruled from 766-799.[793] Accordingly this
calendar belongs to the ninth century. A striking peculiarity in it is
that the _Manifestatio Crucis_ is on the 17th-19th September instead of
the 14th as in all other calendars.
The circumstance that several saints, instead of having one
commemoration, have several, may give rise to confusion. St Thecla
appears no less than five times, twice with the title martyr (on the 25th
February and the 10th September), once as _apostola_ (on the 12th July),
on the 6th May and 3rd December she has no title. Although there was a
second St Thecla, still this would not altogether explain the entries.
Then James the son of Zebedee is mentioned on the 28th and 30th of April,
as well as James the Lord’s brother on the 12th July and 23rd October.
St Michael the Archangel occurs eight times. Our Lady’s Nativity is
celebrated on both the 26th April and the 7th September. No importance
is to be attached to these repetitions; they are purely arbitrary, and
are due to the desire to provide a name for every day in the calendar,
and to fill up vacant places.[794] This appears especially from the
circumstance that on the 29th of every Egyptian month, corresponding to
the 25th in the Julian Calendar, a commemoration of Christ’s Nativity is
given, and on the 21st of each month a feast of our Lady (Commemoratio
Dominæ S. Mariæ). The Death and Assumption of our Lady is placed on
the 16th January. St Joseph the Carpenter has his commemoration on the
20th July. Fides, Spes, and Charitas appear as three martyrs under
Hadrian on the 25th January; they are said to be daughters of a reported
Sophia. No St Catherine appears either in this calendar or in the later
_Synaxarium_ but the heretic Severus († 539) is twice commemorated: on
the 29th September (_Adventus Severi Patrarchæ in Ægyptum_) and on the
8th February, when he died.
Coptic calendars of a later date are still richer in names, but are full
of legends and absurdities which show the steady decline of culture among
the sect under Mahometan rule. This is especially the case with the
_Synaxarium_ or collection of legends compiled from ancient sources by
Bishop Amba Michael of Atriba and Malidsch at the end of the fourteenth
century.[795] The basis of the collection is an older work of the
same kind composed sometime about the year 1090 (see 3rd Athyr).[796]
Information concerning the saints who lived in monasteries was taken by
Bishop Michael from a so-called “Guide,” used by both the Egyptian Copts
and Melchites.[797] A “Guide” of this kind had been written especially
for Alexandria by Bishop Amba John of Kift. Michael refers in his work to
the years 1382 and 1387 (see 7th Bermahat and 19th Bermuda), and so must
have lived in the fourteenth century.
As the work contains much information drawn from the ecclesiastical
histories of the Copts and Abyssinians, it has been translated and much
used in spite of its faulty character. It affords many useful particulars
concerning the traditions and feasts of the Egyptian Church, and on this
account Stephen Assemani undertook to make an abstract of the whole work
which is printed in the fourth volume of Mai’s _Nova Collectio_. F.
Wüstenfeld made a translation of the first part containing the first half
of the Egyptian year, from September to February; the second half, from
March to August including the intercalary days, is unfortunately still
untranslated.
7. _The Menology of Constantinople (Eighth Century)_
The Eastern Church possesses a calendar of Saints belonging to the eighth
century, which occupies an intermediate position between a merely Eastern
Calendar, and one that is universal. Its title runs, Calendar of the
Gospels for Festivals (μηνολόγιον τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἑορταστικῶν), for it
gives the passage from the Gospels to be read on each day; it contains a
considerable number of saints belonging to the East, though the days are
far from being all occupied. March and April have remarkably few feasts;
this is owing to the ancient, but even then obsolete injunction of the
Trullan Council that the feasts of no martyrs were to be kept in Lent.
Several circumstances prove that Constantinople was the locality where
this document originated and was in use. Certain quarters of the
city, as for example, Blachernæ and Chalcoprateia, are mentioned; the
11th May is mentioned as the day of the city’s foundation; so too is
the earthquake which threw down the city walls on the 24th September
557. A large number of the patriarchs of Constantinople are included,
twenty-nine in all, beginning with Metrophanes (4th June 305-325)
and ending with Paul who was patriarch from September 686 to the 2nd
September 693. The absence of the twenty-one reputed bishops from St
Andrew to Metrophanes suggests the thought that when this document was
drawn up this invention had not been accepted.
Morcelli maintains that the Paul the younger mentioned on the 2nd
September is the Patriarch Paul II., under whom the Trullan Council was
held in 692, but he would, however, exonerate him from participation
in the schismatic council, since he opposed it at a later date; this,
however, contradicts the accepted chronology. No patriarch, not even
Germanus, and none of the many martyrs and confessors belonging to
the time of the Iconoclastic controversy under Leo the Isaurian and
Constantine Copronymus, are mentioned. From this one concludes that
the menology was composed immediately after the cessation of the first
Iconoclastic controversy, at a date when the judgment on the sanctity
of these personages had not yet been concluded, or when people were
unwilling to revive the painful recollections which their name evoked.
The martyrs, confessors, and doctors of the Eastern Church are there in
long array, at least all the celebrated ones, not only those belonging to
all four patriarchates, but also those belonging to other countries, such
as Anastasius the Persian († 628, on the 22nd January). The popes and
saints of the West are excluded with the exception of the three martyrs
Lawrence, Gervasius, and Protasius.
The names of many Old Testament personages are included: Moses, Aaron,
Elias, Jeremias, etc., also almost all the apostles and their immediate
disciples, but for the most part they occur on different dates from
those which they usually occupy in the Roman Calendar. For instance,
St John the Evangelist is on the 8th May and the 26th September, St
Barnabas on the 11th June, SS. Peter and Paul on the 29th June, St Titus
on the 25th August, St Thomas on the 6th October, St Philip on the 14th
November, St Andrew on the 30th November. SS. Joachim and Anna appear
on the 9th September, the day after our Lady’s Nativity, the Archangel
Michael on the 8th November, St Thecla (here entitled proto-martyr) on
the 24th September, and the Holy Innocents on the 31st December. For the
first time, Constantine and his mother Helena, appear as saints in the
calendar; they are commemorated together on the 21st May, a day which
falls before that on which Constantine actually died. Justinian and his
consort Theodora are commemorated also, but do not appear with the title
“saint”; they are placed on the 14th November, the day on which Justinian
died, Theodora having preceded him on the 28th June 548. Justinian was
called a prince of pious memory by the popes Pelagius II. and Gregory the
Great.[798]
From these indications it appears that this martyrology was
intended principally if not exclusively for the city and diocese of
Constantinople. The safest conclusion to arrive at is to regard it as
the martyrology of the patriarchate of Constantinople, since it steers
a middle course, as it were, between particularism and universality: it
is the most ancient of the Greek menologies known to us. Among the Greeks
St John Damascene is regarded as the originator of calendars of this
kind,[799] corresponding to Ado in the Latin Church. The menology has
been edited with an excellent commentary by Stephen A. Morcelli (Rome,
1788), having previously been published in Latin at Urbino (1727) from
the Codex of Cardinal Albani.
8. _The Menology of the Emperor Basil II., and the Syrian Lectionary of
the Eleventh Century_
This menology takes its name from Basil II. _Porphyrogenitus_ (976-1025),
and was given to the public for the first time in its entirety by
Cardinal Albani at Urbino in 1727, from two codices each containing
six months. It is distinguished from the menology which we have just
described by having a saint on every day of the year, and most of the
days have more than one; the saints are drawn from the whole extent of
the Eastern Church, and the Western Church, especially Sicily and Rome,
is more prominent than in the former document.
As regards Rome, there are a large number of popes given who are entirely
absent from the other menology: Silvester, Leo, Agatho, Gregory I.,
Celestine, etc. With the exception of Gregory I. they are generally
placed on different dates from those on which they are commemorated in
the West, _e.g._ Silvester on the 2nd January, Leo on the 18th February,
and Alexander on the 16th March, etc. It appears as if the sources which
the compiler had at his disposal for the West were insufficient, since,
for example, he gives St Perpetua, St Felicitas and companions once on
the 2nd February, and again on the 14th March, with the addition, “in
Rome”; from this it would appear that he thought the saints mentioned on
the first date had belonged to some other locality. St Agnes is given on
the 5th July.
Not so many patriarchs of Constantinople are given as one would have
expected, and many, indeed, are omitted who are included in the menology
of which we have spoken in the previous section, as, for example,
Nectarius, Paul II., Gennadius, Thomas II., but on the other hand we find
some who lived after the composition of the earlier document, especially
Germanus, Tarasius, and Antonius II., surnamed Cauleas († 12th February
896).[800]
In other points the _Basilianum_ resembles the former work, except that
it is fuller in every respect. The most striking feature is the large
number of saints belonging to religious orders contained in it, who
for the most part are specially designated; even the patriarch of the
Western monks, St Benedict, is not forgotten, and is given on his proper
day. Names from the Old Testament occur frequently, and from the New
Testament, we have almost all the disciples of the apostles whose names
are given, and these are designated as “belonging to the Seventy.” The
number of the days of apostles is considerable, though seldom coinciding
with the days observed in the Western Church, except in the case of St
Mark, St Barnabas, SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. Both the St James
are absent, and so are deprived of veneration within the region in which
this document was followed,[801] but there is a feast of all the apostles
on the 30th June. St Anna appears on the 25th July; St John the Baptist
on the 24th June and 29th August. It is to be noticed that the first four
general councils have each a special day allotted to them, while in the
_Constantinopolitanum_ all are commemorated on the same day—16th July.
It is strange to find not only earthquakes, included, but also defeats
in the wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Bulgarians, but unfortunately
there is nothing to indicate the localities where these events happened
(see the 7th and 20th February, the 23rd March, the 24th May, etc.). This
exceeds the limits observed in liturgical documents.
As the day of the foundation of Constantinople (the 11th May) is again
included in this document, we must conclude that it belongs to this city.
Since, too, Goths and Persians find a place in it, it is ahead of its
predecessors in its attempts to achieve universality.[802]
While the admission of foreign names is to be welcomed as a step in
advance, it may yet, on the other hand, be a source of confusion and give
rise to mistakes later on. We find, namely, in this menology, that the
names of foreign saints are not always given on the correct date, but
are arbitrarily placed on other days than those to which they belonged.
Later redactors, when they found the same name on different dates, may
have thought that different persons were meant, and this may have been
the cause of the repetition of the names of saints. This shows that in
admitting names of new saints, and the correct day of whose death had not
been transmitted, they acted according to their fancy. This was the case
with regard to the majority of the Seventy Disciples, many of whom appear
here for the first time. The same must have taken place also with feasts
of our Lord, as when the Flight in Egypt is given on the 26th December,
and so placed before the Circumcision and the Presentation. The admission
of foreign names was left to chance or opinion. Thus, _e.g._ the Western
saints Ambrose, Martin of Tours, and Hosius are admitted, but Hilary,
Augustine, Jerome, etc., are passed over.
The impression made by the entire document is that the principles which
were on the whole followed in its composition were not maintained with
sufficient care, but yielded more than was right to opinion and caprice.
In many cases, too, the necessary knowledge of history, and a sufficient
supply of literary material seems to have been lacking.
A useful document, especially for saints’ days, is a lectionary of the
orthodox Syrians contained in the codex xix. of the Vatican Library.
It was written in the monastery of Mar Mussa at Antioch in 1030, and
contains in the first section the lections for the ecclesiastical year,
in the second, those for saints’ days, beginning with the 1st September
as New Year’s Day. In it are given the martyrs of the Iconoclastic
controversy, several orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicephorus
(† 2nd June 828) being the last; then come many names from the old
Testament, and many feasts of apostles, the _Catenæ Petri_ on the
16th January being one of them, four feasts of St John the Baptist,
and six of our Lady. There are no Roman or Western saints with the
exception of St Lawrence. This document has been published by Count F.
Miniscalchi-Errizzo under the title _Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_ (2
vols. 4to, Verona, 1682).
In using documents of this kind for purposes of historical investigation,
as for instance in order to determine the day on which a historical
personage died, the appeal must always be to the local sources. In
the case of saints belonging to the Western Church no importance must
be attached to the fact that the Easterns may have transferred them
to a different day, and _vice versâ_, as, for example, in the case of
St Ignatius of Antioch. Where the day is given in some local source,
otherwise deserving of credit, we can be then certain that it is correct.
This must be done with regard to SS. Peter and Paul, for whom the local
sources give invariably the 29th June, while foreign calendars give other
dates, as we find is the case with Polemius, Silvius, and the Arian
martyrology. The compilers of these calendars wished to celebrate the
Princes of the Apostles, but, being ignorant of the actual day of their
death, placed them on any day that seemed suitable. Finally, at a later
date the correct date came to the knowledge of foreign churches, and
found its way into their calendars.
9. _The Kalendarium Marmoreum of Naples_
In the ninth century, a time of great activity in matters relating to
hagiography, the Church of Naples undertook a revision of its calendar,
which exhibits noteworthy peculiarities.
First of all, nearly every day of the year is provided with the name
of a saint, which indicates considerable care and study. This result
was achieved by following the Eastern custom of admitting Old Testament
personages, although not to the same extent. The grounds on which the
selection was made cannot be discovered, for we have Abraham on the 9th
October, Isaac on the 17th March, Eliseus on the 28th November, Daniel
on the 17th December, Zacharias on the 13th May, while other important
personages, such as Isaias, etc., are omitted. We are also reminded of
eastern usage by the commemoration of the council of Ephesus on the 4th
August, and other traces of eastern influence are noticeable in the
admission of a few bishops of Constantinople, such as Metrophanes, and
also of the names of Constantine (without Helena) on the 21st May, and
Theodosius on the 10th November. With regard to Metrophanes, the compiler
is guilty of a remarkable oversight; he has placed him once on the right
day (the 4th June), without his title, and again on the 4th January with
his title, “_Patr. Const._” The confusion between the 4th of June and the
4th of January might easily escape a transcriber, and must have already
existed in the source which the compiler used. In order not to omit any
name the compiler preferred to enter the same name twice, once with, and
once without, its proper title.
This reminds us that St Mark also occurs twice, on the 25th April and
the 17th May. St Philip is united to St James on the 1st May (a trace
of Roman influence), and is found again alone on the 14th November. St
Silvester comes on the 31st December and a _Depositio Silvestri P.P._,
on the 2nd January; a _Jacobus Ap._ and Mattheus on unusual dates, the
15th and 16th November, other Apostles are on more usual dates, _e.g._
St Jude is commemorated on the 21st May. St Bartholomew’s day (the 25th
August) is given wrongly as _Nat. Pass._, being in reality the day of his
translation. The names of Apostles and their disciples are very numerous.
With regard to the worship of the Holy Cross, both days occur (_i.e._
the 3rd May and 14th September), with the title now in use, although
formerly, the feast of the 3rd May was alone observed in the West, and
that of the 14th September in the East. The reason for this circumstance
has been already given in this book. Bishops of Naples naturally appear
frequently; _e.g._ Maro (15th June) belongs to the third century, others
belong to the period from the sixth to the eighth century, such as Redux
on the 27th March († 584), Agnellus on the 9th January († 691), Adeodatus
on the 1st October († 671), Fortunatus on the 14th June († 600 circ.),
Paulus the elder on the 3rd March († 760). The last to be named is
probably Paul the younger on the 17th February († 820).[803] Paul III. of
Constantinople cannot be intended here, for his day is the 30th August.
We may add that the feast of All Saints had not yet been admitted, a
circumstance which throws light on the probable date when this calendar
was drawn up. Special importance attaches to this calendar on account
of its intermediate position between the calendars of the Eastern and
Western Churches.
It was discovered in 1742 in S. Giovanni Maggiore and edited incorrectly,
according to Mai, by Marinius, correctly by Mazzochius (Naples, 1744).
The most recent edition is by A. Mai himself.[804]
10. _Western Authorities from the Sixth to the Eighth Centuries_
In the West the worship of the saints exerted a much stronger influence
on the liturgy than in the East. The Roman and kindred rites provided
special Masses for saints’ days, while in the East the worship of
saints as far as it effected the liturgy continued to be limited to the
canonical hours. At first the lections used at the Psalmody were drawn
from the Holy Scriptures alone, but from the sixth century, passages
from the _passiones martyrum_ were admitted.[805] In course of time,
these became more numerous, and in this way the martyrologies obtained
an ever increasing importance. As regards the Mass, in the earliest
Gallican Masses published by Mone, we find one for the feast of St
Germanus,[806] and several in the _Sacramentarium Leoninum_, and for
many centuries the Masses for saints’ days remained considerably less
numerous than the Masses _de tempore_. Later on, however, they became so
numerous that they were finally indicated in a special calendar bound up
with the sacramentary, such as is now prefixed to the massal as one of
its integral parts. Equally important with the sacramentaries in this
connection are the service-books, containing the epistles and gospels,
called lectionaries. We shall examine these first, and then those of the
martyrologies specially bearing upon the subject we are investigating,
and afterwards we shall utilise whatever we find in the sacramentaries in
connection with saints’ days.
The lectionaries of Luxenil and Silos show very plainly that in the
seventh century the worship of the saints had as yet very slightly
affected the liturgy. The saints’ days are somewhat more numerous in the
_Leoninum_ and in the _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_ edited by Mabillon and
belonging to the end of the same century.
In both the other Roman sacramentaries the increase of saints’ days is
noticeable. The _Gelasianum_ was originally drawn up especially for the
city of Rome, but the recension in which it has come down to us was
obviously compiled at the request of some other church; at any rate it
contains a number of saints who do not belong to the city of Rome. For
instance, on the 7th August we have the Confessor Donatus who belongs
to Imola, on the 19th a martyr called Magnus who can only be assigned
to Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and on the 27th a martyr Rufus belonging to
Capua; the appearance of the legendary family of martyrs Marius, Martha,
Audifax, and Ambacum or Habacuc is curious, and in addition to these,
there is also a number of saints whose names one would search for in vain
in the better and older recensions of the _Gregorianum_, _e.g._ Soter,
Vitalis, Felicula, Juliana, Euphemia, Juvenal, Nereus and Achilleus,
Cyrinus, Nabor, Nazarius, and Vitus. Of these many were certainly
venerated in Rome, yet had hitherto received no recognition in the
calendars attached to the service-books.
For the Gregorian Sacramentary, the edition most frequently employed is
that of Menard printed in Migne. According to the introduction, it is
taken from a _codex S. Eligii_ and a somewhat later _codex Rodradi_,
which, in Menard’s opinion, was written about 853, but even the earlier
codex has additions belonging to a later period, _e.g._ Projectus (25th
January)[807] and Leo (28th June), as a comparison with the Mainz codex
of St Alban shows. This codex (_i.e._ of St Eligius) according to the
received opinion, was written between 834 and 847, and consists of
three different parts, proceeding indeed from the same hand, but clearly
distinguished from one another. The first part contains the _Gregorianum_
(fol. 1-129) to which have been added as an appendix the Masses of St
Alban, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, All Saints’, and St Augustine, which the
transcriber did not find in the original. In the second part (Collectio
ii., fol. 165-183) the expressions _contestatio_ and _ad complendum_ are
used which show it to be of Frankish origin, and like the first part it
contains the ecclesiastical year, beginning with Christmas. The third
part (fol. 183-204) contains a few additions consisting of prayers and
Masses for special occasions.
It is to be observed that the first part still has the obsolete feast
of the 13th May, _Dedicatio S. Mariæ ad Martyrs_, and only the _Natalis
S. Cæsarii_ on the 1st November, the Mass for All Saints’ being placed
at the end, and not in its proper place (fol. 131). This recalls the
circumstance that Gregory IV. (827-844) transferred the feast of the
13th May to the 1st November. This change was also introduced into the
Frankish empire in 835. The original document was then certainly written
before 835, or indeed earlier, for the _litania minor_, introduced into
the Roman rite by Leo III. about 801, is not given; nevertheless the
three chief feasts of our Lady are already inserted in their proper
places. In the following period until the fifteenth century only a
limited number of new saints’ days were added to the Roman Missal. A
missal written in 1374—_Ordo Missalis secundum Consuetudinem Romanæ
Curiæ_—belonging to the Public Library of Munich, shows an increase of
only twenty-five Masses for saints’ days over the _Gregorianum_ after
more than five hundred years.
Fronteau, chancellor of the University of Paris, published a lectionary
which has important bearings on the study of liturgies; he took it from a
codex written in gold characters belonging to the Church of St Geneviève
in Paris.[808] The editor correctly described it as appertaining to the
city of Rome, because the Roman station churches are given, and the
saints mentioned almost all belong to the city of Rome. The omission
of the festival of St Petronilla (the 31st May) is of importance in
fixing the date of this document, for Gregory III. was the first to
add the Church of the _Cœmeterium S. Petronillæ_ to the other station
churches.[809] Petronilla had already been regarded as a saint in the
city of Rome, but her festival had not made its way into the liturgy
because no _statio_ was held in her Church or in her _Cœmeterium_. The
_Litania Minor_ on the three days before the Ascension, introduced into
the Roman rite by Leo III., is also not to be found here. The editor,
however, deduces that the Lectionary of St Geneviève is later than
Gregory II. from the fact that the Thursdays in Lent are provided with an
_officium_ of their own, an addition introduced first by this pope.[810]
Accordingly this lectionary was composed under Gregory II., between 714
and 731, and it is of great importance for the liturgical student. Its
manner of naming the Sundays after Pentecost deserves especially to be
noticed, the feasts of our Lady of the 15th August and the 8th September
do not fall on these days, but on the 14th August and the 9th September,
and the beheading of St John the Baptist on the 30th August. The only
Greek saint mentioned is Mennas and the only non-Italian, St Cyprian.
The _Cathedra Petri_, _Exaltatio Crucis_ (3rd May), and _Joannes ante
Portam Lat._ (6th May), are not yet known, and on the 28th June, where
_Leo II. Papa et Confessor_ now stands, we have a _Translatio corporis S.
Leonis_. Fronteau points out that this cannot refer to Leo II.[811]
11. _The Martyrologies of Bede, Florus, Wandelbert, and Œngus_[812]
Before the ninth century, the Frankish Church had produced no martyrology
of its own, apart from the so-called _Hieronymianum_, but on the other
hand the young Anglo-Saxon Church put out a work of this kind in the
eighth century, its author being the learned historian of the Anglo-Saxon
Church, the Venerable Bede. Whether he undertook the work spontaneously
or at the desire of his superiors, whether it was intended merely for
his own monastery, or for a wider circle are questions which cannot be
answered, for there is no introduction to the work to inform us on these
points. The work was used in the Frankish empire as is proved by the MSS.
of it found there as well as by the later additions of Florus.
Bede composed his _Martyrologium_ in 731, as he informs us at the
conclusion of his history.[813] It was his intention to give in addition
to the days of the saints’ deaths, the nature of their deaths, and the
names of the judges by whom they were condemned, for by this means the
date of their deaths could be determined with certainty. The basis of
his work was the existing Roman Calendar while he exceeded its limits
in many directions. In the first place, he added to it the saints of
England such as were then venerated; these were few in number, Alban,
Cuthbert, Augustine, Mellitus, Etheltrud, Victor and Paulinus (10th
October), Brigid, etc. Then a comparatively large number of names of
Frankish saints were also introduced, _e.g._ Maximin of Treves (31st
May), Clodoald (St Cloud), Remigius, Denys, Lambert († 17th September
709), the Theban legion, and a few others. Bede rises still further above
the standpoint of national churches and particularism by admitting some
names from the Old Testament, _e.g._ Ezechiel (10th April), Jeremias (1st
May), Eliseus (14th June), Isaias (6th July), Samuel (20th August), etc.;
the dates on which they are commemorated being taken for the most part
from Greek menologies.
Bede collected material for his _Martyrologium_ with great diligence, and
enriched his subject matter with notes from his own reading, as is shown
for instance by his reference to St Cyprian’s treatise _De Lapsis_ in
connection with the martyrs Castus and Æmilius (22nd May) who are named
in it; other sources upon which he also drew were the _Gesta Pontificum_,
the writings of Eusebius, St Gregory’s Dialogues, and especially a
number of _Passiones Martyrum_. Bede’s work shows both diligence and
originality, and an intelligent employment of the materials which came to
hand. Yet, in spite of his diligence, he found material to fill up only
a hundred and eighty days, and so the half of the year remains vacant;
still his compilation is fuller than the Frankish calendars of the eighth
century, and the notes attached to the names of each saint are remarkable
for brevity and precision.
Although the value of Bede’s work is incontestable it was soon found
insufficient; it was diligently copied, and used, but additions of all
sorts were made to it as is proved by the large number of variations in
the existing MSS. Perhaps it met with more acceptance abroad than at
home, for the thirteenth canon of the second council of Cloveshove which
met in 747, only twelve years after Bede’s death, enjoined the use of the
Roman martyrology, without even mentioning Bede.
As regards its publication, the martyrology of Bede was printed for the
first time in Cologne in 1616, but as in the text thus published, all the
days of the year are provided with the names of saints, it is impossible
that it represents the original text of Bede, for all old writers agree
in stating that in it many days were left vacant. The Bollandist Henschen
found first of all a fragment of the genuine Bede among the MSS. of Queen
Christina of Sweden, and then, later on, the complete text at Dijon.[814]
Bede’s martyrology was newly worked over and considerably enlarged by
a certain Florus; according to Wandelbert of Prüm,[815] this was the
subdeacon Florus of Lyons, who, later on, as deacon, wrote against Scotus
Erigena in 852, and died in 860; he was a contemporary of Wandelbert’s.
Against this must be set down the authority of Trithemius, who considers
that this Florus was a Monk of the monastery of St Trudo in the diocese
of Liège about 760. Although Trithemius gives no authority for this
statement, still writers on the history of literature, especially
Fabricius, are in complete agreement with him. Still which ever of the
two is correct, one is inclined to ask how it came to pass that so
striking an enlargement of the work—each day of the year being provided
with the name of a saint—could have appeared so soon after Bede and
before the appearance of the great martyrology of Ado.
Wandelbert of Prüm turned Bede’s martyrology into verse in the
twenty-fifth year of the Emperor Lothaire I. (848); his version is of
no importance for the history and development of this department of
liturgical studies, yet it may be consulted for questions connected with
local history.[816]
The martyrology of Œngus the Culdee, written in the ancient Irish
(Celtic) language certainly belongs to the same period. Nothing further
is known of the author except that he was a monk in the Monastery of
Conenagh in the ninth century. The martyrology is written in rhymed
verse, extends over the entire year, and contains for the most part
the names of Irish saints.[817] Certainly later is the similar work of
Gorman, Abbot of Louth in Leinster. It was written in unrhymed verse
between 1166 and 1174.[818]
12. _The Martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, Rabanus Maurus, and Notker
Balbulus_
The most important document in this department of literature, and one
which bears directly upon scientific investigations, is the martyrology
of Ado, Bishop of Vienne. Ado was born in northern France about 800, and
entered at an early age the Monastery of Ferrières in the diocese of
Sens, from whence he was sent to the Monastery of Prüm where he lived
for many years under Abbot Markward (829-853). In consequence of some
misunderstandings he left Prüm and went to Rome, where he spent five
years and then went to Ravenna. He returned to France later and lived for
some time as a simple monk in a monastery in the neighbourhood of Lyons.
After the death of Bishop Agilmar of Vienne († 7th July 860) he succeeded
to the see and died on the 16th December 873.
He compiled the martyrology which bears his name in 858 before he became
bishop,[819] the basis of his work being a very ancient martyrology with
which he had become acquainted in Ravenna. If his information can be
trusted, a bishop of Ravenna, whose name he does not give, received this
ancient document from a bishop of Rome who is also nameless. The rest
of the material he collected himself, and in particular he made notes
of any information concerning martyrs which had come in his way. Many
of the sources at his disposal have since been lost, thus rendering his
martyrology all the more important for us.
It consists of three parts: 1. A calendar containing the names of one
or more saints for each day accompanied by notices naturally brief; in
the printed edition it bears incorrectly the title, _Vetus Martyrologium
Romanum_, given to it by its first editors, Jacob Mosander and Heribert
Rosweyde;[820] 2. _A Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apostolorum_;[821] 3.
The martyrology itself,[822] consisting of extracts from the acts of the
martyrs and other writings.
His preface contains matter which deserves attention.[823] He had often
been urged, he says, by holy men, by his superiors, and by Bishop
Remigius of Lyons to complete the martyrology; since the martyrology of
Bede, which Florus had enlarged, still leaves many days without saints,
he had undertaken to fill up these gaps, and for this purpose he had made
use of the MSS. describing the sufferings of the martyrs, from which he
had made quotations for the benefit of the weaker brethren; the ancient
martyrology which came originally from Rome, served him as a foundation
upon which to build.
The frank avowal of his intention to fill in the spaces left vacant by
his predecessors, might create a prejudice against the trustworthiness
and excellence of his work, but a closer inspection will dispel this
suspicion, and this would be still more the case had we the original form
of the work before us; in the existing editions there are additions of a
later date, such as the name Rictiovarus.
From the entries on the 20th April and the 17th November it is plain that
the Cologne MS. of this martyrology edited by Rosweyde comes from Stablo,
and it may have been that at Stablo the names of some Frankish saints
were inserted into it. Ado went much further than Bede in admitting names
from the Old Testament. Roseweyde’s conjecture that this calendar, the
so-called “Little Ado,” is the Roman martyrology mentioned by Gregory I.
in his letter to Eulogius, is devoid of proof and obviously mistaken,
for in that document there were no Old Testament names. This “Little
Ado” is not a martyrology at all, but a calendar, and displays none of
the peculiarities which characterise the calendars of the city of Rome
of that date; neither is it an independent work, but only an abstract
made by Ado from his own larger work, and a summary of its contents. The
preface prefixed to the two other parts is chiefly concerned with the
martyrology, and not with this abstract, and it is only the circumstance
that this abstract is found in MSS., with some later additions and
altogether separate from the larger work, which led the first editor to
regard it as a treatise by itself; it is merely the abstract used at
Stablo and Malmedy, and not an original Roman work, though it is plain
from Ado’s preface that the existing Roman calendar was employed in its
composition.[824]
Two or three decades later, Usuardus composed his martyrology after
Ado’s example, which he dedicated to Charles the Bald in 875. Usuardus
was a monk of St Germain des Près, then outside the gates of Paris, but
now surrounded by the city; his work is by no means so full as Ado’s,
but is more polished in style, and more uniform in its treatment of
the different entries, and on this account is more suited for use in
choir. It was accordingly used throughout the entire West, and in all
Benedictine monasteries,[825] and even in Rome itself with the exception
of the Vatican basilica. At the end of the fifteenth century it was so
to speak, the universal martyrology of the Western Church, and indeed no
other was known.[826]
The value of these works depends naturally upon the sources employed by
the redactor, and also upon his personal qualities, as, for instance,
whether he revelled in the miraculous or was inclined to be critical.
Two martyrologies by German authors must now be dealt with—those of
Rabanus Maurus and Notker Balbulus.
The former when Archbishop of Mainz completed a martyrology which he
had compiled from secondary sources; it is dedicated to Abbot Radleich
of Seligenstadt, who died in 853-54, and whose epitaph was composed by
Rabanus,[827] but the composition of the martyrology must be dated a few
years earlier, about 850, though the exact date cannot be discovered.
As sources, he drew upon the Acts of the martyrs which he found ready
to hand, and also the _Hieronymianum_, Bede, and Florus; the treatment
of the material is very unequal, sometimes a long account being given,
sometimes nothing more than the name; legends and historical errors are
frequent.
The same is true of the martyrology of Notker Balbulus who was a monk
at St Gall from 840 to 912, and composed his work under Pope Formosus
(891-896). He knew and used the _Hieronymianum_, as, for example, for
the 9th August, _V. Id. Aug._ First class sources were beyond his reach,
a loss of which he was himself conscious.[828]
All these martyrologies of which we have spoken, were private
compilations without anything of an official character about them. The
existence of so many following upon the _Hieronymianum_ shows that it did
not satisfy liturgical requirements and was little used. On this account,
martyrologies were drawn up at a later date containing full descriptions
of the lives and sufferings of the saints for each day of the year, which
would serve as edifying and entertaining reading for religious, priests
and other pious persons. However even the best of them were no longer
practicable in the sixteenth century, and Gregory XIII. conceived the
purpose of putting out one better adapted for use in divine service. A
further step was taken in 1580 when he commissioned the learned Cardinal
Sirleto to compare the martyrology used in Rome with the oldest and best
MSS. and to correct the errors which had crept into it in course of
time.[829] Sirleto associated ten other learned men with himself among
whom were Cæsar Baronius and Aloysius Lilius, the astronomer. Baronius
was the soul of the undertaking, and, after three years’ labour, the
_Martyrologium Romanum Gregorii XIII._ was completed, and a papal brief
of the 14th January 1584, prescribed the exclusive use of this work in
choir at the canonical hours. Baronius based his labours on Usuardus,
correcting and enlarging his martyrology by means of the materials then
forthcoming; could he have used the materials discovered later, or those
which we now possess, his work would naturally have been much better;
many, too, of the earlier mistakes remain uncorrected. The editors
were far from claiming freedom from errors for their work, and made
improvements in later editions, beginning with that of 1586. It is not
necessary to regard all the individuals named in the Roman martyrology as
saints in the liturgical sense of the word, and their admission there,
according to the expression of Benedict XIV. is in no wise equal to
canonisation.[830] Since the time of Baronius, the official martyrology
has indeed remained untouched, but science has not been inactive during
this long period; much has been explained and corrected, and, on the
whole, it has come to be recognised as a principle which must be followed
in investigating the histories of the saints of ancient times, that
recourse is to be had to the earliest existing sources of information,
and also, where the evidence is contradictory, local official sources,
where they exist, are to have the preference.
13. _Important Calendars from the Eighth to the Eleventh Centuries_
While the martyrologies were for the most part the outcome of individual
effort, the calendars, on the other hand, are entirely official in their
origin. In times when annual calendars, like our present ordos, had
not yet appeared, their place was taken by the official calendar, and
every one had to make out his ordo for himself with its assistance. From
many points of view they are more important for our purpose than the
martyrologies.
As complete missals took the place of the sacramentaries they were
usually provided with a table, like an index, which gave a list of
the saints’ days contained in the missal; these so-called calendars
have from then until now formed an integral part of written and printed
missals, and even appear by themselves like abbreviated martyrologies. A
remarkably large number of calendars of this kind have come down to us
from the Middle Ages, and, since they are important for the history of
local churches, they have recently been published, as, for example, by
Martène-Durand, Misset and Weale, Grotefend, Ulysse Chevalier, Lechler,
etc.[831] For our purpose, the following deserve to be noticed:
1. A Roman calendar of the seventh century, discovered by Prof. de Ram,
and printed in Binterim, Denkw. vii. 56-67. It begins with Christmas,
March is called _mensis primus_, the station churches of Rome are given
in Lent, on the 13th May there is the _Dedicatio Mariæ ad Martyres_, All
Saints does not appear. The only litany is the so-called _litania major_;
the Annunciation and the _Cathedra Petri_ are omitted, in March a _pascha
annotina_ is inserted without date, St Athanasius is passed over on the
20th January; there are only faint traces of Advent. This calendar is
very ancient and formed part of the codex of the gospels written under
Louis the Pious; in the time of Lothaire I., it belonged to the Monastery
of Münsterbilsen in the diocese of Liège.
2. A calendar belonging to Bologna. It is found in a codex of the
Monastery of Leno, was discovered by Giovanni Mercati in the Ambrosiana,
and published in the Révue Bénédictine, 1902 (353-355). It has the
_Ordinatio Episcopatus Jacobi Apost._ on the 27th December, and, on the
17th May a _natalis S. Marci Evang._, found nowhere else.
3. The so-called calendar of Charlemagne forms, along with an Easter
table, the beginning of an _Evangeliarum_ written in 781 by command of
the emperor and his consort by a scribe called Godescale.[832] It is only
deserving of notice from the number of names of Frankish saints inserted
into a calendar originally Roman, _e.g._ Bishop Maximin of Treves (31st
May), Boniface (5th June), Medard (8th June), Martialis (30th June)
Kilian (1st August), Mauritius (22nd September), Remigius (1st October),
etc. The Apostle Thomas is placed, strange to say, on the 3rd July, and
St Petronilla on the 31st May.
4. A calendar is incorporated in a treatise _De Computo_, by an unknown
author, written in 810 (published by Muratori, _Analecta_, iii. 108, and
also in Migne, _Patr. Lat._, cxxix. 1274). It seems to come from the
diocese of Sens on account of _S. Columbæ Virg._ on the 31st December;
All Saints is omitted. This calendar is Roman with Frankish additions;
for the date see chap. 153, Migne, cxxix., 1364.
5. The last four months of the year are unfortunately missing from the
calendar of Alt-Corbie (Corbeiense) given by Martène-Durand, _Thes. Nov.
Anced._, iii., 1591, Paris, 1717. The same is the case with a very old
calendar of Tours.
6. Codex 83ᴵᴵ. of the cathedral library in Cologne contains an ancient
calendar, fol. 72 B-76. This codex contains a large collection of
annalistical writings and computation tables and was written under
Archbishop Hildebold. The second treatise in the volume is Isidore’s
chronicle which concludes with the words: “Seven hundred and eighty-nine
years have passed since Christ’s Nativity”; further on, fol. 76 B, was
inserted after the death of Charlemagne, and also of Hildebold (818).
Thus the codex was written between 798 and 818, and belonged to the old
cathedral of Cologne which was dedicated to St Peter. The calendar,
however, does not belong to Cologne for the local saints are absent, but
there is a number of names of Frankish saints, pointing to the north
of France as the locality where it was drawn up; no explanation of the
legend of St Ursula can be learnt from it. For a calendar of its early
date, it is remarkably full of saints, while the Cologne Calendar,
shortly to be referred, to has many vacant days. The codex has been
described by Jaffé and Wattenbach, _Ecclesiæ Metrop. Colon. codices
manuscripti_, Berlin, 1874, 29 _et seqq._
7. The _Gellonense_ comes from the Monastery of St Guillaume du Désert in
the diocese of Lodève, and belongs to the beginning of the ninth century,
and has been edited by D’Achery, _Spicilegium_, ii. 25 _et seqq._ It
begins with Christmas and is preceded by a _Breviarum Apostolorum_ in
thirteen sections containing information concerning the apostles.
8. A _Kalendarium Gothicum_ (ed. Lorenzana) of the seventh century
(Migne, lxxxvi. 38 _et seqq._). Besides this, there is the Mozarabic
_Sanctorale_ (_ib._ 1031 _et seqq._) and a fragment of a _Kalendarium
Gothico-Hispanum_ (Migne, lxxxv. 1050 _et seqq._).
Of later date, but still always useful for historical investigation are:—
9. Two Anglo-Saxon calendars of the tenth century belonging apparently to
the diocese of Winchester (Migne, lxxii. 619 _et seqq._).
10. Two from Corbie; in Martène and Durand (_Thes. Nov. Anecd._, iii.
1571-1594).
11. A calendar of Floriac and a martyrology of Auxerre (Migne, cxxxviii.
1186-1258).
12. A calendar of Mantua and two of Vallombrosa (_Ib._ 1258 _et seqq._).
13. A calendar of Besançon of the eleventh century, which goes by the
name of _S. Protadii_ (Migne, lxxx. 411), and an old French calendar
called after the name of its first owner Chauvellin (Migne, lxxii. 607).
For convenience we separate the most ancient calendars of German origin
from the others, and consider them by themselves.
1. The oldest calendar of Mainz belongs to the first half of the ninth
century, and was published from a codex in the Vatican by Jostes in
the Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum (Schröder and Röthe) for 1896,
148-158. All Saints is absent, and the resurrection of Christ is entered
on the 25th March.
2. A _Kalendarium Verdinense_, from the Monastery of Werden on the Ruhr,
published by Bandini (_Catal. Bibl. Lauretianæ Suppl._, Migne, cxxxviii.
1203 _et seqq._). It contained All Saints, and the _Dedicatio S. Mariæ s.
Turris Vincentii_ on the 13th May as well. Among the special saints of
Cologne are given the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Gereon, the Moors, and the
eleven thousand virgins, but without Ursula, and designated as simply
virgins and not martyrs; it also contains the names of the two first
bishops of Halberstadt, Thiatgrim († 840) and Hildegrim († 21st December
888), which indicates the date of its composition, and it has the name of
the first abbot of Werden, Hetharicus, and the _Dedicatio Eccl. Majoris_.
Unfortunately the months from April to July are missing.
3. The sacramentary in the cathedral library of Cologne (codex 88, fol.
3-9) contains a complete calendar for this cathedral. It is essentially
the Roman Calendar of the ninth century, with the addition of the local
saints of Cologne, the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Brictius, Quintinus,
Severin, Gereon and his 318 companions, the 360 Moors, and the 11,000
virgins without Ursula, and designated simply as virgins. Other names
deserving notice are: Briga (Brigida) 1st February, Arealis (?) 28th
April, _Marcus episcopus_, Boniface the martyr, Medard, Lambert, and
Mauricius with 6666 companions. The calendar belongs to the second half
of the ninth century, and is proved to have belonged to the cathedral of
Cologne begun by Hildebold and consecrated by Willibert in 873, by the
fact that it gives the day of the consecration of the cathedral correctly
(23rd September), and is described as belonging to the Church of St
Peter, to whom the former cathedral was dedicated. The sacramentary, but
not the calendar, has been printed by J. Pamelius in his “Liturgicon
Ecclesiæ Latinæ,” tom. ii. (Col. Agr. 1571), but unfortunately with so
many arbitrary alterations that it is quite useless as an edition of the
text.
4. In the library at Düsseldorf there is a sacramentary, (codex D. I.)
written in the lifetime of Bishop Altfrid of Hildesheim († 874), which
contains (fol. 217-222) a calendar showing northern French influence.
Only the 11,000 virgins are given of the local saints of Cologne, and
here again Ursula is not named, and the virgins are not called martyrs.
The book belonged to the Convent of Essen on the Ruhr founded by Altfrid.
This MS. gives in fol. 64 A the order of the festivals observed within
the jurisdiction of the monastery during the ninth century: “Istas
præcipuas solemnitates in anno totus populus sabbatizare debet: In die
Nat. Domini dies IV., in octabas Domini, in Teophania, in Purificatione
Mariæ, in Pascha Domini dies IV., in Ascensione Domini, in Pentecoste
dies IV., in Nat. S. Johannis, in Nat. Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et
Pauli, in Assumptione S. Mariæ, in Nat. S. Remedii [Remigii], in Missa
Michahelis, in Solemnitate Omnium Sanctorum, in Nat. S. Martini, in Nat.
S. Andreæ.”
Binterim published a Cologne calendar, apparently of the ninth century,
under the title _Kalendarium Ecclesiæ Germ. Coloniensis Sæculi Noni_
(Cologne, 1824), and Harless attributes it to the second half of the
same century (Archiv. f. die Gesch. des Niederrheins, vi. 67). It is,
however, much later, for it gives all the feasts of the apostles, and
provides them with vigils, and all the days of the year are filled in
with the names of saints. For these reasons I should date the calendar as
belonging to the eleventh century at the earliest.
5. The _Kalendarium Germanicum Pervetustum Sæc. X._, printed by M.
Fr. Beck (Aug. Vind., 1687). Gerbert (_Mon. Lit. Alem._ i. 455 A. I.)
correctly regards it as coming from Alsace and probably from Strassburg,
because it contains the saints venerated in that city, Arbogast (20th
July), Florentius, Ottilia and Aurelia. The basis of this document is
again the Roman Calendar, still many Frankish saints have been added, but
Gereon alone of the saints of Cologne. The latest date given in it is the
_Dormitio S. Uodalrici_ (4th July). It has only one name from the Old
Testament, that of the prophet Ezechiel.
6. A calendar of Freising, drawn up under Bishop Abraham, between 893 and
993. The 25th March is marked as _Conceptio Domini_. There is only one
feast of St Peter’s Chair. The calendar has been printed by Lechler,
“Mittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien in Bayern,” Freiburg, 1891.
7. The so-called _Martyrologium Stabulense_, the calendar of the
Monastery of Stablo. The date of the original MS. can be deduced from
the fact that on the _vii. Idus Junii_ the coronation of King Henry II.,
which was performed by Archbishop Willigis at Mainz on the 7th June 1002,
is entered by the first hand, while the ordination of Archbishop Tagino
of Magdeburg in the 2nd February 1004, has been entered by a second
hand. Archbishop Tagino’s death is not entered. The calendar has only
Gereon with 319 companions of the local saints of Cologne. St Ulrich of
Augsburg, although he died in 997, is entered by the second hand. The
calendar has been published by Martène, _Ampl. Coll._, and by Zaccaria,
_Antiq. Med. Ævi_ (see Migne, cxxxviii. 1194).
8. Hontheim has published the five most ancient calendars of Treves in
the _Prodromus Historiæ Trevirensis_, i. 378-405. According to him, only
the first belongs to the tenth century, all the others being later. For
a calendar of the tenth century, it is very full of names, many of them
being from the old Testament—Ezechial, Daniel, etc.; it mentions neither
the legend of the Innumerable Company of Martyrs at Treves on the 4th and
5th October, nor Palmatius, Thyrsus, etc.; neither does it contain All
Souls, St Catherine, or St Peter’s Chair, but it has Gereon and his 318
companions. It is only in the fourth and fifth calendars which belong
to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that Thyrsus, Palmatius, etc.,
appear.
When one considers the details presented by calendars, one is bound
to acknowledge that the Roman _Depositio Martyrum_ stands at the head
of this long line of liturgical documents, and was the model after
which they were composed. Like them, the _Depositio Martyrum_ was drawn
up according to months, and commenced with Christmas. Like them, it
contained the official list of the martyrs who received ecclesiastical
veneration in the local church of Rome in the fourth century. Were it
not so, it would not have deserved to be incorporated in the Philocalian
collection, the _Hemerologium Valentini_, since this comprised only
official documents; had it not been official it would not have been worth
transcribing.
CONCLUSION
All estates of men in the Church have had their share in the formation
of the ecclesiastical year, for the growth of the Church’s festivals has
continued without interruption from the beginning until now, and has
extended over all the countries of Christendom. Having wended our way
through the centuries and arrived at the conclusion of our work, it is a
pleasure to render our tribute of thanks and praise to the men who have
in the past made this sphere of study their own.
The few writers of the Middle Ages who treated the Church’s year and
the festivals of the saints in a comprehensive manner were entirely
occupied with contributing to the correct performance of ecclesiastical
ceremonies, and with explaining why each ceremony must be done in one
way and not in another. They not infrequently brought allegorical and
symbolical considerations to bear on the question.
In more modern times, Cornelius Schulting, a native of Steenwijk in
North Holland, and afterwards professor of theology at Cologne and canon
of St Andrew’s († 1604) undertook a full exposition of the matter; his
object was mainly practical, and his work can only be regarded as a first
attempt. The keen controversialist, Jacobus Gretser S.J. († 1625), is
more occupied with his polemic against the Calvinists than with lucid
demonstration. More in harmony with modern requirements, is the French
oratorian Louis Thomassin, a native of Aix in Provence, and a partisan of
Port Royal, who died in 1695; he wrote a small compendium which may be
used with profit at the present day.
The study of the ecclesiastical year was considerably advanced by the
labours of Adrien Baillet, born in 1649, in the diocese of Beauvais (†
1706), parish priest of a small country living at Baumont and librarian
to M. de Lamoignon; he was entirely devoted to the pursuit of knowledge,
and scarcely ever allowed himself any relaxation. He composed a great
work worthy of ranking alongside the labours of Tillemont, to whom he is
closely related in spirit. The course of his historical treatment of the
subject is considerably obscured by the superabundance of biographical
matter. Two valuable monographs were published by Prosper Lambertini
(Pope Benedict XIV.) when bishop of Bologna, which treat in a masterly
manner of the feasts of our Lord and of our Lady respectively.
Finally, the learned priest of Bilk, near Düsseldorf, Fr. Ant. Binterim
(† 1855) dealt with this subject in one volume of his _Denkwürdigkeiten_.
He treats in the first place of the observance of Sunday, then of the
Sundays of the Church’s year in general, and finally of the movable
and immovable feasts. Of these he naturally deals only with the most
important, following the order of the calendar, by which arrangement
Christmas comes last.
The author of this book commenced his researches by a comparative
study of the martyrologies, calendars, annals, and works dealing with
the computation of time, and then set to work upon the historical and
liturgical material which he had before him from the point of vantage
thus obtained. The fortunate circumstance that the most of the works
required for this branch of study are contained in Migne’s collection,
renders the labour of comparison possible, and frequently brings
remarkable parallels to light.
APPENDIX
I
(p. 16)
According to the existing Roman Calendar, feasts are classed as follows:—
DUPLICIA PRIMÆ CLASSIS. _Nativitas Domini, Epiphania, Annunciatio, Pascha
cum tribus antecedentibus et duobus sequentibus diebus, Ascensio Domini,
Pentecoste cum duobus sequentibus diebus, festum Corporis Christi, festum
SS. Cordis Jesu, festum S. Joseph sponsi B.M.V., Nativitas Joannis Bapt.,
festum SS. App. Petri et Pauli, Assumptio B.M.V., festum Immaculatæ
Conceptionis B.M.V., festum Omnium Sanctorum, Dedicatio propriæ ecclesiæ,
Patronus vel titulus ecclesiæ._
DUPLICIA SECUNDÆ CLASSIS. _Circumcisio Domini, festum SS. Nominis Jesu,
festum SS. Trinitatis, festum Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. J. Chr.,
Inventio Crucis, Purificatio, Visitatio, Nativitas B.M.V., Sollemnitas
S. Rosarii, Dedicatio Michælis Arch., festum Patrocinii S. Joseph sponsi
B.M.V., Natales Apostolorum et festa Evangelistarum, festum S. Stephani,
Protomartyris, SS. Innocentium, S. Laurentii, S. Annæ matris B.M.V., S.
Joachim patris B.M.V._
DUPLICIA MAJORA. _Transfiguratio Domini, Exaltatio S. Crucis, festa VII.
dolorum B.M.V., Commemoratio B.M.V. de monte Carmelo, festa Ad Nives, S.
Nominis, de Mercede, et Præsentatio, B.M.V., Apparitio S. Michælis Arch.,
festum SS. Angelorum Custodum, Decollatio S. Joannis Bapt., Cathedra
Petri utraque, S. Petri ad vincula, Conversio S. Pauli Ap., Commemoratio
S. Pauli Ap., festum S. Joannis ante Portam Latinam, S. Barnabæ Ap., S.
Benedicti Abb., S. Dominici Conf., S. Francisci Assis. Conf., festum
Patronorum non principalium._
II
(p. 24)
(_A_) A marked increase appears in the statute of Lanfranc, Archbishop
of Canterbury († 1089). He divides the festivals into three classes.
In the first class he reckons five, the three chief festivals of the
Christian year, the Assumption, and the feast of the local patron; in the
second, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Gregory, the Annunciation, Low Sunday,
St Alphege, the Ascension, St Augustine of Canterbury, the Octave of
Pentecost, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the
Translation of the Relics of St Benedict, the Nativity of our Lady, St
Michael, All Saints, St Andrew, and the Dedication of the Church; the
festivals belonging to the third class were St Vincent, the Conversion
of St Paul, SS. Philip and James, the Exaltation of the Cross (3rd May),
St James (29th July), St Peter’s Chains, St Lawrence, the Octave of the
Assumption, St Bartholomew, St Augustine of Hippo, the Beheading of St
John the Baptist, the Invention of the Cross, St Matthew, SS. Simon and
Jude, St Martin, and St Thomas.
Lanfranc issued this decree as archbishop, still it was only to hold good
for the Benedictine monasteries and the Cathedral.[833]
(p. 25)
(_B_) The festivals of obligation for the archdiocese of Cologne were
regulated according to the months by the provincial synod of 1308.
January: the Circumcision, Epiphany, St Agnes, the Conversion of St
Paul. February: Candlemas, St Peter’s Chair, St Matthias. March: the
Annunciation. April: Easter and St George. May: SS. Philip and James,
the Invention of the Cross. June: the Nativity of St John the Baptist,
SS. Peter and Paul. July: St Mary Magdalen, St James, St Pantaleon.
August: St Peter’s Chains, St Lawrence, the Assumption, St Bartholomew,
the Beheading of St John the Baptist. September: the Nativity of our
Lady, the Exaltation of the Cross, St Matthew, St Michael. October: St
Gereon, the Eleven Thousand Virgins, St Severin, SS. Simon and Jude.
November: All Saints, St Martin, St Cunibert, St Cecilia, St Catherine,
St Andrew. December: St Nicholas, St Thomas, Christmas, St Stephen, St
John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents. In all, forty-two days.[834] The
feasts of Easter and Pentecost extended over three days; the Ascension is
omitted. In the city of Cologne were celebrated in addition: the Arrival
of the relics of the Three Holy Kings on the 23rd July, the Dedication of
the Cathedral, SS. Cosmas and Damian, the Dedication and Patronal feast
of each parish church, and, finally, the feast of Corpus Christi was
enjoined in addition.
The Synod of 1549 under Adolf III. gives the following list: All
Sundays, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas—two days each, the third day _in
choro_ only—Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, the Holy Trinity, Corpus
Christi, these being feasts of our Lord. The feasts of our Lady are:
the Purification, the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Assumption, the
Nativity, the Presentation, and the Conception. Saints’ days are as
follows: all the Apostles, St John the Baptist, St Mary Magdalen, St
Lawrence, St Michael, All Saints, St Martin, and the Dedication of the
Church; there are also six other saints’ days which were optional for
places where they were customary. The feast of the Patron Saint is passed
over, and thus a decrease of fifteen festivals is brought about.[835]
(p. 26)
(_C_) The statute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves, published in 1338,
contains fewer festivals, _i.e._ Christmas, Easter with the three
following days and Pentecost with two, Corpus Christi, Circumcision,
and Epiphany. Our Lady’s feasts were: the Nativity, Annunciation,
Purification, and Assumption; a few years later her Conception was added.
Then came the festivals of the twelve apostles, St Michael (8th May),
the Invention of the Cross, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, St
Lawrence, St Martin, St Mary Magdalen, St Catherine, All Saints’, the
Holy Innocents, the Dedication of the Church and the feast of the Patron
Saint.
III
(p. 35)
THE FESTIVALS OF OBLIGATION AS OBSERVED IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
Rome. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, one day each; Circumcision,
Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph (19th March), the Annunciation, Ascension,
St Philip Neri (26th May), Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St John the
Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All
Saints, the Immac. Conc., St John the Evangelist (27th December). The
civil law of the Italian Kingdom recognises the following days as
legal holidays: the Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and
Paul, the feasts of Our Lady on the 15th August, 8th September, and 8th
December, Christmas and the patron saint of the city and diocese.
France. In accordance with the concordat of Napoleon four feasts were
celebrated: Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints. All
other festivals when they fell on a week day were transferred to the
following Sunday. Even in Belgium and in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg,
in the part of Limburg belonging to Holland, and in the bailiwick of
Meisenheim in the diocese of Treves, this scanty provision of feasts
holds good.
Austria. The Cis-and-Transleithan countries observe the same holy days.
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the Circumcision,
Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS.
Peter and Paul, the Assumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception.
The feasts of the patron saints were transferred by Joseph II. to the
following Sunday, but in each of the Crown-lands the local patron is
commemorated on his proper day, _i.e._ in Austria above and below the
Enns, the feast of St Leopold: in Upper Austria, St Florian: in Moravia,
SS. Cyril and Methodius: in Galicia, St Stanislaus and St Michael: in
Silesia, St Hedwig: in Bohemia, St Wenceslaus and St John Nepomuk: in
Styria, Carinthia, Camiola, the provinces of the Litoral, Salzburg, Tyrol
and Vorarlberg, St Joseph: in Sclavonia, St John the Baptist: in Hungary,
St Stephen the Confessor: in Croatia, St Elias: in Transilvania, St
Ladislaus: in Salzburg, St Rupert: in Dalmatia, St Jerome: in Goritz, St
Hermagoras and St Fortunatus.
In the eight old provinces of Prussia, the festivals recognised by
the state are: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the
Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter
and Paul, All Saints, the (Protestant) day of penitence and prayer, the
Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception. In the archdiocese of Posen,
the Nativity of Our Lady, and the Assumption as well as St Stanislaus
are observed, and in Gnesen, St George as patron of the diocese. The new
provinces have had also to adopt the Protestant day of penitence.
Hanover, the dioceses of Hildesheim and Osnabrück. Besides the days
observed in Prussia, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the Nativity
and Assumption of Our Lady, St Michael, and the local patrons St Bernward
and St Martin.
For the countries of the Northern Mission in the diocese of Osnabrück,
the following are omitted from the list just given: Nativity of St John
the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and all the feasts of Our Lady, thus
leaving only Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each with two days; the
Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, All Saints.
This applies to Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, both the
Mecklenburgs and Denmark.
Bavaria. The following festivals are observed: Christmas, Easter, and
Pentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St
Joseph, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of
St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of
Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Each diocese of Bavaria
celebrates its own particular patron as well.
The Palatinate, diocese of Spires. Here the effects of the French
dominion are still observable, and the only festivals of obligation
observed are: the Circumcision, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the
Assumption, All Saints. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are kept each
for two days.
The Kingdom of Saxony. The festivals of obligation are: the Circumcision,
the Epiphany and Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter
and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, the Immaculate
Conception, All Saints; Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each for two
days.
In the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine there are different
regulations in each diocese.
Würtemburg, diocese of Rottenburg. The Circumcision, the Epiphany,
Candlemas, the Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St
John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of
Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception; Christmas, Easter, and
Pentecost, each for two days.
Baden, archdiocese of Freiburg. The five chief feasts of Our Lady are
kept on the day itself; so too is the feast of St Joseph, and the other
festivals are the same as in Würtemburg, with the exception of the 24th
June.
Hesse-Nassau: the dioceses of Fulda and Limburg. Christmas, Easter and
Pentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas,
Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption,
All Saints; the Prussian day of penitence is observed in November, and
in Limburg, the patron saint on his own day.
Hesse-Darmstadt: diocese of Mainz. The same regulations as in the
Palatinate.
Alsace-Lorraine. The four French holy days. An edict of 10th October 1887
adds to these Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Whit Monday, as general
holidays in the legal sense, and as holidays and days of rest in the
sense of the Code de procédure civile.
In Holland, in the archdiocese of Utrecht, and in the diocese of Harlem,
the following rank as full holy days on which no work is to be done:
the day following the three chief feasts of the year, the Circumcision,
Epiphany, Annunciation, and the Assumption. It is of obligation to hear
mass only on Candlemas, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the Immaculate
Conception. In the dioceses of Breda and Bois-le-Duc, these three
festivals are days of full obligation.
For England, Pope Pius VI. appointed the following holy days on the
9th March 1777: Easter and Pentecost, each two days: Christmas, the
Circumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Annunciation,
the Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, and the feast of the
patron saint. At the present time are observed, Easter, Pentecost and
Christmas, one day each, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus
Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, and All Saints. St Andrew’s
day is added for Scotland, and St Patrick’s day and the Annunciation for
Ireland. The Immaculate Conception is a purely ecclesiastical festival.
Switzerland affords an interesting study owing to the great varieties
existing within so small a space. The diocese of Basel-Soleure:
Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Corpus Christi, the
Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception. In the canton of
Lucerne, St Joseph’s day and the Annunciation are celebrated, the latter
also in the canton of Zug. The three chief festivals are kept for day
only. The diocese of Coire, comprising the cantons of Grisons, Schwyz,
Uri, Unterwalden, Zurich, Glarus, and the principality of Liechtenstein:
the three chief festivals, each two days, the Circumcision, Epiphany,
Candlemas and St Joseph. The last two days do not rank as holy days
in the canton of Zurich, nor does the Annunciation in the cantons of
Zurich and Schwyz. The Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St
John the Baptist, and SS. Peter and Paul are not kept in either of these
two cantons, but the Assumption and All Saints are kept everywhere. The
Nativity of Our Lady is not kept in Zurich and Schwyz, but the Immaculate
Conception is kept everywhere except in the canton of Zurich. The
following patron saints are kept, St Fridolin (6th March) in the canton
of Glarus, Nicholas von der Flu (21st March) in Unterwalden, St Martin
with an octave in Schwyz and Uri, St Lucius (3rd Dec.) in Coire. St Gall,
comprising the cantons of St Gall and Appenzell, keeps the Epiphany,
Candlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Assumption, All Saints, and the
Immaculate Conception; the three chief feasts, each for two days, and
St Gall’s day (16th Oct.) as patron of the diocese. In the diocese of
Geneva-Lausanne, consisting of the four French cantons: the Circumcision,
the Epiphany (with the exception of the cantons of Geneva and Vaud),
Candlemas, the Annunciation (with the exception of Vaud and Neuchâtel),
the Ascension, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate
Conception (with the exception of Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchâtel). The three
chief feasts are kept for one day each. This is also the case in the
canton of Valais, diocese of Sion, but the following days are also kept
in this canton: the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation,
Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and
Paul, Assumption and Nativity of Our Lady and her Immaculate Conception,
and St Maurice as Patron Saint (22nd Sept.).
Russian Poland. The three chief feasts, each for two days, the
Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension,
Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul,
Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception,
St Stanislaus as patron. This last named day is not observed in the
schools and law-courts on account of its nationalistic character.
Spain. The Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation,
Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul,
Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception,
Christmas. The three chief festivals are kept for only one day each.
Portugal. The three chief festivals for one day each. The Circumcision,
Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi,
the Sacred Heart, St Antony of Padua (13th June), SS. Peter and Paul,
Assumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Before the last
reduction, the Nativity of Our Lady, and from mid-day on Maundy Thursday
to mid-day on Good Friday were also holy days of obligation. Lisbon keeps
the feast of St Vincent (22nd January) as patron of the city.
The United States observe only six festivals which may fall on week-days;
all the others are transferred to the Sunday. These are Christmas, the
Circumcision, Ascension, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate
Conception. The three chief festivals are kept for one day only. Since
the number of festivals varied originally in the different states, an
attempt was made after uniformity, and the council of Baltimore in 1852
desired to retain only four festivals as in France. Rome, however, was
not satisfied with this, and, in 1866, the six festivals mentioned above
were adopted. The provincial synod of Cincinnati in 1861 agreed to adopt
the Epiphany, Annunciation, and Corpus Christi as well.
Brazil. The three chief festivals, each for one day. The Circumcision,
Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity
of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity of Our
Lady, All Saints and the Immaculate Conception.
Russia. Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany,
Ascension, Transfiguration, Candlemas, Annunciation, our Lady’s
Presentation and Assumption, and the Exaltation of the Cross (14th
Sept). All these are, of course, kept according to the Julian calendar.
To these are added the following feasts peculiar to Russia: the three
feasts of the Jordan so-called, _i.e._ the Blessing of the Water, and the
thirteen so-called Gala-feasts, _i.e._ the commemoration of the reigning
dynasty (see _Kirchenlexikon_, X., 2nd ed. 1399). The schismatics in
Austria-Hungary keep their festivals according to the Julian calendar, so
that where the population is mixed, each feast is as a rule kept twice.
IV
(p. 71)
For many centuries the liturgical vestments were exclusively white, like
the ordinary dress of classic times. The writers of the Carolingian
period in their desire to find parallels between the enactments of the
Old and New Testaments, were the first to remember that different colours
were used in the vestments of the Jewish high priest. In addition to the
white under garment which he wore in common with the simple priests, he
wore an upper garment of blue, and a particoloured shoulder-garment, the
ephod, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, interwoven with gold
thread. The repeated references to these vestments gradually led to the
adoption of coloured vestments for the mass.[836]
Their introduction was at first tentative. Neither Rupert of Deutz,
Honorius of Autun, Beleth, nor Hugh of St Victor mention the liturgical
colours in their writings, or, if they do, only with reference to the Old
Testament; Sicard of Cremona, a contemporary of Innocent III., clearly
alludes to them, although he only mentions two—white and red.[837]
Innocent III. was the first to speak of all the liturgical colours, and
to regulate their use in the Roman Church, but always with reference to
the regulations of the Old Testament. According to him, white was to be
used on the feasts of Confessors, Virgins, and Angels, and on Christmas,
Epiphany, Candlemas, Maundy Thursday, and the Ascension; it was used as a
matter of course on all other days where it was not otherwise specified,
since until then white had been the universal liturgical colour. Red
vestments were to be worn on feasts of Apostles and Martyrs. On feasts
of the Holy Cross a choice between white and red was allowed. Red was to
be used on Pentecost in memory of the fiery tongues, and on the feast
of SS. Peter and Paul. On the Conversion of St Paul and on the feast of
St Peter’s Chair, white was to be used. White was the colour for the
Nativity of St John the Baptist, red for his Beheading. On All Saints
many used red vestments, but the Roman Church used white, because it is
said in the Apocalypse that the saints stand before the Lamb in white
garments, with palms in their hands.
Black vestments are to be worn on days of penitence and abstinence, and
also on the Commemorations of the dead. They were also worn during Advent
and Lent, except, of course, on festivals falling within those seasons.
With regard to the Holy Innocents some decided in favour of black, some
in favour of red, but the Roman pontiff decided for violet. For ferias
and ordinary days the colour was green. One might, in addition, wear
scarlet for red, violet for black, and yellow for green.
In Durandus († 1296) we find the same rule, in parts verbally identical
with the above. The only point to notice in regard to what he says is
that he says black vestments are to be worn on Rogation days, violet
seems to have the preference over black for Advent and Lent, and the use
of the former colour is represented as peculiar to the Roman Church.[838]
There is accordingly nothing strange in the circumstance that in the more
ancient rituals, only _vestes solleminores_ in general are prescribed
for Maunday Thursday, without reference to colour. The Roman use,[839]
from the beginning, was to use white on this day, and this superseded the
customs observed elsewhere.[840]
V
(p. 79)
THE WORD MASS AS A NAME FOR THE SACRIFICE OF THE ALTAR
The term mass does not owe its position to theology, but became
established in the course of centuries by popular usage. The most
ancient writers of the church speak frequently, and with all the
precision desirable of the holy sacrifice of the altar, but they speak of
it by other names which fully indicate its essential character, such as
_oblatio_ and _sacrificium_, or even _sacramenta_ and _collecta_. These
two last names have a more general significance; _collecta_ is the late
Latin abbreviation for _collectio_, and means an assembly of men for some
given purpose, in this case for divine service. _Colligere_ appears in
the same sense in the Latin translation of Irenæus and in Tertullian; the
substantive is found in Jerome and other ancient authors; a survival of
this primitive usage appears in the name _collecta_ given to the first
prayer of the Mass.[841] It owes its name of _collecta_ to the fact that
according to the most ancient ritual it formed the commencement of the
Mass. In the service-books, _collecta_ was merely a name which served
to distinguish the prayers of the Mass from those which preceded or
followed. According to the Roman rite, the Mass began with the prayer of
the priest at the altar as soon as the _invitatorium_ sung by the choir
was finished, the psalm _Judica me_, the _Confiteor_, the _Kyrie_ and
_Gloria_ being later additions. Thus the name _collecta_ became attached
to this opening prayer, and is so given to it in most mediæval and Roman
missals, until the reform under Pius V., when it was replaced by the name
_oratio_ now in use. At the same time the name _postcommunio_ replaced
the older title _ad complendum_. Whenever we find in prayer-books and
explanations of the Mass, that the prayer was called the Collect because
the priest “collected” the petitions of the faithful, we can only regard
such an interpretation as silly and unhistorical; the same could be said
equally well of all, or, at any rate, of most of the prayers of the Mass.
The term _sacramentum_ or _sacramenta_ served also not unfrequently as a
name for the Mass,[842] and so gave rise to the name _sacramentarium_,
generally given to the missal in ancient times. In addition to these
names, _oblatio_ and _sacrificio_ were especially employed as having
the advantage of adequately expressing the essential character of the
rite. The former was the particular favourite of Tertullian, the founder
of Latin ecclesiastical terminology, and afterwards of St Cyprian, but
it may be said to belong to all writers and to all periods.[843] St
Augustine, who had already propounded a formal theory of the sacrifice of
the Mass, shows a preference for _sacrificium_.[844]
When we turn to the word _missa_, we must not treat it as a participle,
even in the _Ite missa est_, for there is nothing with which the feminine
participle can agree, and so it must be a substantive. In order to
explain the meaning of this substantive, and to show how it acquired its
position as the technical term for the most sacred act of the Church’s
worship, requires an excursus dealing with the matter from the point of
view of etymology, patrology, and liturology. As regards the etymology
of the word, attempts have been made from time to time to derive _missa_
from the Hebrew, (מסּה Deut., xvi. 10), in the belief the name must
be as old as the thing it signifies, an attempt abandoned as absurd at
the present day.[845] A better idea was that of the mediæval liturgists
who explained the word as equivalent to _transmissio_ in the sense of the
offering up and presentation of the oblation before God. But fortunately
there is one man, thoroughly conversant at first hand with primitive
usages and terminology, who has left us an explanation of the word and
of the origin of its application to the sacrifice of the altar. Bishop
Avitus, of Vienne († 518), flourished at the period between the ages of
antiquity and the mediæval period, and is, therefore, a reliable witness
in this matter. He was asked by his sovereign, King Gundobad of Burgundy,
what was the meaning of the word _missa_, and replied that _missam
facere_ was the same as _dimittere_, and was used by the Romans at both
audiences in the royal palace and sittings of the law courts to intimate
to the assembly that the audience or session was at an end and that
they were free to depart; it was used in the same way in the churches.
Avitus[846] himself uses _missa_ simply for divine service.
It is clear that the explanation given by Avitus is correct. For since
the conclusion of every session and assembly must be officially announced
with words such as, “The session is at an end,” so in church, where
a still greater number of men meet together, it is necessary to make
known to them the conclusion of divine service. Such was the custom
of the ancient Romans at their sacrifices and religious ceremonies,
and the Christians naturally did the same. Tertullian speaks already
of a _dimissio plebis_,[847] and we find the same thing in the Greek
liturgies, although the formulæ vary in some respects from that in use
among the Latins.[848]
It was not, however, the Mass which was first called by this name, but
the other services of the ancient Church—the Psalmody, or, in other
words, the Canonical Hours. From the striking account given by the
so-called Silvia,[849] we can see how important these services were and
what a prominent position they occupied in the worship of the Church.
“Every day, in the early morning, the doors of the church were opened,
and all the monks and nuns, as well as many of the laity, assembled, and
until sunrise, sing hymns and psalms, in alternate choirs, along with the
antiphons and prayers. About sunrise they begin to say the ‘_matutinas
ymnos_.’ The bishop arrives with the clergy and sings the prayer within
the chancel. Then he comes forth and blesses the people one by one. _Et
sic fit missa_,” _i.e._ so the service ends, which comprised Nocturns,
Lauds, and Prime, as they would now be called. The same ceremonies were
observed at the Little Hours which followed later. Vespers were performed
with more ceremony; at the conclusion the deacon directed the faithful
to bow their heads in order to receive the bishop’s blessing. Again the
pilgrim ends her description with the words, “_Et sic fit missa_.”
We must notice that the Psalmody took place daily in this way, while the
Mass, especially in the East, was not celebrated daily; in Lent, for
example, it was celebrated on Saturdays and Sundays only. At each hour
there took place a dismissal, _missa_, and thus it was brought about that
this word came to be used as a name for each of the canonical hours.
The name was far-fetched and unsuitable, but popular usage does not
form its nomenclature upon scientific principles, but from what most
strikes the popular fancy. Thus the pilgrim, who expresses herself in
popular language, speaks of _missa vigiliarum_, for Mattins, and _missa
lucernaris_ for Vespers. The word _missa_ in itself means dismissal
and nothing more. Once, in her naïve manner, she explains what sort
of dismissal she means; it is dismissal out of the church (“_missa de
ecclesia_,” c. 37, § 3, line 20). Which of the various dismissals out of
the church is intended in a given case is shown by an additional phrase,
as in the cases given above, when it is not clear from the context. Of
course it may mean the dismissal which took place at the Mass, but not
the sacrifice of the Mass itself. How far _missa_ is from being in the
pilgrim’s diary the technical term for Mass—which is all we are concerned
with here—is sufficiently clear from the circumstance that wherever she
lets slip the word _missa_ for Mass, she at once hastens to add that the
_missa_ of which she speaks is the _oblatio_.[850] When she wishes to
express herself with precision, she always calls the Mass _oblatio_, and
in a few cases _sacramentum_ (singular or plural). Of course _missa_, as
a general term, may have been used as a name for the Mass, since there
are one or more dismissals therein; had it not been so, _missa_ could
never have become the name _par excellence_ for the Mass.
The same terminology is found at a somewhat later date in Cassian, to
whom we are especially indebted for our intimate knowledge of monastic
observances. An important part of these observances were the daily hours
of prayer, the canonical hours, and we naturally expect to find the
technical terms for them in Cassian’s writings. And so, indeed, we find
the names formed with the help of the word _missa_, as in Silvia’s diary;
Mattins and Lauds are called _missa nocturna_ or _missa vigiliarum_,[851]
while the Mass, on the other hand, is called _oblatio_ or _sacrificium_.
From these passages it appears that _missa_ in its strict sense means
“dismissal,” and is a general term capable of receiving a particular
significance by the addition of _vigiliarum_, etc. The same thing appears
in Pope Innocent I. (_Epist._ 17, c. 12; MIGNE, xx. 535), where he
speaks of the priests belonging to the party of Bonosus, and asks if
they have celebrated Mass, which he calls _sacramenta conficere_, if
they have given Holy Communion (_si populis tribuit_), and if they have
performed the customary dismissals (_si missas complevit_). Apart from
the fact that in the same passage two different terms cannot well stand
for the same thing, the use of the plural shows that it is not the Mass
which is meant but the other _missæ_, the hours, the performance of
which concerned both the bishop and the priests. There is no doubt as
to which term Leo I. used for the Mass, for _oblatio_ and _sacrificium_
occur several times in his writings. When in one passage we find the
word _missa_ as well, this can only mean the dismissal, the conclusion
of divine service.[852] Thus even in the fifth century _missa_ by
itself always meant merely dismissal, never Mass; for Mass, the terms
_sacrificium_ and _oblatio_ were employed.
This was the correct use of the terms in question during that period. But
since, as we have said, the ceremonial dismissals (_missæ_) at the end of
divine service gave rise to the name, and since dismissals of this kind
occurred in the Mass,[853] once at the end and once after the sermon at
the dismissal of the Catechumens, it is not remarkable that _missa_ came
into use as a name for the Mass, and came to be regarded as its special
name in proportion as the canonical hours became less services for the
laity than of obligation for clergy and religious. There was however an
intermediate period before _missa_ became solely and exclusively the
popular name for the Mass. This transitional state of affairs extended
over the whole of the sixth century, and appears in the writings of
St Benedict and St Gregory the Great, who both employ _missa_ without
distinction as a name for the Mass and for the canonical hours.[854]
The same thing appears in Gregory of Tours and in other writers. The
last appearance of _missa_ as a name for both kinds of divine service
without distinction appears to be a passage in the life of St Ludgerus by
Altfrid.[855]
The terminology employed by the official organs of the Church is
naturally of weight in this matter. When the authorities of the Church
made use of a term so little expressive of the nature of the thing as
_missa_, which had already taken the popular fancy, it was inevitable
that it should become the only recognised name for the Mass; and this
is just what happened. On glancing through the canons of the ancient
Councils of the West, we find all the terms with which we are already
familiar—_oblatio_ by the Council of Arles in 314 (Canons 5 and 19), and
_sacrificium_ by the Councils of Carthage (that of 390, Canon 8; that
of 397, Canon 14), etc. We also find the term _missæ_ applied to the
particular parts of the Psalmody,[856] and to the other services composed
of Psalmody and Mass together.[857] As a term clearly and unmistakably
applied to the Mass by itself, _missa_ appears for the first time in the
fourth Synod of Arles in 524 (Canon 4), and then in sundry other Gallic
synods of the sixth century.
On the other hand it must be stated once for all that _missa_ in the
sense of Mass is not to be found in the fourth century. The one solitary
instance which for a long time seemed to countenance such a view is
in a letter of St Ambrose,[858] in which he tells his sister of the
attempts made by the Arians on Palm Sunday 385 to gain possession of the
principal church of Milan. Ambrose was performing divine service, the
homily was concluded, and he was just on the point of dismissing the
catechumens, when the alarming news arrived that the Arians has seized
a basilica situated outside the walls; he did not allow himself to be
upset by the news, but remained where he was, dismissed the catechumens,
and commenced the Mass, during which he received further information
concerning the tumult. The question turns upon the words, “Ego tamen
mansi in munere, missam facere cœpi. Dum offero,” etc. Hitherto _missa_
has here been always taken in the sense of Mass, but it has really the
sense of dismissal. For on Palm Sunday in Milan, the so-called _traditio
symboli_ to the more advanced class of catechumens was performed with
much ceremony, something like a first Communion with us; on this day a
twofold dismissal of the catechumens was necessary, the first of the
lower class of catechumens, because they must not yet learn the creed
which was now to be recited by the more advanced, and then followed the
dismissal of the more advanced catechumens, the _competentes_, because
these, as being still unbaptised, could not yet assist at the Mass.
Against this interpretation it has been urged[859] that _missa_ must
mean Mass, because, the act of dismissal being so short, Ambrose
could scarcely have said, “Missam facere cœpi,” had he meant only the
dismissal of the catechumens. How long an act must continue in order
that its beginning, middle, and ending may be observable depends upon
circumstances, but the dismissal of the _competentes_ was sometimes far
from brief. The Apostolic Constitutions, for instance, give a formula
for this act, and the prayers used cover three printed pages (_Constit.
Apost._, 8, 5, § 6 to 6, § 4). At the dismissal of the candidates for
baptism, three prayers were recited (_ib._ 8, 7, § 2, to c. 7, § 1), one
by the deacon, one by the catechumens, and one by the bishop, who then
gave his blessing. Then followed an address by the bishop, of which we
have two examples, in the 215th and 216th of the sermons of St Augustine.
The act lasted long enough to have a beginning, middle, and ending.
From what has been said, we conclude, _missa_ appears in the fourth
century as a technical name for the various parts of divine service,
especially for the canonical hours. During the sixth and seventh
centuries it became a technical term for the Mass, and gradually usurped
the place of other names for the Mass. These, however, survived in
isolated instances until the ninth century, but disappeared entirely in
the Middle Ages.
VI
(p. 142)
ON THE DATE FOR CHRISTMAS IN HIPPOLYTUS
Considering the uncertainty as to the day of our Lord’s birth shown by
Clement of Alexandria, and the reserve which Irenæus and Tertullian
maintain on the same point, it is surprising to find the most precise
data given for its determination by a writer very little posterior to
those just mentioned. In the commentary of Hippolytus on Dan. iv. 23 (in
Bratke’s ed., 19), we read in the text discovered in 1885; “The first
Advent of our Lord in the flesh, when He was born in Bethlehem, happened
on the eighth day before the calends of January, on a Wednesday, in the
forty-second year of Augustus, in the year 5500, reckoning from Adam. He
suffered in His thirty-third year, on the eighth day before the calends
of April (25th March), on a Friday, in the eighteenth year of Tiberius,
when Rufus and Rubellius were consuls.”[860]
Not merely the astonishing minuteness of the data, but also the
circumstance that this passage is to be found in a shorter form in a
fragment, long well known to scholars, preserved in the Chigi Library in
Rome, coupled with the fact that ancient ecclesiastical writers quote
from it the year of world alone,[861] must give rise to doubts concerning
the longer form of the passage in itself, as well as concerning the
separate data of which it is composed.
If we turn our attention first to these separate data, we find the names
of the consuls wrongly given; their names are Fufius and Rubellius, not
Rufus and Rubellius. Mistakes in the names of consuls are certainly
not rare in Eastern writers, but in the case of a man like Hippolytus,
who lived in Rome, such a mistake is very astonishing, since he could
easily have found out the right names. Next, according to the authentic
Hippolytus, our Lord’s life lasted only thirty-one years, and not
thirty-three; this appears from the passage in the so-called _Liber
Generationis_ representing in a Latin translation part of the “Chronicle”
which, according to the inscription on his statue, Hippolytus had
composed.[862] Again, the eighteenth year of Tiberius is also wrong. The
forty-second year of Augustus and the two week-days may be correct (see
_Comm. Dan._, 4, 9; in Bratke 8), for the latter appear also in the same
connection in the inscription on the statue. Wednesday found acceptance
as the day of Christ’s birth owing to the Messias being called in Malachy
iv. 2, “the Sun of Justice,” from which it was inferred that He must have
been born on the same day of the week as that on which the visible sun
had been created (Gen. i. 19).
But, moreover, the days of the week have been interpolated into the text,
since they do not fit in with the sequence of thought but rather disturb
it. The aim of Hippolytus was here to calm the Christians agitated by
the persecution of Severus; many went so far as to think that the last
day was close at hand, and Hippolytus opposed himself to this alarm by
declaring God had created the world in six days, with God a thousand
years are as one day (Ps. lxxxix. 4), and thus the world would last six
thousand years. Until the birth of Christ only five thousand five hundred
years had passed, and so the end of the world was not to be expected yet.
In such a train of thought, what place is there for days of the week
and consulates? The late origin of the passage is also betrayed by the
parallel grouping of the data given, for elaborate attempts of this kind
were popular in the Middle Ages, but not in primitive times. Accordingly
only the year 5500 of the world, and perhaps also the forty-second year
of Augustus, belong to the original form of the passage in Hippolytus,
all the rest having being added by a later hand.[863]
VII
(p. 158)
CHRISTMAS IN ENGLAND DURING THE COMMONWEALTH
Christmas was abolished in England in the seventeenth century during
the reign of the Puritans, and its prohibition was strictly enforced.
In 1644, after the overthrow of the monarchy, when the Puritans came
into power, an Act of Parliament forbade all observance of Christmas,
for it was held that Christmas was not originally a Christian festival
at all, but was of heathen origin. Parliament directed that the 25th
December, “which had hitherto been commonly called Christmas Day,” was
to be kept as a fast. This law remained in force for sixteen years,
and during this period the enactment was repeated and made still more
stringent. No church dare be opened, no service of any kind held; the
law expressly enacted that on Christmas Day everyone was to go on as
usual with his work, and every merchant who shut his shop on this day
was brought before the judge and punished. Markets were held on this day
which had hitherto been held on other days, merely to make it impossible
to keep the day as a festival. Plum-pudding and mince pies were branded
as heathenish inventions. The soldiers were charged to break into houses
in order to see that no one had food in his home such as used to be
eaten at Christmas and when anything of this kind was discovered, the
soldiers were to seize it and the people were punished into the bargain.
There were naturally some who refused to abstain from the celebration
of Christmas in obedience to these directions of the Parliament; many
ministers performed service in their churches and several of them were
taken before the judge and punished. In different places disturbances
broke out, especially owing to the orders of Parliament that markets
were to be held on Christmas Day while they were forbidden on other days
of the week. In Canterbury, for instance, there was a general riot; the
whole town was divided into two parties—those who observed Christmas
and their opponents, and the festival of peace ended in a general row;
many houses of the town were totally destroyed and some set on fire.
Charles II. made it his aim to revoke as quickly as possible the laws
passed during the Commonwealth, and so before long Christmas was once
more observed as before. The Nonconformists, however, long held by
their determination not to celebrate Christmas, and they kept a sharp
look-out that at least their ministers should eat no Christmas pudding
or mince pies; they called Yuletide Fooltide. In Scotland, Christmas
is still regarded as something heathenish; the Presbyterians will have
nothing whatever to do with its celebration, and throughout the country
no special notice is of it as a religious feast. [This, of course, only
refers to the Protestants of Scotland. Trans.]
VIII
(p. 173)
EXCURSUS ON THE THREE HOLY KINGS
Epiphany is a feast of our Lord and not the feast of the Three Holy
Kings, although it is popularly called so, and, in the liturgy for the
day, they are referred to. In a small number of dioceses, and only at a
late date, they have been the object of a cultus, but in the calendars
and menologies of the principal Churches they find no place; ancient
ecclesiastical literature and tradition has also nothing to relate of
them. Only in the twelfth century did they emerge from oblivion when
the imperial chancellor, Rainald von Dassel, afterwards Archbishop of
Cologne, translated their reputed relics to Cologne, 23rd July 1164,
having received them as a gift from Frederick Barbarossa after the
destruction of Milan. Until this time they had rested in the little
Church of St Eustorgius at Milan, to which they are said to have been
brought from Constantinople. The life of St Eustorgius, Bishop of Milan,
315-331, relates how this happened:—there lived in Constantinople a pious
man called Eustorgius, a Greek by birth, and a favourite and adviser of
the emperor. (The name of the emperor is passed over in silence by the
author.) He sent Eustorgius as ambassador—the purpose of the embassy is
not disclosed—to the province of Liguria, of which the capital is called
Milan—which, however, is a mistake. Eustorgius won the affections of the
Milanese to such a degree that they desired to have him as their bishop;
after long resistance he consented, and went to the emperor in order
to obtain his approval. The emperor rejoiced over the love which his
ambassador had inspired, as Gratian had rejoiced over the appointment
of St Ambrose, ratified the election, and forthwith remitted all taxes
to the Milanese (!). Eustorgius was unwilling to return empty-handed
and begged for some relics from the emperor with which to enrich his
bishopric. The emperor allowed him to take whatever he liked, and he
chose the relics of the Three Holy Kings, which had been sent from the
East by Helena. A church was now built in Milan in which the relics were
laid, where they attracted a great concourse of pilgrims and devotees.
The author regrets that he is not in a position to give us further
information concerning the doings of Bishop Eustorgius, but he merely
tells us that he died on the 18th October and was succeeded by Dionysius.
This is incorrect for Protasius came first. The author of this document
must have lived in Milan, for he gives some correct dates in the
ecclesiastical history of Milan; nevertheless, gross blunders against
historical truth and other indications show that we are dealing with a
thoroughgoing fabrication of the eleventh century based upon events in
the life of St Ambrose. The names Gaspar, Melchior, Baltassar make their
first appearance here. A still more naïve account is given in a sermon
belonging to the end of the twelfth century, Eustorgius being made a
contemporary of the Emperor Comnenus; this is printed in Floss.
Contemporaries who had the opportunity of seeing the relics, state that
the remains were embalmed and incorrupt; to judge from the face and hair,
one of the bodies was that of a boy of about fifteen years; they were
in an excellent state of preservation considering their age. The story
of their translation to Milan is obviously a romance and the search for
their bodies by Helena is formed upon the recognised model according
to which Helena steps in to effect what cannot be otherwise explained.
And so there is no doubt that we are face to face with a remarkably
successful fabrication, such as were, unfortunately, by no means rare in
the Middle Ages. In Cologne, the Three Holy Kings—all three of them—were
at once set down as martyrs, although it is difficult to see how they
would have suffered, granting them to have been kings. The Carmelite John
of Hildesheim composed a popular _Vita Trium Regum_, composed in a simple
style, which was widely read. See USENER, ii. 7-10, and the instructive
treatise of H. J. Floss, “Dreikönigenbuch,” Cologne, 1864. The _Vita
Eustorgii_ is only to be found in Mombritius, _Sanctuarium_, i. 166.
IX
(p. 182)
THE GREEK ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR
The Greek ecclesiastical year begins not with Advent but with Easter, or
rather with the season preparatory to Easter, _i.e._ according to our
phraseology, with Septuagesima Sunday.[864]
Κυριακὴ τοῦ τελώνου καὶ φαρισαίου. The Sunday of the Publican
and the Pharisee; so called on account of the Gospel for the
day, St Luke xviii. 9-14.
Κυριακὴ τοῦ ἀσώτου or προσφωνήσιμος. The Sunday of the Prodigal
Son, the Gospel being St Luke xv. 11-32.
Κυριακὴ ἀπόκρεως,[865] corresponds with Septuagesima Sunday of
the Latins, and is called Abstinence Sunday because with it
Lent with its abstinence from flesh-meat commences. The week
following is called Butter-Week by the Russians, because the
use of _lacticinia_ is still permitted. The Gospel, St Matthew
xxv. 31-46, refers to Christ’s return at the last judgment. On
this account, the Sunday is also called κυριακὴ τῆς παρουσίας.
Κυριακὴ τῆς τυροφάγου. Sunday of Cheese-Eating, because
from henceforth the use of _lacticinia_ is also forbidden
(Sexagesima of the Latins).
Κυριακὴ πρὼτη τῶν νηστειῶν ἢτοι ὀρθοδοξίας. The first Sunday in
Lent, called Orthodox Sunday in memory of the conclusion of the
iconoclastic controversy (corresponding to Quinquagesima).
Κυριακὴ δευτέρα, τρίτη, τετάρτη, πέμπτη τῶν νηστειῶν. The
second to the fifth Sundays in Lent, corresponding to the first
to the fourth of the Latins.
Κυριακὴ τῶν βαΐων: Palm Sunday from βαΐς a palm.
Ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη πέμπτη: Maundy Thursday.
Ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη παρασκευή: Good Friday.
Τὸ ἅγιον καὶ μέγα σάββατον: Holy Saturday.
Ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη κυριακὴ τοῦ πάσχα: Easter Day; ἡ ἕβδομας
διακαινήσιμος, _i.e._, the Week of Renewing, Easter Week.
Κυριακὴ τοῦ ἀντιπάσχα καινή: Whitsunday, called also νέα
κυριακὴ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Θωμᾶ, as the Gospel relates St
Thomas’s unbelief, St John xx. 19 _seqq._ At the end of mass
blessed bread is distributed to the people.
Κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων μυροφόρων γυναικῶν καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου: the
Sunday of the Women who brought incense and Joseph the Just.
See St Mark xvi. 1-7; St Luke xxiv. 1-10.
Κυριακὴ τοῦ παραλύτου: the Sunday of the palsied man. See Acts
ix. 32 _seqq._
Κυριακὴ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδας or Μεσηπεντηκοστῆς: the Sunday of the
Samaritan woman, from the Gospel St John iv. 1-42.
Κυριακὴ τοῦ τυφλοῦ: the Sunday of the man born blind; the
Sunday before the Ascension.
Τῇ πεμπτῇ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως with the following week, ἕβδομας
άναλήψιμος.
Κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων 318 θεοφόρων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ
συνελθέντων, dedicated to the commemoration of the first
general council; the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension.
Κυριακὴ τῆς ἁγίας πεντηκοστῆς, Whitsunday.
Κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων πάντων: our Trinity Sunday is among the
Greeks kept as the festival of All Saints, and is preceded by a
fast. From this onwards until the exaltation of the Holy Cross,
the 14th September, the gospels for the Sundays are taken from
St Matthew. Hence the sixteen following Sundays are called
Matthew-Sundays.
Κυριακὴ δευτέρα to δεκάτη τετάρτη τοῦ Ματθαίου.
Κυριακὴ πρὸ τῆς ὑψώσεως: Sunday before the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross (the 15th after Matthew).
Κυριακὴ μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν: Sunday after the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross (the 16th after Matthew).
Κυριακὴ πρώτη τοῦ Λουκᾶ to κυριακὴ δωδεκάτη τοῦ Λουκᾶ, also
called the Sunday of the Holy Patriarchs (τῶν προπατόρων).
Κυριακὴ πρὸ τὴς Χριστοῦ γεννήσεως: the Sunday before Christmas,
also called the Sunday of all the Holy Fathers.
Ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννησις: Christmas.
Κυριακὴ μετὰ τὴν Χριστοῦ γέννησιν: Sunday after Christmas.
Ἡ τοῦ κυρίου περιτομή: the Circumcision.
Κυριακὴ πρὸ τῶν φώτων: the Sunday of Lights. See above, page
168. The Sunday before Epiphany. Among the Latins a _dominica
vacans_.
The remaining four Sundays of the Greek ecclesiastical year serve to fill
up the inequality due to Easter falling earlier or later, in the same
manner as in the Latin rite. One, two, or all four of them, as occasion
requires, are inserted after Epiphany. They are the Sundays (1) κυριακὴ
μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, the first after Epiphany, which is pressed into use when
Easter falls in March; (2) the twelfth Sunday after St Luke; (3) the
fifteenth after St Luke (the two Sundays in the Christmas season are
reckoned as the thirteenth and fourteenth after St Luke since their
gospels are taken from that evangelist); (4) the seventeenth Sunday after
St Matthew. All four are required when Easter falls on the 22-25 April.
In this way the gaps between the end of the old ecclesiastical year and
the beginning of the new are filled up.
As far as the immovable feasts are concerned, the Greeks divide all
feasts, both movable and immovable, into four classes. The first and
highest class contains: Christmas, Epiphany (6th January), Candlemas (2nd
February, ὑπαπάντη τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν), the Annunciation (ὁ εύαγγελισμός),
Easter, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Transfiguration,
the Assumption (ἡ κοίμησις, 15th August), our Lady’s Nativity (8th
September), the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14th September), and the
_Presentatio B.M.V._ (21st November).
Somewhat lower in rank are the _Circumcisio_, _Nativitas S. Joannis
Bapt._ (24th June), SS. Peter and Paul (29th June), and the _Decollatio
S. Joannis Bapt._ (29th August). It is not necessary here to enumerate
the remaining feasts.
X
(p. 248)
ENGLISH WRITERS AND THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
The well known Doctor of the Church, Anselm, was born of a German stock,
as his name implies, at Aosta in 1036. In 1053 he entered the Benedictine
order at Bec in Normandy where Lanfranc was at that time abbot. In 1078
he was himself elected abbot of the monastery, and in this capacity was
brought into relation with William the Conqueror and William Rufus.
During an illness of the latter, he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury
at the end of 1093 and his appointment was confirmed by the king. Serious
misunderstandings soon arose between them on the questions of investiture
and Church property, and Anselm was obliged to go to Rome, where he
remained until the king’s death. Further misunderstandings, moreover,
soon arose between him and William’s successor, Henry I., which detained
him in France, until an agreement was arrived at in 1106, by which he was
enabled to return to England and to his bishopric. He died there on the
21st April 1109.
His nephew, Anselm the younger, came from Lombardy, and as a youth
had entered the monastery of St Michael at Chiusa, and received his
theological training from the Benedictines of Canterbury.[866] After
his uncle’s death, he was for a short time abbot of St Saba in Rome. In
1115 he was chosen by the pope to bring the pallium to the newly elected
Archbishop of Canterbury, Radulf. As legate, he strongly maintained the
rights of the pope in the election of bishops, and consequently fell
under King Henry’s displeasure, and had to retire to France until a
reconciliation had been effected between the King and Pope Calixtus II.
He was then elected abbot of Bury St Edmond’s and confirmed as such in
1121. Here he remained until his death on the 11th January 1148. The
attempt of a section of the chapter of St Paul’s in 1136 to make him
bishop led to no result, but rather caused him much annoyance.
The Anglo-saxon, Eadmer or Edmer, was a disciple and faithful attendant
of the older Anselm. Born in Kent, he entered the monastery at Canterbury
and accompanied Anselm in his banishment to Rome. After Anselm’s death,
he lived in retirement from which he emerged for a short time in 1120
to be Bishop of St Andrews in Scotland. But after a year he resigned
and returned to his monastery, where he died after 1124. He wrote a
history of England, a number of lives of English saints, and some
theological treatises, two of which were in praise of the Mother of God
(_De Excellentia Virg. Mariæ_ and _De Quatuor Virtutibus Mariæ_). It
has been recently conclusively proved that he is also the author of a
treatise on our Lady’s conception (_De Conceptione S. Mariæ_), hitherto
generally attributed to one or other of the two Anselms.[867] In his
work on the Excellences of our Lady, in which her share in the work and
sufferings of Christ is brought into prominence, Eadmer adopts a neutral
position with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and
admits the possibility that she was purified from original sin only
at the Annunciation. In the last-named composition, however, which
advocates the introduction of the festival, he endeavours to establish
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and defends it warmly, and
not unskilfully, against many objections, having, as he says, upon more
mature consideration of the matter, recognised its correctness. The
circumstance that this is the first treatise which aims especially and
avowedly at defending this opinion, endows it with a special interest.
XI
(pp. 243, 347)
EXCURSUS ON THE SO-CALLED TYPICA
The term _Typicum_ is used first of all by Greek liturgists and
rubricists to denote those short parts of the liturgy which are composed
of verses from the psalms in connection both with the Canonical Hours
and with the Mass, there is nothing exactly corresponding in the Western
rite. (Leo Allatius, _De Libris Eccl. Græc._, 14, 15. Daniel, _Thes.
Lit._, iv. 313, 319). _Typicum_ is also used as a technical term, in
the Eastern Church especially during the Byzantine period, in the sense
of statute, regulation, etc. It was applied chiefly to two kinds of
documents. First, it designated the catalogues of the possessions of
ecclesiastical establishments and corporations, especially in so far
as they were based upon testamentary donations, along with the duties
entailed by them upon the clergy. _Typica_ of this kind were called
(κτητορικά), and correspond to the chartularies and “traditiones” of
Western monasteries and bishoprics. Secondly, _typicum_ was a term of a
liturgical character, and as such must be considered here. _Typica_, in
this sense, were the lists of the feasts recurring in the course of the
year, of liturgical observances, fasts, etc., such as were to be observed
in one of the larger churches or monasteries, along with detailed
descriptions of each; they correspond to the _consuetudines_ of Western
monasteries and cathedrals.
_Typica_ of this last kind exist in large numbers, although only a
few of them have been published, and these not in editions useful for
critical purposes. The best known and most important are: (1) the
_Typicum S. Sabæ_; (2) that belonging to the monastery of the Studium at
Constantinople; and (3) that formerly belonging to the famous Monastery
of St Auxentius in Bithynia, now Ka-ish-dagh, dating from the time of
Michael Paleologus († 1268).
The _typicum_ of St Sabas is sometimes valuable as a source of liturgical
information, and for its references to the festivals of the Church, but
it is only to be used with the greatest caution. It derives its name not
so much from St Sabas himself as from the monastery called after him near
Jerusalem. Leo Allatius gives the following account of its origin from
a dialogue of Simeon of Thessalonica; St Sabas drew up an order for the
canonical hours and divine service to be observed in his monastery; this
“_diatyposis_” was destroyed owing to the ravages of the Saracens, but
was re-established by the patriarch Sophronius from memory, and retouched
by St John Damascene; later on it was altered yet again to meet the
requirements of the time. In the sixteenth century it was printed for
practical purposes, as, for example, in Venice in 1545. In this form the
_typicum_ contains the order for divine service throughout the year for
monasteries following the rule of St Sabas, rubricks for the canonical
hours, the fasts and festivals, with information as to the liturgy to
be used, the gospels and epistles, the menology, instructions on the
canonical hours, etc., also rules of life and statutes for the monks
and selected passages from the Greek Fathers. It received its present
form apparently from John _Grammaticus_ in Constantinople in the twelfth
century, and cannot, of course, be regarded as a work of St Sabas. This
cannot be appealed to for evidence concerning ecclesiastical customs in
use before the twelfth century.
In the Eastern Church _typica_ are issued from time to time, somewhat
corresponding to our directories.
With regard to the literature on this point, it is well to mention:
Theodoras Toscanus, _Ad Typica Græcorum Animadversiones_, Romæ, 1864.
Pitra in _Spicil. Solem._, iv. 466 _seqq._ Ehrhard, _Röm. Quartalschr._,
1893. Krumbacher, _Byzant. Zeitschr._, ii. 348; iii. 167 _seqq._ Waldemar
Nissen, _Die Diataxis des Michael von Attalia von 1077_, Jena, 1894.
Meyer in the _Theol. Literaturztg._ of Shürer and Harnack, 1894, 588
_seq._, and 1896, No. 10. Gedeon, Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Παλαιολὸγου τυπικόν, etc.,
Constantinople, 1895.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Greek word ἑορτή had become associated with the ideas of paganism
and mere enjoyment. Christians called the week-days following on a Sunday
_feria secunda_, etc. This use was already established in Tertullian’s
time.
[2] J. BARTH, _Babel und das israel. Religionswesen_, Berlin, 1902. See
SCHMID, _Die Kirche und die Sonntagsruhe_: Innsbr. Zeitschr. f. Kath.
Theol., 1901, 436 _et seq._ LINZER, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1900, 12.
[3] Num. xxviii. 9, 10; Ezec. xlvi. 3, 4.
[4] See the article “Sonnabendfeier,” by KRÜLL, in Kraus’
_Realenzyklopädie_.
[5] Heb. iv. 9; Acts xiii. 27; xviii. 4.
[6] Apoc. i. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.
[7] EUSEB., _De Mart. Pal._ 1; see BAILLET, IX. x.-xiv.
[8] Acts xx. 7 _seq._; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.
[9] _E.g._, “Et facta oblatione fit missa” (c. 38, p. 68).
[10] EUSEB., _De Pasch._, c. 7; see c. 12a. E. MONTFAUCON, _Introduction
to Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms_, Paris, 1707. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._,
xxiii. 51.
[11] TERT., _De Orat._, 14. SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 8. DUCHESNE,
218-22.
[12] OVID, _Fasti_, i. 79. LEO M., _Sermo_, 41, 1. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
liv. 272; BINTERIM, v. 134.
[13] BARNABAS, _Epist._, 15. IGNATIUS, _Ad Magn._, 9. JUSTIN, _Apol._, i.
67.
[14] _Peregr. Silviæ_, 102, 71 cod.; ed. Geyer, c. 44, 2.
[15] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 19, 20.
[16] _Hist. Eccl._, i. 18, towards the end: ἐνομοτέθησε, τῶν δικαστηρίων
καὶ τὼν ἂλλων πραγμάτων σχολὴν ἂγειν.
[17] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, _de feriis_ 1. Law of 321.
[18] _Op. cit._, 2, 8, 18; 8, 8, 3; 11, 7, 13. In these laws Sunday is
still called “dies solis,” but with the addition, “quem dominicum rite
dixere majores.”
[19] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, 5, _de spectaculis_.
[20] _Chron._, _Pasch._, ad a 467.
[21] For instances, see BAILLET, ix. art. 1, c. 5 _et seq._
[22] _Vita Const._, 4, 18.
[23] _Constit. Apost._, 2, 59; 5, 20; 7, 23 and 30; 8, 33. TERT., _De
Orat._, 20.
[24] _Laod. can._, 29: εἴγε δύναιντο σχλάζειν. This Council was held
between 343 and 381. For further particulars, see BINTERIM, v. 134-52.
[25] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 19.
[26] _Op. cit._ 4, 23.
[27] _Const. Apost._, 2, 59; 8, 33.
[28] _Op. cit._ 7, 37.
[29] THOMASSIN, i. 2, c. 2, 176 _seqq._
[30] Council of Rouen (650), Can. 15. _Decr. Grat._, Can. 1, dist. 3,
de consecr.; Can. 10, _de feriis_, 3, 9. For the variations in the
observance of the Sabbath, see ALT., 10 _seqq._
[31] Lev. xxiii. 24.; 3 Kings viii. 65.; 2 Chr. xxix. 17.; xxx. 22.
[32] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i., Berlin, 1825, 515.
[33] BÄUMER, 325 _et seq._
[34] _Micrologus_, 43. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cli. 1010. There are,
however, still exceptions to this rule, _e.g._, St Cornelius, St
Silverius, etc. Moreover, the above regulation only took effect in the
city of Rome.
[35] BÄUMER, 314, 354.
[36] _Op. cit._ 325.
[37] _Op. cit._ 499.
[38] Appendix i.
[39] _De Bapt._, 19.
[40] _C. Cels._, 8, 22.
[41] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 1, 19.
[42] _Cod. Justin._, 3, 12, No. 6.
[43] _Op. cit._ 3, 12, No. 7, compared with _Cod. Theod._ 2, 8, 19.
[44] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 20.
[45] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, 2.
[46] _Op. cit._ 2, 8, Nos. 20, 21, 25.
[47] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, No. 5, compared with 2, 8, 24.
[48] _Op. cit._ 2, 8, 23.
[49] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 13-20; compare 8, 13. CHRYS., _Hom. 4 Pentec._
PROCLUS, _Or._ 3, 1. PHILASTRIUS (_De Hær._, 141) enumerates eight
festivals, because he adds the Wednesday in Holy Week.
[50] GREGOR. TUR., _Hist. Franc._, 10, 5. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 566.
[51] The 27th or 28th March was frequently regarded in the Gallic Church
as the actual date of the resurrection of Christ, and the 25th March as
the date of His death.
[52] SONNATIUS, _Statuta_, c. 20. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxx. 446.
[53] HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, i. 73. HARD., iii. 1944. MANSI, xii. 383.
[54] _Conc. Aquisgr._, Can. 19. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 326.
BINTERIM, _Conc._ ii. 331.
[55] BINTERIM, _op. cit._ 466. HARD., iv. 1241. MANSI, xiv. 393.
[56] _Capit. Hettonis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 763. BINTERIM, _Denkw._,
v. 302.
[57] HARTZHEIM, _Conc._, l. 44. See also ii. 612, 692.
[58] _Op. cit._ iii. 221, Can. 6. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxviii. 832.
[59] BURCHARD, _Decreta_, 2, 77. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxl. 640. IVON.,
_Decret._, 4, 14. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxli. 260.
[60] See Appendix ii. (a).
[61] Can. 1, dist. 3, _de Consecr._, taken from a Council of Lyons.
[62] Can. 5, x., _de Feriis_ 2, 9. The feasts of Our Lady are the same as
in _Decretum Grat._
[63] See Appendix ii. (b).
[64] In the diocese of Lyons, for example, in 1577 there were no fewer
than ninety-nine days of this kind, including Sundays, Easter and
Pentecost being observed each for three days. See MIGNE’S _Handbook_, 347.
[65] BINTERIM, _Conc._, vi. 118 and 524; _Denkw._, v. 1, 303, etc.
BINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdiözese Köln im Mittelalter_, i., Köhn,
1892, 526. HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, v. 106; vi. 498. Further information
is contained in the collections of Church Councils. See the Council of
Szabolcs in Hungary, 1092 (i. cap. 37 and 38; MANSI, xx. 757); Oxford,
1222, can. 8; Toulouse, 1229, cap. 26; Worcester, 1240; the statutes of
Le Mans (MANSI, xxiii. 764); the Councils of Liège, 1287; Würtzburg,
1298; Utrecht, 1347; Prague, 1355 (HARTZHEIM, iii. and iv.), and BAMBERG,
1491 (tit. 36; HARTZHEIM, v. 619), which, with fifty-four holy days of
obligation besides Sundays, represents the _non plus ultra_ in this
direction.
[66] See Appendix ii. (c).
[67] Printed by SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii., Amstel. 1679, c. 15, 204.
[68] Dist. 3, _de Conscr._, Can. 1 Conquestus, _de Feriis_. See also
Matisconense, Can. 10.
[69] THOMASSIN, i. 131 _seqq._
[70] FERRARIS, _Prompta Bibl._, iii., art. Festa, §§ 2 and 3.
[71] _De Novis Festivitatibus non Instituendis._
[72] HOSPINIANUS, 18. THOMASSIN, i. c. 11; _De la diminuation du nombre
des fêtes_.
[73] J. FESSLER, Concerning the suppressed Holy Days, in the _Archiv
für Kirchenrecht_, v. (1860) 194. SCHÜCH-GRIMMICH, _Handbuch der
Pastoraltheol._, 10th ed., 338 _seqq._
[74] _Bull. Rom. Contin._, ix., Romæ, 1846, 120.
[75] These briefs of Clement XIV., Pius XI., and Leo XII., are printed in
DUMONT, _Sammlung kirchl. Erlasse für d. Erzd. Köln_, 2nd ed., 199 _seqq._
[76] See Appendix iii.
[77] Alt., 454.
[78] This Calendar contains twenty-six days in addition to the chief
feasts. See the table in the Book of Common Prayer.
[79] _Sermo_ 47, in Exod. In omnibus solemnitatibus Christianis non
ignoramus paschale sacramentum esse præcipium.
[80] _Sermo_ 48, c. 1.
[81] BEDA, _De rat. Temp._, 1, 5.
[82] Exod. xii. 11; Num. xxviii. 16.
[83] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 33.
[84] _De Orat._, c. 18.
[85] By Pascha, TERTULLIAN probably understands Holy Week and Easter Week
together, as a time during which each day had its liturgical celebration,
“collecta,” which was not the case generally. Similarly, Quinquagesima
means the period from Easter to Whitsunday.
[86] _Adv. Mar._, 4, 12; _De Jeiun._, 14. _Cf._ _De Bapt._, 19; _De Cor._,
3.
[87] _De Jeiun._, 14.
[88] _Adv. Marc._, 5, 7.
[89] _Philos._, 8, 18.
[90] _Can. Arab._, 22.
[91] MAI, _Nova Coll. Vet. Script._, iv. 208; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._ xxiv.
694.
[92] _Vita Const._, 3, 17, _seqq._
[93] Exod. xii. 42.
[94] Exod. xii. 6-8.
[95] Lev. xxiii. 7, 8.
[96] _Ibid._ ver. 10 _et seqq._
[97] Isa. liii. 7 _et seq._
[98] Exod. xii. 46; St John xix. 36.
[99] 1 Cor. v. 7, 8.
[100] Col. ii. 16.
[101] JUSTIN, _Dial._, c. 40, 111. TERT., _Adv. Marc._, 4, 40; 5, 7.
[102] The Greeks of the province of Asia, for example, voluntarily
adopted the Julian Calendar under Augustus, according to an inscription
discovered at Priene. _Révue Archéol_, 1900, 357. Mitteil. des kaiserl.
archäol. Instits at Athens, 1899.
[103] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i. 433.
[104] _Op. cit._ 142.
[105] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i. 113, 117, 119.
[106] So IDELER, who is certainly an authority, _Handbuch der Chronol._,
i. 570 _et seq._
[107] JOSEPHUS, _Ant._, i. 1, 3: ἐν χρίῳ τοῦ ἡλίου χαθεοτῶτος. IDELER,
_op. cit._ 401, 514, 570.
[108] Nilles (p. 286) expressly declares himself opposed to the feast of
Easter being fixed on a stated Sunday in April. According to information
given in the _Kölnischen Volkszeitung_ for the 22nd May 1894, the
Barnabite Cæsar Tondini is said to be at work upon a reform of the
Calendar, the chief features of which are the giving a fixed date for
Easter and the transferring of the extra day in leap year to the end of
the year. He is of opinion that this reform will be acceptable to the
Russians also.
[109] St Luke xix. 29 _seqq._; St John xii. 1 _seqq._
[110] Among the Fathers, St Ambrose, more especially, deals with the
question of the day of the week and day of the month on which the Last
Supper took place. _Cf._ _Epist._ 23, written in 386. He says the Last
Supper was held on the 14th Nisan which was a Thursday, on the 15th,
Christ was crucified, and, on the 17th, He rose again. The day of His
death must be kept in sorrow and fasting. Therefore the two events
cannot be commemorated on the same day, and Christ’s death cannot be
commemorated on a Sunday. If the 15th Nisan falls on a Sunday, Easter
must be postponed to the following week. When Johannes Philoponus, in the
treatise _De Paschate_ (ed. C. Walter, Leipzig, 1899) makes our Lord keep
the Last Supper on the 13th Nisan and celebrate not the old, but a new
mystical passover, and then says: Τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων (St Mark xxvi. 17)
means τῇ πρώτῃ πρὸ τῶν ἀζύμων.
HARNACK and SHÜRER, _Theol. Literaturztg._, 1900, No. 4.
[111] _Etymol._, 6, 17, 10; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxii. 247.
[112] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 21; 5, 27.
[113] Twenty-first Festal Letter, for the year 349, in Larsow 33.
[114] _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 27.
[115] _Adv. Hær._, 70, c. 12: Μία γὰρ ἡμέρα παρ’ ἐκείνοις ζητεῖται, παρ’
ἡμῖν δὲ οὐ μία ἀλλὰ ἕξ, ἐβδομὰς πληρεστάτη, etc.
[116] _loc. cit._ c. 11.
[117] _Ep. ad Januarium._, 55, c. 1-3.
[118] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 47-51.
[119] _De Ord. Fer._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xc. 607.
[120] For a full account of the ceremonies, etc., belonging to this part
of the Church’s year, see _Lent and Holy Week_, by H. THURSTON, S.J.,
London, 1904. [Trans.]
[121] _Matiscon_, 2, 3.
[122] _Cf._ _Ordo I._, 7. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 954, 994 _et
seqq._
[123] HEFELE, _Konciliengesch._, 2nd ed., Freiburg, 1877, iii., 36, 42,
577, 596.
[124] _Peregrinatio Silviæ_, c. 30, ed. Geyer, 67 cod., and CHRYSOST.,
_Hom. 30 in Gen._, 10 t. 4. fol. 29. BINTERIM (_Denkw._ v. 179) prefers
to derive “Karwoche” from “carena,” which in the Romance languages has
taken various forms (carême carenzia) and also in the old German is found
as Karina, in reference to the strict fast then observed.
[125] Nor in the Antiphonarium Greg., to which BINTERIM (_Denkw._ v. 174)
refers.
[126] _Peregr. Silviæ_, c. 30, 31, ed. Geyer, 64 cod. Since the pilgrim,
in describing the size and strength of the Euphrates (c. 18, p. 61, 11),
recalls the Rhone, it seems certain she belongs to Southern France. I use
the expression, “Gallic pilgrim,” as her name may have been either Silvia
or Egeria. She travelled in the East between 378 and 394.
[127] Hora decima. _Peregr. Silviæ_, ed. Geyer, c. 35.
[128] _Peregr. Silviæ_, ed. Geyer, c. 36-38, p. 67-69 cod.
[129] The name was usual in Spain. MABILLON, _De Lit. Gal._, 32. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 186, quotes for it ISIDOR., _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 28.
[130] According to MIGNE (_Handbuch_, 671) in several dioceses of France
it is not even yet the custom.
[131] I have arrived at the conclusion that in the missal in the
cathedral library at Cologne (cod. 88), the _benedictio palmarum_ has
been added by another hand. In the Essen cod. D.I., it appears in the
first part (fol. 45), but in neither of the other parts.
[132] _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 28. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxiii. 763. ISIDORE
makes no mention of carrying palm branches in the church, as DUCHESNE (p.
237) implies, but he does speak in this passage of the _traditio symboli_
and of the _capitilavium_ which in Spain were both performed on Palm
Sunday.
[133] _De Off. Eccl._, 4, 10. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 1008.
[134] ISIDOR., _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 27.
[135] MABILLON, _Lit. Gall._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 265. _Cf._ Synod
of Agde (506), can. 13.
[136] AMBROSIUS, _Epist._, 20, c. 4.
[137] _Sacr. Geb._, 1, 35, 36. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1088.
[138] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 58, c. 11. “Ideo die sabbati”: _Sermo_, 212, c.
1, 2.
[139] Avitus († 518), in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lix. 302, 309, 321-326.
Eligius († between 640 and 659), _Hom._, 10. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxxvii. 628.
[140] _Kirchenlexikon_, v., 2nd ed., 1309, art. Gründonnerstag by PUNKES.
[141] MARTÈNE, iii., 237, 346, 352. Incipiat cantor cum cappa _viridi_
missam, presbytero, diacono et subdiacono indutis ornamentis _viridibus_,
etc. Also WICKHAM LEGG, whose pamphlet on the _History of the Liturgical
Colours_ (London, 1882) is only concerned with the last three centuries,
shows (p. 21) that green was used in many places, in Mainz among others.
[142] _Cf._ App. iv.
[143] _e.g._ by GREG. of Tours, _Hist. Franc._, 8, 43; festa Dominicæ
Cœnæ.
[144] MARTÈNE, _De Ant. Eccl._, iv. 22; ed. Antw. 1727, iii. p. 227
_seqq._, where the prayers over the penitents are given in full.
[145] An offerendum sit mane et rurus post cœnam ... an jeiunandum et
post cœnam tantummodo offerendum, an etiam jeiunandum et post oblationem
sicut facere solemus cœnandum. AUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 54 _ad Januarium_, c.
4; 11, 302.
[146] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1102.
[147] MURATORI, ii. 55 and _Ordo I._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 951.
[148] _Pseudo-Alcuin._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci. 1205 _et seq._
[149] Oleum in altari sanctificatum. CYPRIAN, _Epist._, 70, c. 2.
[150] So called from St John xiii. 34: mandatum novum do vobis. The
washing of the feet preceded vespers. Each monk had to wash the feet
of the poor, and, lastly, the abbot and prior washed the feet of the
brethren. _Consuet. Farf._, 49. [Hence the English name for the day.
Trans.]
[151] _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 29. _Lit. Mozar._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv.
406.
[152] ST AUGUSTIN., _Conf._, 8, 5; de loco eminentiori.
[153] _Epist._, 23, c. 12. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 1030.
[154] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18; ἡμέρα, γάρ εἰσι πένθους ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἑορτῆς.
[155] This is also the custom in the Russian Church. “The priests wear
black vestments during the whole service on Good Friday, as a sign of
grief for the death of the Redeemer.” (MALTZEW, lxxxiv.) By the law of
2nd Sept. 1899, in Prussia, Good Friday was made a general public holiday.
[156] His dissertation is incorporated in the treatise, _De Divinis
Officiis_ of the pseudo-Alcuin (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci., 1211 _et
seqq._). He is also the author of the short treatise _De Computo_ (MIGNE,
cxxxvii. 18 _seqq._). Trithemius wrongly locates him in the eleventh
century.
[157] _Epist. ad Decentium Eng._, 25, c. 2: Constat apostolos biduo isto
in mœrore fuisse et propter metum Judæorum occuluisse. Quod utique non
dubium est, in tantum eos jeiunasse biduo memorato, ut traditio ecclesiæ
habeat, isto biduo sacramenta penitus non celebrari. Sacramenta here
means masses, as well as Sacramentarium Missale. It appears that the
two last days of each week in Lent were without a celebration of the
liturgy, for the Pope continues: Quæ utique forma per singulas tenenda
est hebdomadas, etc.
[158] MALTZEW, lxxxvi. _et seqq._
[159] _Missale Gothico-Gallic._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 267.
[160] AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 15; Et inde communicet populus. De
qua observatione interrogavi Romanum archidiaconum et ille respondit:
In statione ubi apostolicus salutat crucem, nemo ibi communicat. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, cv. 1032. _Ordo Rom. I._ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.
954) has the general communion (et communicant omnes cum silentio).
RABANUS MAURUS (_De Cleric. Instit._, 2, 37) mentions the other
ceremonies (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii. 349).
[161] Adnuntial diaconus ut supra. _Sac. Gelas._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxiv. 1105.
[162] _Liber Sacramentorum_, ed. Menard. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.
79, 86 _et seq._
[163] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 57.
[164] _Vide_ Appendix iv.
[165] Among the Greeks it is continued during Lent. MALTZEW, lxxxvi.
[166] It first appears in _Ordo Rom._, xiv. _n._ 94 (13th cent.). MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1218. BINTERIM, _Denkw._ v. 221.
[167] This view is maintained by THOMASSIN, 330 _seq._ Against this
BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 214) rightly defends the opinion that the blessing
of the new fire was unknown in Rome in the eighth century. This appears
from the answer of Pope Zacharias to the inquiry of St Boniface on the
point. It was only introduced at Rome by Leo IV. The ecclesiastical rite
seems to have been moulded on the “Osterfeuer” in use among the Germans.
The most ancient Roman sacramentaries know nothing of it.
[168] In the life of Zosimus († 418) it only says: “Per parrocia concessa
licentia cereum benedici.” It is doubtful if these obscure words refer to
the Paschal candle. _Cf._ DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, i. 225.
[169] “Hoc autem die inclinante ad vesperam statuta celebratio noctis
Dominicæ in ecclesia incipitur,” etc. (RABANUS MAURUS, _De Cleric.
Instit._, 2, 38; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii. 350). “Post nonam (3
p.m.) vestiantur omnes qui ad sacram aliquid habuerint legendi,” etc.
(_Consuet. Farf._, ed. Albers, 55). The _Constit. Lanfranci_ give the
same hour (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._ cl. 466). According to _Ordo Rom._, x.
App., No. 16, the ceremonies began at hora sexta (noon). The Greeks and
Russians have their Mass after their evening service or Vespers. MALTZEW,
xciii.; HEFELE, _Beiträge_, ii. 291.
[170] _Cf._ AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 228 in die paschæ V._: “Post laborem noctis
præteritæ ... diu vos tenere sermone non debeo.” In Africa the baptism
took place in the night between Saturday and Sunday, _Sermo 214_, c. 1.
[171] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 61-66.
[172] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 364-71.
[173] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 268-77.
[174] MIGNE, lviii. 90. _Ordo Rom. I._ (_ib._ 951 _et seqq._) gives the
later ritual directions for the three last days of Holy Week.
[175] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 247) thinks it was not observed when the
anniversary of the previous Easter fell on Lent.
[176] So DURANDUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 6, 88. In the _Consuet. Farf._ (ed.
Albers), 58, a solemn procession of the monks in the monastery and in the
church is also mentioned.
[177] _Ordo Rom._, xiv. c. 95; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1219. Some
of the customs approached the dramatic, _e.g._, MARTÈNE, iii. 483, 506
_et seq._
[178] THALHOFER, _Liturgik_, ii. 2, 551. For ancient and popular customs,
see MIGNE, _Handbuch_, 662 _et seqq._
[179] _Peregr. Silviæ._, ed. Geyer, c. 39 and 40. In many dioceses of
France processions were made throughout the entire week (MARTÈNE, iii.
510).
[180] _De Cleric. Instit._, 2, 39; KNÖPFLER, 138.
[181] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 67-75. The designation of the
several days of Easter week differs only in form from that now in
use. The ferias are called “feriæ in albis,” the Sunday after Easter,
“Dominica post albas, scil. depositas.”
[182] This consisted in pouring out at the altar water drawn from the
pool of Siloe (WINER, _Bibl. Realw._, ii. 8).
[183] Athanasius, translated by LARSOW, 94, and for the whole subject,
Nilles: Innsbr. _Zeitschr. für kath. Theol._, 1895, 169 _seqq._
[184] The history of fasting, abstinence, and kindred subjects is
excellently given by BAILLET (ix. 37-130), according to the information
at his disposal. Of more recent works, FUNK, _Die Entwicklung des
Osterfastens in seinen kirchengeschichtlichen Abhandlungen_, Paderborn,
1897, 241-70.
[185] _Didaché_, c. 8; HERMAS, _Simil._, 5, 1; TERT., _De Jej._, c. 2,
10, 14.
[186] “Jejuno bis in sabbato” (St Luke xviii. 12); DUCHESNE, _Orig._,
218; FUNK, _Anm. zur Didaché_, 8, 1.
[187] _Strom._, 7, 74, ed. Sylburg.
[188] TERTULLIAN, _op. cit._ 2, 13, 14.
[189] EUS., _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 24, 11-18.
[190] Οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι
τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν (EUSEB., _op. cit._). FUNK, _op. cit._ 242 _et seq._,
defends the above interpretation of the passage against Probst.
[191] Origen cannot be quoted for the fast of forty days, for the
evidence attributed to him is really that of his translator, Rufinus.
_Cf._ FUNK, _op. cit._
[192] Ἀπονηστίζεσθαι δεῖ οὗ ἂν ἐμπέσῃ κυριακή. This passage is not
quoted in the treatise of Funk already referred to. His conclusions must
accordingly be modified.
[193] LARSOW, _Festbriefe deshl. Athanasius_, 62.
[194] _Op. cit._ 69.
[195] _Op. cit._ 127.
[196] LARSOW, _Festbriefe deshl. Athanasius_, 149.
[197] _De Paschate_, c. 4.
[198] _Peregr. Silviæ._, ed. Geyer, c. 27, 28 (60-62 cod.).
[199] _De Elia._, c. 10.
[200] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 13.
[201] _Op. cit._ 5, 18, 19.
[202] _Op. cit._ 5, 15, § 1.
[203] LEO M., _Sermo_ 40, 5.
[204] _Sermo_ 48, 1.
[205] _Sermo_ 44, 2; 47, 1.
[206] _Aurel. I._, A.D. 511, can. 24; _Aurel. IV._, A.D. 541, can. 2.
[207] AUGUSTIN., _Epist. ad Januarium_, c. 4; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ii.
202.
[208] _Trull._, 55.
[209] _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 22. SOZOMEN (7, 19) and CASSIODORUS (_Hist.
Misc._, 9, 38) have merely copied Socrates.
[210] TERT., _De Jej._, 2, 10, 13, 14, etc.
[211] _Didaché_, c. 8; CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, 7, 12; ORIGEN, _C.
Celso._, 8, 21.
[212] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 15, 20; 7, 23; _Can. Apost._, 69 (68).
[213] _Can. Arab._, 20.
[214] _Alt._, 123.
[215] AUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 36, _n._ 8; INNOC. I., _Epist._, 25, 7; MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, xx. 555; PRUDENT., _Perist._, 6, 52.
[216] RAHMANI, _Test. I. Chr._, 1, 22, 33; 36, 71.
[217] GREGOR. TUR., _Hist. Franc._, 10, 51; AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._,
4, 37; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 1250.
[218] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, ii. 589.
[219] _De Jej._, c. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 17.
[220] HIERONYMUS, _Epist. 27 ad Marcellam_.
[221] _Can. Arab._, 22.
[222] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18.
[223] _Peregr. Silviæ_, c. 28, 4.
[224] _Hom. de Statius_, 3, 4.
[225] _Decr. ad Bulg. Epist._ 97, c. 4; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 980.
BINTERIM, _Denkw._ v. 2, 160 _seqq._ Dist. 3, de consecr. de esu carnium.
Dist. 5, c. Quia dies.
[226] FERRARI, _Prompta Bibl._, art. Abstinentia, 1, 42.
[227] Since the fasts were very strictly observed in the Middle Ages, it
was a custom to have an especially good meal in the day or evening before
they began. Hence the German expression “Fastnacht.” Unfortunately the
Fastnacht is not limited nowadays to one night, but lasts for three days,
and even, where possible, right into Ash-Wednesday.
[228] The rubric, according to which Vespers, from the First Sunday in
Lent onwards, are to be said _ante comestionem_, also belongs to the more
primitive arrangement.
[229] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1065.
[230] _Hom. I._ 16 _in Evang._, c. 5; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxvi. 1137.
[231] _Sacram. Gelas._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1076 _et seqq._
[232] See, however, fer. iv. after _Lætare_: “Effundam super vos aquam
mundam,” and the Saturday before Passion Sunday: “Sitientes venite ad
aquas.”
[233] LANFRANC, _Decreta_, sectio 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 453; RUPERT
TUIT., _De Div. Off._, 4, 9; HONORIUS AUG., _Gemma_, 3, 46; DURANDUS,
_Rationale_, 1, 3 (this last speaks of two such curtains—cortinæ).
HEUSER, _Art. Fastentuch_, in _Kirchenlex_., iv., 2nd ed., 1255;
SCHRIVER, _Der Dom zu Osnabrück_, etc., 1901; MALTZEW, _Triodion_, vi.
[234] For the Transfiguration, see BAILLET, v. 104; BÄUMER, _Gesch. des
Breviers_, 299, 355; MARZOHL U. SCHNELLER, iv. 653 _seqq._
[235] Πανέορτος ἡμέρα: EUSEB., _De Sol. Pasch._, c. 5; MIGNE, _Patr.
Gr._, xxiv. 699; SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 7, 26: πάνδημος ἑορτή. On can.
43 of Elvira, _cf._ p. 110.
[236] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18.
[237] _Epist. ad Januarium_, 54, c. 1; _Sermo_ 261-65.
[238] CYRILL. HIEROS., _Catech._, 14, c. 23.
[239] _Peregr. Silviæ_, 70 cod., ed. Geyer, c. 42.
[240] ADAMNAN., _De Locis Sanctis._, 1, 22; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxxviii. 803.
[241] CHRYSOST., _Sermo in Ascens._, ed. MONTFAUCON, ii. 2, 420.
[242] St Luke xxiv. 60, where εἰς βηθανίαν means, in the direction of
Bethania. Acts i. 12; Heb. vi. 14; ix. 24; Eph. iv. 9; Col. iii. 1.
[243] _Cf._ the commentary of Schanz, _in loc._
[244] When CHRYSOSTOM (_Hom. in Acta Apost._, 3, 1) places our Lord’s
Ascension on Saturday, it may be that he reckoned the interval after
the Resurrection as consisting of forty full days. One is not justified
in concluding, as some do, that in Antioch the Ascension was kept on
Saturday.
[245] TERT., _De Orat._, c. 23; _De Cor._, 3.
[246] _Peregr. Silviæ_, ed. Geyer, b. 41 (69 cod.).
[247] The aim of the forty-third canon of Elvira seems to be the
abolition of this custom. A later addition to the canon adds: “post
pascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadragesima.” The date of this
addition is unknown. HEFELE-KNÖPFTER, _Konziliengesch._ ii., 2nd ed.,
174. Dr HERBST (_ibid._) thought the reference was to the Montanists, but
even if there were any Montanists in Spain at that period, their heresy
could scarcely be called “Nova.”
[248] _Cf._ MURATORI, ii. 750-58, and 873.
[249] Exod. xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 10.
[250] 2 Mac. xii. 32; Acts ii. 1; Joseph., _Antt._, 3, 10, 6.
[251] LEO M., _Sermo 75 in Pentec._; AUGUSTIN., _Epist. 56_, c. 16 _Ad
Disqu. Januarii_, 2, 218.
[252] TERT., _De Cor._, 3, and _De Bapt._, 19, where probably “latissimum
spatium,” and not “lætissimum,” is the correct reading.
[253] TERT., _De Bapt._, 19; _De Idol._, 14; CASSIAN., _Coll._, 21, 11,
19; _Bened. Regula_, 15.
[254] TERT., _De Jej._, 14.
[255] TERT., _De Bapt._, 19: “pentecoste qui est proprie dies festus.”
[256] _Can. Arab._, 22.
[257] _Peregr. Silviæ_, ed. Geyer, c. 43 [70] cod.; _cf._ 44, 2.
[258] MARTÈNE, _De Ant. Eccl. Rit._, iv. 28, 441-543.
[259] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 272 ad infantes_.
[260] MARTÈNE, iv. 28, 441-543.
[261] According to the _Consuet. Farf._ (ed. Albers, 73), a Mass for
the dead was to be celebrated in the forenoon; at mid-day the brethren
were to rest, and then about 2 P.M. begin the lesser hours, which were
followed by the High Mass. Afterwards came a meal.
[262] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 20, 7: Τὴν πεντεκοστὴν ἐορτάσατε μίαν
ἑβδομάδα.
[263] _De Off. Missæ_, c. 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1062.
[264] _Conc. Mogunt._, A.D. 818, can. 36.
[265] MURATORI, ii. 95: Die dominica vacat; ii. 164: Dominica prima
post pentecosten; ii. 321: Dominica octavæ pentecosten (sic). For the
_Gelasian Sac._, _cf._ i. 606.
[266] C. 59 and 60; MIGNE, cli, 1019.
[267] Vid. the _Præfatio_ of Froben to Alcuin 11 in MIGNE, cl. 440.
Similar votive Masses for each day—Sunday, in honour of the Trinity, and
on the week-days in honour of the angels, of the wisdom and of the love
of the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Cross, and of our Blessed Lady—are found
in the _Liturgia Fontavellanensis_ (MIGNE, cli. 938).
[268] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 270) rejects the view that Alcuin had
anything to do with the matter, and considers that the festival was
introduced not through him, but through a certain Catulfus at the court
of Charlemagne. The well-meant but rather obscure letter of this Catulfus
is printed in MIGNE, xcvi. 1363. Careful consideration of the passage in
question shows he is speaking of the honour of the Trinity in general,
and not of any festival of the Holy Trinity.
[269] _Cf._ the so-called Mass of Alcuin (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 445).
The circumstance that the present preface of the Trinity appears in the
Vatican MSS. used by Muratori, and is printed in his _Liturgia Rom.
Vetus_ (11, 285, and 321), can easily have given rise to mistakes.
[270] Potho of Prüm (1152) has an interesting remark to which Hospinian
draws attention: “Miramur satis, quod visum fuerit hoc tempore
quibusdam monasteriis mutare colorem optimum novas quasdam inducendo
celebritates.... Quæ igitur ratio hæc festa celebrandi nobis induxcit,
festum videlicet s. trinitatis et festum transfigurationis Domini?
Additur his a quibusdam, quod magis absurdum videtur, festum conceptionis
S. Mariæ” (_De Statu Domus Dei lib._; DE LA BIGNE, _Magna Bibl. Vet.
Patrum_, ix. 588). One must make allowances for Potho’s standpoint. He
set himself energetically against the monks having the cure of souls or
any say in the administration of the Church, as detrimental to their
vocation to the contemplative life. On the same grounds, he set himself
against all alterations in the rule, and all innovations in the festivals
of the Church’s year.
[271] Cap. 2, x. _de feriis_, 2, 9, § 3.
[272] BAILLET (ix. 2, 158) considers this office was then a new
one, though based upon one of the three ancient offices. BINTERIM,
265 _seqq._, and BÄUMER, 298 (where, however, a few statements need
correcting) take a different view.
[273] _Vita S. Julianæ ab auctore coævo conscr._, 1, c. 2, in Acta SS.
Boll., April 1, 473-75, with its _Prolegg._, 442.
[274] The letter of this synod is printed in BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 1,
276 _et seqq._ For the original office so far as it is extant, _cf._
_ibid._ 284.
[275] The bull “Transiturus” is contained in the Constitution of Clement
V. in 1311 (_Clementini_, 3, 16). It is also in Labbe’s Councils (xi.
1, 817). _Cf._ Bened. XIV., _Institutiones Constit._, v. 20, for the
procession.
[276] BINTERIM has brought forth fresh evidence in favour of the fact,
which many have questioned (_op. cit._ 282, and vii. 1, 77).
[277] HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, iii. 699.
[278] LANFRANCI, _Decreta_, sec. 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 456 _et
seq._ [_Cf._ GASQUET, _Parish Life in Med. England_, viii. 171.—Trans.]
[279] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, vii. 3, 367 _et seqq._; J. GRETSER, _De
Processionibus_, 2, 19; BINTERIM, _Geschichte der Konzilien_, _etc._,
v. 368. The synod of Cologne in 1452 forbade the Blessed Sacrament to
be carried round the church in a monstrance on other days than Corpus
Christi (_op. cit._ vii. 486).
[280] _Acta Vetera Eccl. Rotom._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. 123.
[281] P. JOERRES, _Beiträge zur Gesch. des Fronleichnamsfestes_;
_Römische Quartalschrift_, 1902, 170 _et seq._; SDRALEK, _Die
Strassburger Diözesansynoden_, _Strassb. theol. Studien_, ii. 1, 121.
[282] HOEYNCK, _Gesch. d. K. Liturgie des Bist. Augsburg_, 229 _et seq._
[283] MAUREL, _Ablässe_, Paderborn, 1874, 238.
[284] HOEYNCK, _op. cit._ 231. For a description of the Roman use, _cf._
MIGNE, _Handbuch_, 304 _et seqq._
[285] The oldest pictorial representation of the Corpus Christi
procession is probably that contained in the chronicle of the Council of
Constance, by ULRICH of Richental (49 _et seqq._). The original MS. is
in the Rosgarten Museum at Constance; it is reproduced in No. 158 of the
_Stuttgart Literar. Verein_ of 1882 (Photolitographie by H. Bach). It
represents the procession as it took place during the council in the year
1415. The monstrance is carried by two ecclesiastics on a sort of small
platform.
[286] _Cf._ BENED. XIV., _Institutiones_, 30, 206, and the article of P.
NORBERT, “Ord. Cap.,” in the _Katholik_ for August 1898, 151.
[287] NILLES, _De rationibus festorum SS. Cordis Jesu et Pur. Cordis
Mariæ libri quattuor_, 5th ed., Œniponte, 1885; NIX, art. “Herz Jesu und
Mariä” in the _Kirchenlexikon_, v., 2nd ed., 1921 _et seqq._; BÄUMER, 525
_et seq._
[288] CASSIAN, _Coll._ 10, c. 2: “Mos antiqua traditione servatus.”
[289] USENER, i. 1, 320, has investigated the circumstances which
attended the introduction of Christmas in different countries, and his
conclusions have met with entire recognition from HARNACK, _Theol.
Literaturztg._, 1889, 199, _et seqq._, and from DOM SUITBERT BÄUMER,
_Katholik_, 1890, i. 1-15. Exception was taken to certain points by
DUCHESNE, _Bull. Critique_, 1890, No. 3. These circumstances have been
already dealt with by BAILLET, viii. 582 _et seqq._
[290] EPIPHANIUS, _Adv. Hær._, 2, 1; _Hær._, 51, c. 16 and 24.
[291] _Cf._ c. 26, ed. Geyer, 60; ed. Gamurrini, 84.
[292] C. 49, ed. Geyer; ed. Gamurrini, 109.
[293] LAMY, _Ephræmi Syri hymni et sermones_, i., Mechl., 1882, 10, on
the Benedictus, 2, 415. This hymn is translated into German by Zingerle
in the _Kempten Bibl. d. Kirchenväter_, ii. 27.
[294] _Cf._ HEFELE, _History of Councils_, vi., 1st ed., 504, 575, etc.
[295] GREGOR, _Naz. Hom. 38 in Theophania_; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xxxvi.
[296] John, Bishop of Nicea, in COMBEFIS, _Hist. Hær. Monoth._, Paris,
1648, 306. BAUMSTARK (_Oriens Christ._, 1902, 441-446) is in favour of
the date 398 to 400.
[297] GREGOR, Nyss., _Or. Fun._; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 789. _Cf._
_ib._, 701 and 725. Basil was dead before 1st January 379.
[298] The date 386 depends upon the order of the sermons referred to.
Usener, who places them at unnecessary wide intervals, gives 388, Clinton
387, Combefis, Montfaucon, and Tillemont 386. The period from February to
December is ample for the above sermons.
[299] CHRYSOST., _Hom. in Nativ. I. Chr._; MONTFAUCON, ii. 352; MIGNE,
_Patr. Gr._, x. 2, 351.
[300] Τὸ ταχέως οὔτω πανταχοῦ περιαγγελθῆναι. Ταχέως does not contradict
ἄνωθεν, for Chrysostom distinguishes between the knowledge of the day
of Christ’s birth and its solemn celebration. The former had been known
for ages in Rome, but the celebration of the festival, on the contrary,
had spread rapidly in all directions, and this rapid diffusion of the
festival shows in its turn that the 25th December is really the day of
Christ’s birth.
[301] _Cod. Justin._, 3, 12, 6.
[302] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 27. _Cf._ the law of the year 425, _ib._, 15,
5, 5.
[303] COMBEFIS, _Hist. Hær. Monoth._, 304: Ἐξ ἐκείνου δὲ ἔλαβεν ἀρχὴ ἡ
τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησία τὴν ἡμὲραν τῶν γενεθλίων τοῦ σωτῆρος. Combefis was
the first to discuss the question, and his disquisition is excellent,
though now forgotten. _Cf._ MIGNE, viii. 964-968. Combefis has also
collected all the material for the history of Christmas in his _Bibl.
Patrum Conc._, 300 _et seq._
[304] COMBEFIS (_Hist. Hær. Monoth._, 302 and 314, A. 4) considered it
suspicious.
[305] RONCALLI, _Chronica Vetustiora_, Introd., xxix.
[306] Bucherius, in its Latinized form.
[307] JOS. STRZYGOWSKI, _Die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre
354_, with 30 plates, Berlin, 1888, published for the Archeological
Institute. The rest is to be found in _Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores
Antiquissimi_, t. ix., vol. i., fasc. i., Berol., 1891. The Natales
Cæsarum and the Calendar are printed in the _Corp. Inscr. Lat._
[308] MOMMSEN, _Abhandl. der Sächs. Akademie d. Wissensch._, 1850, 1,
618. The figure XIII. signifies the Epact. This proves that the 1st
January fell on a Saturday, and that B was the dominical letter.
[309] _L’Art de vérifier les Dates dep. J. Chr._, I. 111.
[310] [This refers to the ancient practice of dating the years of an
emperor’s reign, not from the actual date of his accession, but from the
New Year’s Day either preceding or following his accession. The years
of the emperor’s reign were thus brought into artificial agreement with
the calendar year. Numbering the years of the emperor’s reign from the
actual date of his accession is, in Mommsen’s phrase, taking them as
_effektiv_.—Trans.]
[311] I have attempted to show how this difference is to be explained in
an article in the _Innsbr. Zeitschr. für Kath. Theologie_, xv. (1891),
519 _et seqq._
[312] Vid. Appendix vi.
[313] St Luke i. 5, 8.
[314] 1 Esdr. vi. 18.
[315] _Antiq._ vii. 14, 7.
[316] _Antiq._ vii. 11, 7, 1; 12, 6, 4; 7, 6. 1 Mach. i. 57; iv. 18.
[317] So LAMY (_Apparatus Chronol. et Geogr._, 61) referring to the
Tractate _Erachin and Taanit_.
[318] JOS., _Bell. Jud._, 4, 8, 5; 4, 5. According to IDELER (i. 400,
433) Josephus employs the Syro-Macedonian names of the months, not with
the intention of adjusting them to the Julian Calendar, but merely as
Greek names for the Jewish months.
[319] The attempt to fix the time of Christ’s birth by the help of
the course of Abia was undertaken by Scaliger, abandoned as useless
by Petavius, resumed by B. Lamy. In modern times, it was resumed by
SEYFFARTH (_Chronol. Sacra_, Leipsig, 1846, 97 _et seqq._), WEIGL
(_Theol. und Chronol. Abhandlungen über das wahre Geburts- und Sterbejahr
Christi_, Sulzbach, 1848), and STAVARS (_Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1866,
201 _et seq._).
[320] HIERON, _Opera_, ed. Migne, xi. 220. It is evident from St Jerome’s
commentary on Ezechiel that his views on the subject were not those of
the preacher of this sermon. The sermon for the 25th December, published
by Morin (_Anecdota Mareds._, iii. 2, 392, _et seqq._), agrees with the
sermon quoted above.
[321] CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, i., ed. Sylburg, 340.
[322] CYPRIANI, _Opera_, ed. Hartel, ii. 266.
[323] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_ 190, 1; 192, 3; 196, 1.
[324] Luke ix. 13 _seqq._
[325] AMBR., _De Virg._, 3, 1; MIGNE, xvi. 219.
[326] PAULINUS, _Vita Ambr._, c. 4, and his life in the Benedictine
edition of his works, c. 7. The chronology of the youthful period of St
Ambrose’s life is unfortunately obscure.
[327] _Conc. Cathag._, iii. can. 4; BRUNS, i. 123.
[328] USENER (272 _seqq._) starts with the preconceived opinion that
Liberius delivered his address on the 6th Jan. 353, and so is of opinion
that Christmas was celebrated for the first time in Rome on the 25th
Dec. 353. On the other hand, DUCHESNE (_Bull. Crit._, 1890, No. 3, p. 41
_seq._), having the circumstance in view that the Depositio Episcoporum
begins the year with the 27th Dec. and the Depositio Martyrum with the
25th Dec., thinks he has proof for holding that the 27th Dec. for a long
time already, indeed even from about 243, had been a marked day in the
Church’s Calendar, and, accordingly, that the 25th Dec. had been kept as
the Natalis Domini as early as the third century. We leave these points
to the reader’s discretion. Christmas was kept in Rome certainly before
353.
[329] MOMMSEN, _Röm. Gesch._, v. 481.
[330] MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN, _Röm. Altert._, vi., 2nd. ed., 588.
[331] Hospinian (fol. iii.) and others held that the 25th December was
chosen purposely in order to supplant the Saturnalia. But the Saturnalia
did not last over the 25th, although Maximus of Turin seems to think it
did.
[332] _De Orat. Dom._, 35.
[333] SERMO, 7, 1, 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvii. 614.
[334] ZENO VER., _Tract._, 2, 9, 2, calls Christ “Sol noster, sol verus.”
GREGOR. I., _Hom._, 29 _in Evang._, c. 10: “Quis solis nomine nisi
Christus designatur?” PRUD., _Cathem._, 11, 1: “Quid est, quod arctum
circulum sol jam recurrens deserit?” GREGOR. NAZ., _Orat. in S. lumina_,
calls Christ the sun.
[335] On the Vigil: “Sidus refulget jam novum”; at Lauds: “Orietur sicut
sol salvator mundi”: in the Preface: “Per incarnati Verbi mysterium nova
mentis nostræ oculis lux tuæ claritatis infulsit”: on the octave: “Tu
lumen et splendor Patris”; in the hymn: “In sole posuit tabernaculum
suum”; in the antiphons: “Hodie descendit lux magna in terris. In sole
posuit tabernaculum suum,” etc.
[336] MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom._, 103; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii. 491.
[337] _Peregr. Silv._, 82 (59 cod.), ed. Geyer, c. 25.
[338] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77. In c. 49, No. 3, the chief
festivals are Easter and Epiphany.
[339] In Ezech. 1, 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xxv. 18, written about A.D.
411.
[340] COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, ed. Galland. Bibl., xi. 461; MIGNE,
lxxxviii. 198.
[341] So USENER, who quotes a passage from a sermon of Basil of Seleucia.
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 469.
[342] COSMAS, _op. cit._ 462.
[343] _Evangeliarium Hierosol._, 482, 494. See USENER, 323, 327.
[344] COMBEFIS, _Hist. Hær. Monoth._, 314 A, 4.
[345] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77.
[346] GREGOR TUR., _Microl._, 1, 88; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 783.
[347] COMBEFIS, _op. cit._ 302 E.
[348] _Opera_, ZENONIS VER., ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xi. lib. 2, tract
7-9. Lib. i. tract 13 may be spurious.
[349] _Sermo 10 de sanctis_ according to the old enumeration, _sermo 220
inter suppos._ according to the new.
[350] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60).
[351] See Append. vii.
[352] MATISCON. 1, can. 9; TURON., 11, can. 27. _Cf._ GREGOR. TUR.,
_Hist. Franc._, 10, 31.
[353] _Synaxarium_ of MICHAEL of Atriba, under 15th November.
[354] GREGOR. M., _Hom. in Evang._, 1, 1, 6, 7, and 20. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxxvi. 1078 _et seqq._ CABROL (_Révue Bénéd._, 1905, 1, 1),
thought he had discovered traces of Advent in the fifth or even in the
fourth century. It is best to reserve judgment until clearer evidence is
forthcoming.
[355] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 133-135 and 342-346.
[356] Printed by Gerbert, _Lit. Allem._, 410-416, which also contains
the _Evangelarium_ of SPIRES, 8th Cent., 417-444, and _Kalendarium_ of
FRONTEAU, 155 _et seq._
[357] AMALARIUS, _De Eccl. Off._, 3, 40; 4, 30. ABBO, _Apolog._ MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, cxxxix. 472.
[358] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 139. BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 167.
[359] Thus the Comes Pamelii in RANKE’S supplement and the old
lectionaries of Cologne, Treves, and Münster. See SCHUE, _Die bibl.
Lesungen_, etc., Treves, 1861, 129 _et seqq._
[360] Since 1893, the third Sunday after Epiphany has also a special
character owing to the Feast of the Holy Family falling on it.
[361] See the critical edition of C. A. WILSON (Oxford, 1894), p. 9.
[362] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 198_, c. 1. “Vos quasi solemniter hodie convenire
conspicimus.”
[363] _Turon._, 2, can. 17, 22; _Antissiod._, can. 1.
[364] TOLET., 4 (633), can. 11; _Lex Visigoth._, ii. tit. i. 12, and xii.
3, 6; Mon. Germ. Leges Sect. 1, tom. i. 1, 59 and 434. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxxxi. 478.
[365] MIGNE, i. 212, col. 70-73 for the text. See HEUSER,
_Kirchenlexikon_, iv., 2nd ed., 1395 _seqq._ The so-called Feast of
Asses, about which so much has been written, was a harmless affair. It
took its name from semi-theatrical performances inspired by passages of
Scripture which happen to mention an ass.
[366] In this document it is called “Natale S. Mariæ.”
[367] WIEGAND, 27.
[368] _Tractat._, 1, 13.
[369] LEO I., _Sermo 2 de Epiph._ FULGENTIUS, _Sermo_. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxv. 732.
[370] AMMIANUS MARCELL., 21, 2.
[371] CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, i. 21, § 45; ed. Potter, 407; Sylburg, 340.
[372] In the edition of BONWETSCH and ACHELIS, Leipsig, 1897, No. 22, p.
255 _et seq._, ACHELIS and others regard it as spurious but without just
reason. It is translated by PROBST, _Lehre und Gebet_, 247. Although not
a sermon, it was evidently an address delivered to certain individuals.
_Cf._ c. 6 and 9 (ἀγαπητέ and ἄνθρωπε).
[373] _Constit Apost._, 8, 33; _cf._ 5, 13.
[374] SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii. 15, 204, 220.
[375] See GREGOR. NAZ., _Orat._, 39, c. 2.
[376] _Synodus II. S. Patricii._, can. 20.
[377] St Matthew ii. 10 _seq._
[378] St Matthew ii. 1-12.
[379] _Poema_, 27; _Natal_, 9, v. 47 _et seqq._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi.
649.
[380] SEDATUS, _Hom. de Epiph._ MIGNE, lxxii. 773. MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom.
7 in Epiph._ MIGNE, lvii. 271. “Fuerunt enim hodie ... quid potissimum
præsenti hoc factum sit die, noverit ipse, qui fecit.”
[381] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo supposit._, 136, c. 1, and the hymn “Illuminans
Altissimus,” in KAYSER, _Hymnen_, 2nd ed., 370. See also the article
“Feste” by FUNK and KRIEG in KRAUS’S _Realenzyklopädie_.
[382] This also appears from the fact that some, as PHILASTRIUS (_De
Hær._, c. 140) informs us, omitted Epiphany and kept Christmas alone.
[383] _Comm. in Ezech._, i. 1.
[384] CHRYSOST., _Hom. ad Pop. Ant. de Bapt. Chr._, c. 2. _Migne_, _Patr.
Gr._, xlix. 363 _et seq._ It appears from this sermon that the Antiochene
Christians were in the habit of taking some of the baptismal water home
with them, and keeping it for a year without its becoming corrupt.
[385] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 202_, c. 2.
[386] _Cæsaraug._, A.D. 380, can. 3. AMMIANUS MARC., _op. cit._ Passio S.
Philippi Heracleensis in Ruinart, _Acta_, 440, c. 2.
[387] EPIPHANIUS (_Hær._, 51, c. 16 and 24), Ephrem, Cassian, etc. See
above, pp. 128 _seqq._
[388] Testam. D. N. Jesu Chr., ed. Rahmani (Mainz, 1899), i. 28; iv. 67,
101. The discussion of the date of this document cannot be entered into
here from want of space.
[389] Cod. Theodos., 2, 8, 20, 25; 5, 2; Cod. Justin., 3, 12, 6.
[390] See Appendix No. viii.
[391] _Peregr. Silviæ_, 60, ed. Geyer, c. 26: “Quadragesimæ de Epiphania
valde cum summo honore _hic_ celebrantur, etc.”
[392] THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, ed. Bonn, 345 ad ann. 534.
[393] NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 17, 28: καὶ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ὑπαπάντην
ἄρτι πρώτως ἁπανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς ἑορτάζεσθαι τάττει. See MURALT, _Chronogr.
Byz._, St Petersburg, 1855, i. 134.
[394] _Sacr. Gelasianum_, 2, 8, among the Natalitia Sanctorum. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1158. There is no mention of a procession in the
Gregorian sacramentary either.
[395] MORCELLI, i. 86, 288.
[396] The statement was made by BARONIUS (ad ann. 534), repeated by PAGI,
and, in recent times, by WISSOWA (_Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 446) and
by USENER (332), but rejected by GRISAR (_Gesch. Roms._, i. 455).
[397] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.
[398] See Appendix No. ix.
[399] CABROL (_Etude sur la Peregr. Silv._, 167 _et seqq._) gives a
survey of the lections then in use.
[400] Printed by BIANCHINI, _Opera Anast._, i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
cxxvii. 994. DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, I. cxlvi.
[401] BINTERIM’S statement (_Denkw._, v. 2, 133-152) is out of date. The
article “Fastenzeiten” by HEUSER in the _Kirchenlexikon_, iv., 2nd ed.,
must be supplemented by the investigations of Dom G. MORIN in the _Révue
Bénédictine_, 1897, 336-347—“L’Origine des Quatre-Temps.”
[402] LEO M., _Sermo_, 19 (18), c. 2.: “Per totius anni circulum
distributa sunt (jejunia), ut lex abstinentiæ omnibus sit adscripta
temporibus. Siquidem jejunium vernum in quadragesima, æstivum in
pentecoste, autumnale in mense septimo, hiemale in hoc qui est decimus
celebretur.”
[403] LEO M., _Sermo_, 16 (15), c. 1, 2; _Sermo_, 12 (11), c. 3.
[404] MORIN (_op. cit._ 345) quotes passages from the Leonine and
Gelasian sacramentaries. See MIGNE, lv. 153 _et seqq._
[405] Concerning the “feriæ conceptivæ” and “sementivæ” of the Romans,
see MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN, _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 198 _seqq._
[406] _Liber Pont._, _Callistus_: “Hic constituit jejunium die sabbati
ter in anno fieri, frumenti, vini et olei secundum prophetiam.” Ed.
DUCHESNE, i. 141.
[407] LEO I., _Sermo_, 19, c. 2; _Sacram. Leon._, 101, No. xxvii. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, liv. 186; lv. 105.
[408] _Epist. ad Episc. Luc._, c. 11. MIGNE, lix. 47.
[409] LEO I., _Epist. ad Dioscorum Al._, c. i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, liv.
626.
[410] MIGNE, cli. 978; c. 24-27.
[411] MORIN, _Révue Bénédictine_, 1897, 338 _seqq._
[412] _Sermo 2 de Jejun. X. mensis_: “Decimi mensis celebrandum esse
jejunium, quo pro consummata perceptione omnium frugum dignissime
largitori earum Deo continentiæ libamen offertur.”
[413] In MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, i. 511, 603; ii. 33, 94, 123, 136.
[414] H. MENARD, _Notæ et Observ. in Sacr. Greg._, in MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxxviii. 393.
[415] _Sacr. Gelas._ MIGNE, lxxiv. 1069, 1133, 1178 _seqq._
[416] _Sacr. Gregor._ MIGNE, lxxviii. 59-61, 113-115, 140-142.
[417] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 124: “Ut jejunium quattuor temporum et
ipsi sacerdotes observent et plebi denuntient observandum.” This shows
that until then it had not been customary in the Frankish empire.
[418] See BINTERIM, _Gesch. d. d. Prov.- u. Diöz.-Konzilien_, ii. 273
_seqq._; iii. 517 _seqq._
[419] The disagreement arose from the fact that the ancient missals
(Sacramentorum libri), only mentioned the month without specifying the
week when the Ember fasts were to be observed. See BERNO of Reichenau
(MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1097), whose small treatise, composed
between 1020 and 1031, deals with the question.
[420] _Micrologus_, c. 24.
[421] SERVIUS, Comm. on Virgil., _Bucol. Eccl._, 3, 77.
[422] See examples in USENER, 305 A. 22, 306-345.
[423] OBID., _Fasti_, 4, 905 _seqq._, and _Fasti Prænest._, _Corp.
Inser. Lat._ i. 392. For the “Robigaliæ” see MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN,
_Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 574.
[424] VIGILII, _Epist. ad Simpl._ i.; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xiii. 550.
[425] AVITUS, _Hom. de Rogat._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lix. 289. GREGOR.
TUR., _Hist. Franc_, 2, 34.
[426] This fact is mentioned by both the biographers of Gregory, JOAN.
DIAC. i. 41-43, and PAUL. DIAC. c. 10, as well as by AMALARIUS 4, 24, and
BELETH c. 122, etc., but all draw their information from GREGOR. TUR.,
_Hist. France_, 10, 1. See BAILLET ix, 2, 87-103, who also makes use of
the designations “Litaniæ Gallicanæ” and “Litaniæ Romanæ.”
[427] These words come from a letter without an address in the appendix
to the Register of Gregory the Great. MIGNE, lxxvii. 1329.
[428] _Lib. Pont._ ed., BIANCHINI, ii. 386.
[429] In Spain the litanies were on 10th Sept., 7th Nov., and 15th Dec.,
according to the lectionary of Silos.
[430] The Martyrium was erected on Golgotha, close to the site of
the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Anastasis, built by
Constantine, was the larger of the two, and served as the usual place of
assembly for the faithful in the fourth century. (_Peregr. Silviæ_, ed.
Geyer, c. 27, 30, 39, 43).
[431] J. P. KIRCH, _Die Christl. Kultusgeände in Altertum_, 34-40.
[432] St Gregory the Great ordered that the Anglo-Saxons should keep the
dedication of churches and the _natalitia martyrum_ in the same way as
they had previously observed the festivals while they were yet heathen,
that is to say by erecting huts of branches and by feasting. (Epist. ii.
76, of the year 601).
[433] For the East, see JOHANNES EUB., _Orat. in Concep. B.M.V._, c.
23. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvi. 1499. For the West, see the Sermons of St
Augustine on the “Dedicatio,” _Sermo 336-338_.
[434] Our informants are EUSEB., _Vita Constant_, 4, 6; SOZOMEN, _Hist.
Eccl._, 2, 26; 3, 5; SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 6.
[435] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 10, 3; AMBROSE, _Ad Marcellinam Epist._, 22,
1 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 1019). PAULINUS of Nola, _Nat. S. Fel._, 9;
_Poema_, 27, 402 _seqq._ (MIGNE, lxi. 657); _Peregr. Silviæ_, as above.
[436] _Missale Francorum_ in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 328.
[437] DIONYS, _De Hier. Eccl._, 4, 12. See RAHMANI, _Testam. D.N.I.
Chr._, 156.
[438] DURANDUS (_Rationale Div. Off._ 1, 23; 7, 262) expressly follows
the model of the Old Testament.
[439] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._ i. 308, 609, 613.
[440] _Op. cit._ ii. 467-489 and 186.
[441] GREGOR., ix. c. 5, x. _de feriis_ 2, 9. See Burchard of Worms,
_Decr._ 2, 77; Ivo of Chartres, _Decr._, in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxi.
203.
[442] _Liber Ordin._ of Essen, 62 _et seqq._
[443] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 1, 303 _et seqq._; _Conc._, v. 91) places
this synod in 1308. HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, iv. 106; vi. 498.
[444] Amongst others, Naogeorgius (Kirchmair aus Straubing) poured
contempt on the observance of these feasts and the abuses to which they
gave rise. HOSPINIANUS, 175.
[445] DUMONT, _Sammlung Kirchl. Erlasse für d. Erzd. Köhn_, 2nd ed., 165,
167.
[446] Remigius, a monk of St Germain, a diligent exegete who lived at the
end of the ninth century, attempted to give an allegorical interpretation
to the rites observed at the consecration of a church. The custom of
writing the letters of the alphabet in Greek and Latin on the floor of
the church seems to have presented difficulties to him. He commences his
explanation of this rite by the words: “Quæ res puerilis ludus videretur,
nisi ab apostolius viris instituta crederetur.” He interprets it as
meaning that the Church instructs the unlearned in the elements of faith.
His tractate in seven chapters is in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 846-866.
G. Mercati, however (_Studi et Testi_, Roma, 1902, 9) attributes it to
Ivo of Chartres.
[447] Literature: Lebrun, _De Martyrum Natalitiis Diss._ MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxi. 519, _seq._ Sollerius, Præf. to the _Mart. Usuardi_. MIGNE,
cxxiii. 459, _seqq._ Ruinart, Præf. to the _Acta mart. sincera et
genuina_. Le Blant, _Les Actes des Martyrs_, in _Mémoires de l’Institut_,
1888, 57-336.
[448] _Passio S. Pionii et Soc._, c. 2 in Ruinart, 188.
[449] DIGG., 48, tit. 24, No. 3: “Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet
petentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt.”
[450] _Lib. Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 52, 128.
[451] _Op. cit._ 65, 148, EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 45, § 11, also refers
to the seven deacons and seven subdeacons of Rome in the third century.
[452] _Lib. Pont._, I. xcv. 147.
[453] _Epist._, 12, 2.
[454] _Bullettino d. Comm. Arch. Communale di Roma_, 1894, 240 _seqq._
[455] RUINART, _Acta Sincera_, 630, with his Admonitio.
[456] GREGOR. NYSS., _Vita Greg. Thaum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 954.
[457] SOZOM., _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 3.
[458] MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom._ 81. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii. 427.
[459] _Lib. Pont._, _Symmachus_, c. 9.
[460] [See _The Legends of the Saints_, Delehaye, translated by Mrs V. M.
Crawford (London, 1907), especially chap. iv. Trans.]
[461] BÄUMER, _Gesch. des Breviers_, 456; see also 429, 447.
[462] _Regula ad Monachos_, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii. 396. See
also N. PAULUS, _Martyrologium und Brevier als historische Quellen_;
Katholik, 1900, i. 355 _seqq._
[463] _De Gloria Martyrum_, c. 48.
[464] _Cf._ _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 13.
[465] MURATORI, in a valuable work, _De Martyrum Natalibus_, shows in
opposition to Pagi that “natales martyrum” indicates the actual day of
their death. The work is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 819-26;
_Dissert._ 19.
[466] _De Anima_, 51.
[467] AUGUSTIN., _Epist._ 288. GREGOR. TUR., _De Gloria Conf._, 104.
[468] See the fourth canon of the Council of Valentia in A.D. 524.
[469] Edited by Baluzius, _Capitul. Reg. Franc._, Appendix. Also in
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcix. 633. Other formulæ of the Carolingian period
are given in MIGNE, cxxxviii. 885-902.
[470] This branch of hagiography has been carefully dealt with by
Baillet. The entire first volume of his great work, _Les Vies des
Saints_, is devoted to Old Testament Saints, more than a hundred in
number, and to the history of their cultus.
[471] E. A. Kneller, in order to explain the choice of the 24th for
the 25th June, draws attention to the way in which the ancient Roman
Calendars were written, _i.e._ viii. Kal. Jan. = 25th December; viii.
Kal. Jul. = 24th July (_Innsbr. Zeitschr. für kath. Theol._, 1901, 527).
[472] _Agath. Can._ 31, 63.
[473] IVO CARN., _Decretum_, 4, 14. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxi. 266.
[474] According to St Augustine (_sermo 292_, c. i.) it was “traditione
majorum receptum.”
[475] MORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, ii. 13 _seq._ No less than fifteen
churches and chapels were dedicated to St John the Baptist in
Constantinople.
[476] JOSEPHUS, _Antt._, 18, 5, 2.
[477] TILLEMONT, _Mém._, i. 44; vii. 163.
[478] SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii. 220-47.
[479] Dionysius Exiguus translated this account into Latin (MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, lxvii. 418). See also TILLEMONT, _Mém._, i. 44; vii. 163.
MORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, i. 167; ii. 65, 222. BAILLET, iv. 825 _seqq._;
vi. 291 _seqq._ DU CANGE, _Traité du Chef de S. J. B._ (Paris, 1665),
wrote against the trustworthiness of Marcellus. The chronology of the
Paschal Chronicle was corrected by Du Cange and Pagi. See RAUSCHEN,
_Jahrbücher d. Theol._, 356 A.
[480] NILLES, i., 2nd ed., 111.
[481] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 120, 394.
[482] Pseudo-Alcuin, _De off. Eccl._, c. 30.
[483] _Ordo Rom. XI._, c. 66. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1050. There
is not sufficient evidence to support Binterim’s view (_Denkw._, v. 379)
that the procession to the Baptistry proves that solemn baptism was
administered at Rome on the 24th June.
[484] _Sermo 287-93._ In _Sermo 292_, c. 1, appears the passage quoted on
page.... “Hoc majorum traditione suscepimus, etc.”
[485] A town of Gamala was situated on the eastern shore of the Lake
Genesareth, on a mountain. Josephus, _Bello Jud._, 4, 1, 1-7; _Antt._,
18, 1, 1, etc. Nothing is known of the village of Gamala near Jerusalem.
[486] For the fullest account of the particulars, see HYDATIUS, _Chron._
(RONCALLI, ii. 99), “Honorio X. et Theodosio VI. Conss.” With this date
agrees MARCELLINUS (_op. cit._, ii. 279), but not the _Chron. Breve._
(_op. cit._, ii. 259) or THEOPHANES, _Chrongr._, ed. Bonn, i. 133.
[487] GENNADIUS, _De Script. Eccl._, 46, 47. The writings relating to the
“Inventio S. Stephani” are in Latin. The translation is printed in MIGNE,
xli., _Opera S. Augustini VII._, 805-54.
[488] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 316, 320-24; _Civ. Dei_, 22, c. 8.
[489] THEOPHANES, _Chrongr._, ad ann. 420.
[490] MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 48.
[491] As, for example, to Antoninus. See GEYER, _Itinera Hierosol._, 176.
[492] CODINUS, ii.
[493] The Syrian list of Abul Barakat gives for the date of St Stephen’s
death the 12th Sept. A.D. 37, and for the date of the first discovery
of his relics the 27th Dec. A.D. 40. Chr. IV. Caji. BAUMSTARK, _Oriens
Christ._, i. 266.
[494] GRISAR, _Gesch. Roms und der Päpste_, i. 194 _seqq._
[495] See the Calendars in SELDENIUS, _op. cit._; also the Synaxaria in
MAI, _Bibl. Vet. Patr._, iv.
[496] USENER, _Der hl. Theodosius_, Leipsig, 1890, 38, 144.
[497] JULIAN of Toledo in the _Vita S. Ildephonsi Tol._, c. 6. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, xcvi. 46.
[498] It is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxi. 798, from _Pamelius
Liturgica Lat._, Col. Agr. 1571, tit. ii. 70. [See also an article in
the _Dublin Review_, vol. cxv., on “The Earliest Roman Mass-book,” by Mr
Edmund Bishop.—TR.]
[499] _Liber Pont._, SERGIUS, No. 86.
[500] In the calendar of Sonnatius of Reims (quoted on p. 21), dating
from ten or twenty years after Gregory the Great, these three feasts are
already mentioned.
[501] There are, however, among the sermons of Peter Chrysologus, three
(140, 142, and 143) entitled “de annuntiatione,” but of these No. 140
contains no allusion to a festival of our Blessed Lady, and the two
others belong to Christmas.
[502] ST THOMASSIN, 409. See MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxv. 406. Fulbert,
however, speaks of the feast as of recent institution. _Sermo_, 4. MIGNE,
cxli. 320 _seqq._
[503] MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvii. 806 _seqq._
[504] So in the passage from the _Liber Pontificalis_ quoted above and
in the _Kalend. Fronteau_. Bede calls it the “Annuntiatio Dominica.” The
Greek name for the feast is Εὐαγγελισμός τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου.
[505] _Chron. Pasch. Olymp._, 351, ed. Bonn, i. 713.
[506] PETRUS CHRYS., _Sermo_, 140, 142, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lii.
Among the spurious sermons of Leo the Great is one which is believed to
be a translation of a discourse of Proclus, _Sermo 15_. See the note of
Ballerini in MIGNE, _Patr Lat._, liv. 508. PROCLUS, _Orat. I._ MIGNE,
_Patr. Gr._, lxv. 679.
[507] RADULFUS GLABER, _Hist._, 3, 3.
[508] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 170, 734.
[509] HOLWECK, 292. When the 25th March falls on one of the three last
days in Holy Week or Easter Week, it must be translated. BINTERIM
(_Denkw._, v. 356) gives several historical references concerning this.
[510] PROCLUS, _Oratio III._, c. 2. When we find in collections of
sermons (_e.g._ COMBEFIS, _Bibl. Conc._), some by the Fathers, such as
Origen, St Ambrose, St Athanasius, etc., ascribed to the feasts of our
Lady, we must not jump to the conclusion that these feasts were observed
at the period when the authors of these sermons lived. These reputed
sermons are only homilies on texts which suit the feast in question, and
on this account have been inserted into the collection.
[511] EPIPH., _Hær._, 79, c. 11: “I say not she did not die, yet I am not
certain that she did die.”
[512] VETTER, _Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1887, 133 _seqq._ The letter is
also given in the treatise by NIRSCHL, _Das Grab der heiligen Jungfrau
Maria_, Mainz, 1896, 80 _seqq._
[513] _Transitus Mariæ_ in TISCHENDORF, _Apocal. Apocr._, Lips., 1866,
114.
[514] We have three sermons of John on the Assumption (MIGNE, _Patr.
Gr._, xcvi.), one of Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem (MIGNE, _Patr.
Gr._, lxxxvi. pars 2), three of Andrew of Crete, who, before becoming
bishop, was a monk in Palestine (MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvii., oratio
12-14), and three of Germanus (MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcviii. 339-72).
[515] _De Gloria Mart._, i. 4.
[516] NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 17, 28.
[517] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 225. See also MABILLON’S note in the
same col., 475.
[518] In the _Martyr. Luccense_ of FIORENTINI, on the 22nd January:
“Depositio B. Mariæ Matris D. N. J. C.”
[519] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxx. 446. In HARDUIN (iii. 2946) it is so
named.
[520] H. JÜRGENS, _Die kirchl. Uberlieferung von der leibl. Aufnahme
Mariens in den Himmel_: Innsbr. _Zeitschr. für kath. Theol._, 1880,
595-650.
[521] WÜSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_ of Bishop Michael of Atriba and Malidsch,
251. MAI, _Script. Vet. Nova Collectio_, iv. 1. 5. SELDENIUS, _De
Synedriis_, iii. c. 15, 320 _seqq._
[522] A form for the blessing of the fruits of the field appears in the
Ritual of Augsburg, 1487. See RAICH, _Katkolik_, 1901, ii. 144. FRANZ,
_Das Ritual von St Florian aus dem 12. Jahrhundert_; Freiburg, 1904.
[523] BAILLET (viii. 434-441) and BENEDICT XIV. (_De festis_, c. 184-210)
collected materials for this purpose.
[524] The Emperor Leo VI., the Philosopher (896-903), spread the
observance of the feast. Passaglia relied (iii. 1750) on a speech of his
preserved in the Sforza library in Rome. It does not appear among the
speeches of this Emperor printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, cvii.
[525] Εἰ καὶ μὴ παρὰ τοῖς πᾶσι γνωρίζεται, c. 23. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._,
xcvi. 1499. Observe the article with πᾶσιν. Οἱ παντες means all
collectively, _i.e._ the whole community or church.
[526] For the so-called Typicum S. Sabæ, see Appendix xi.
[527] It is the first among his sermons. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, c. 1353.
[528] The change from the 9th Dec., the date of the festival among the
Greeks, to the 8th, is probably to be explained by the fact that in the
Roman Calendar vi., Idus Dec. corresponds to the vi. Idus Sept., the date
of our Lady’s Nativity, while the 9th Dec. is written v. Idus Dec.
[529] [The feast was, however, observed in England before the Norman
Conquest. The evidence for this is given by Mr Edmund Bishop in his
tract, _On the Origins of the Feast of the Conception of the Bl. V.
M._, London, Burns & Oates, 1904. From this the following is taken: (1)
Calendar contained in Cotton MS. Titus D., xxvii., has the entry in the
original hand at 8th Dec: “Conceptio sancte Dei genitricis Mariæ.” This
MS. was written in the New Minster, Winchester, under Abbot Aelfwin
(1034-57). (2) Calendar of the Old Minster, Winchester (Cotton MS.,
Vitellius E., xviii.), has the same entry. The MS. is attributed by Hicks
to or about 1030. (3) Add. MS., 28, 188, a pontifical and benedictional
of the eleventh century probably written for Bp. Leofric (1046-72),
and “distinctly pre-Norman.” In this, fol. 161, is a “Benedictio in
Conceptione Sancte Mariæ.” (4) Harl. MS. 2892, also a pontifical and
benedictional written for Canterbury in the first half of the eleventh
century (to judge from the handwriting); a similar benediction occurs,
ff. 189-90. (5) To these, in a letter to the translator, Mr Bishop adds:
I. In the Leofric Missal, among the Masses added to the book by Bp.
Leofric, is a Mass for the feast of the Conception (p. 268); II. In a
Worcester Calendar of about 1064, and written therefore under St Wulstan
and before the conquest, the feast of the Conception is entered at 8th
Dec. Trans.]
[530] See Appendix x.
[531] Two accounts of Elsinus are found among the spurious writings of St
Anselm (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clix. 319-326). Three others have recently
been published by Thurston & Slater, _Eadmeri Mon. Cant. Tractatus
de Conceptione S. Mariæ_, 88-98. Another by Lechler, _Mittelalterl.
Kirchenfeste_, 92 _et seq._
[532] _E.g._ in the Roman Breviary of 1473 (Univ. Bibl., Freiburg i.
Br.), in the Breviary of Sitten of 1493, National Mus., Zurich, and in
that of Constance of 1509.
[533] Gerberon in the introduction to Anselm’s works. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, clviii. 43 _et seq._
[534] Osbert’s letters were first published along with those of Herbert
de Losinga by Robt. Anstruther (Brussels, 1846), unfortunately very
imperfectly. Lately they are given by Thurston and Slater, _op. cit._, 53
_et seq._
[535] _Osbert de Clara_ in Thurston and Slater, App. B. 60 _et seq._
[536] [Mr Bishop, _op. cit._, 30, 31, says the Normans probably treated
the celebration of this feast by the English with contempt, as “a
product of insular simplicity and ignorance.” Its public celebration was
discontinued most probably at Winchester and Canterbury, but “it did not
die out of the hearts of individuals.”—Trans.]
[537] Osbert, Epist. i. _op. cit._ 55. “Et in hoc regno et in
transmarinis partibus a nonnullis episcopis et abbatibus in ecclesiis
Dei instituta est illius diei recordatio.” That the feast was introduced
“in hoc regno,” _i.e._ England, by abbots but not by bishops, is clear
from Osbert’s second letter, and from other evidence; and, therefore, his
remark is true only of Normandy. Of the one English bishop whom he names
as in favour of the feast, he can only say he was “de his sufficienter
instructus” (_op. cit._ 58). Osbert has no knowledge of his having
introduced the feast. By “transmarinæ partes,” British chroniclers of
that period always mean Normandy and Brittany.
[538] Matthæus Paris. ad ann., 1228, _Chron. maj._ 3, 161.
[539] Wilhelm. Malmsbur., _Gesta Reg. Angl._ 4, 338. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
clxxix., 1290. Eadmer., _Hist. Nov._, _Præf._ et passim. MIGNE, clix. 347.
[540] This appears from a decree of Bishop Walter of Rouen in 1207,
printed in the collection of Bigot in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccvii. 1179.
Walter had withheld certain endowments which his predecessor Rotricus
appointed for the metropolitan chapter on certain festivals. These he
now restored. Vacandard (_Les origines de la Fête d. C. Imm._: Révue des
Questions Hist., 1897, 166) was unacquainted with this decree, else he
would have arrived at a different conclusion. Moreover he himself brings
forward proof that the feast was celebrated during the twelfth century in
Jumièges and St Owen, but not until the thirteenth century at Fécamp.
[541] _Syn. Rotom._ of 1189, can. 1. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccvii. 1180.
[542] HENRICUS A GANDAVO, _Quæst. quodlib._, 15 qu. 13 fol., 584 B.:
“Normanni, in quorum territorio dicitur hujusmodi revelatio facta fuisse,
præ ceteris populis illam conceptionem praccipue celebrant.” Again, fol.
385 A., it is twice called “festum quod a Normannis celebratur.” It would
appear from this that the Normans before 1260 were still the only people
who kept the feast.
[543] This legend must have enjoyed a wide circulation, since the
Greek Breviary finds it necessary to attack it. See the edition of
Constantinople, 1843, 77.
[544] PASSAGLIA (_De Imm. Conc._, iii. 1755 _seqq._) is not at all
shaken in his opinion by the fact that Mabillion, as he himself admits,
has shown the falsified life was not written by ILDEFONSUS, _Acta Ord.
S. Bened._, ii. 521. The title “conceptio S.V.M. Genitricis Domini”
refers to Christmas. It is an altogether absurd idea that the Jews in
the seventh century joined in the celebration of the 8th December.
Unfortunately SCHWANE (_Dogmengesch._, iii. 414) has copied Passaglia’s
mistake.
[545] LESLÆUS, _Miss. Mixtum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 933 A.
[546] PASSAGLIA (_op. cit._, iii. 1760) relies on a deed of gift of
1047, in which occurs the expression “Conceptio Immac.,” at that period
unknown—a clear proof of falsification. The document comes from Antonio
Dragoni, an industrious fabricator. See SICKEL, _Acta Regum, etc._, i. 23.
[547] SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, c. 43. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccxviii.
[548] PETRUS CELL., _ad Nicolaum Mon. Epist._, 2, 171. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, ccii. 614.
[549] See BELETH, _Rationale Div. Off._, c. 146. SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, c.
43. DURANDUS, _Mim. Rationale_, also does not know of the feast.
[550] BERNARD., _Epist._, 171. Vacandard would like to place this letter
before 1128, but this is out of the question.
[551] BERNARD., _Epist._, 184.
[552] MANSI, _Conc._, xxiii. 764. CHEVALIER, _Bibl. Lit._, 7.
[553] WADDING, _Annales Minorum_.
[554] THOMAS, _S. Theol._, 3 q. 27, art. 2.
[555] SCHWANE, _Dogmengesch._, iii. 418.
[556] BINTERIM, _Konzil._, vi. 536, A. I.
[557] SCHATEN, _Annal. Pad._, ad ann. 1343.
[558] PASSAGLIA, _De Imm. Conc._, iii. 1767. BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 1,
302 _seq._
[559] BINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdiözese Köln I._, Düsseldorf, 1892,
538. WÜRDTWEIN, _Diplomat Magunt._, i., Mainz, 1788, 131, No. 69.
_Urkunde des Klosters Jechaburg in Thüringen_, see FALK, _Katholik_,
1903, 1.
[560] The 2nd Canon of this synod of Canterbury runs:—“Venerabilis
Anselmi, prædecessoris nostri, qui post alia quædam B.M.V. antiquiora
sollemnia Conceptionis festum superaddere dignum duxit, vestigiis
inhærentes, statuimus, etc.” On the one hand the synod does not say that
Anselm had actually introduced the feast, and, on the other, the words
are too plain to allow of us thinking, with some recent writers, that
the synod confused the uncle and the nephew. One cannot charge it with
ignorance of this kind. See HARDOUIN, _Conc._, vii. 1538; LABBE-COSSART,
_Conc._, ix. 2478.
[561] HARDOUIN, _Conc._, viii. 1266. SCHWANE, _Dogmengesch._, iii. 427.
[562] NAT. ALEXANDER., _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 546, ed. Paris, 1627.
LABBE-COSSART, _Conc._, viii. 1403.
[563] The feast was kept with special devotion by the Carmelite nuns in
their church in Rome. Under Innocent VIII. the order of the Conceptio
B.M.V. for women was also instituted in Rome. PASSAGLIA, _De Imm. Conc._,
iii. 1776.
[564] PASSAGLIA, _op. cit._, 1777, and, after him, TAPPEHORN,
_Predigtentwürfe_, ii. 9, give the date incorrectly as 1476.
[565] FERRARIS, _Prompta Bibl._, 3, 379.
[566] PASSAGLIA, _op. cit._, iii. 1788; Constitution of 10th November
1644: “In his quæ per.”
[567] From 1477-1854 is scarcely four hundred years.
[568] BENEDICT XIV., _De Festis._, 2, 152.
[569] EUSEBIUS, _De Nom. Hebr._ MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xxiii. 789.
[570] See the excellent article by J. B. Kraus in the first ed. of the
_Kirchenlexikons_, with the additions of SCHROD in the 2nd ed. For
special treatises, see BENEDICT XIV., _Commentarius de Festis B.M.V._,
and for a more modern work, HOLWECK, _Fasti Mariani_, Freiburg, 1892.
[571] _Protoevangelium_, 7. _Evang. de Nativitate Mariæ_, 6. See
TAPPEHORN, _Ausserbibl. Nachrichten oder die Apokryphen_, 25.
[572] MORCELLI, i. 287. The title runs, τὰ εἰς τὸν ναὸν εἰσοδὶα τῆς
Θεομητέρος. J. B. KRAUS (_Kirchenlex._, vi., 1st ed., 884) states it
was observed in Constantinople in 730, on the authority of Simeon
Metaphrastes, without giving the passages. ALT (p. 52) and others have
copied from him, also without citing the passages. The statement is very
improbable, for in 725 the Iconoclastic controversy had broken out,
rendering its introduction unlikely. It might be considered probable if
the homily of TARASIUS, _De Præsentatione B.M.V._, were genuine. MORCELLI
(ii. 250) considers it spurious. The feast is also not included in the
Menologium of Constantinople.
[573] “Depositio,” κατάθεσις, etc., is the actual name of the feast in
the Calendars, and in the older menologies it is called “ἡ σορὸς τῶν
βλαχένων Σορός.” Arca or loculus is the wooden coffin in which Mary is
said to have been originally placed in Jerusalem, and which was brought
to Constantinople under Marcian. MORCELLI, ii. 151. MURALT, _Chronogr.
Byz._, i. 83.
[574] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 407.
[575] _Constit. synodica Odonis Episc. Par._ MANSI, _Conc._, xxii. 681,
No. 10.
[576] MANSI, _op. cit._, 1108, i. 4. BINTERIM, _Konzilien_, iv. 480;
_Denkw._, vii. 1, 98-129. TH. ESSER, _Gesch. des Engl. Grusses_; Histor.
Jahrbuch, 1884, 92. [For the use of the Angelic Salutation in England,
see FR. BRIDGETT, C. SS. R., “_Our Lady’s Dowry_,” chap. iv. Trans.]
[577] [For questions connected with the history of the rosary, see a
series of articles in vols. 96 and 97 of _The Month_, by FR. HERBERT
THURSTON, S.J.; also, _Unserer Lieben Frauen Rosenkrantz_, by FR. TH.
ESSER, O.P., Paderborn, 1889. Trans.]
[578] HOLZAPFEL, _S. Dominicus und der Rosenkranz_, Munich, 1903.
[579] The originators of this form of prayer were Dominic of Prussia and
Adolf of Essen, two monks of the Charterhouse in Treves in the fifteenth
century. TH. ESSER, _Beitrag zur Gesch. des Rosenkranzes, Katholik_,
1897, ii. 409 _seqq._, and 1904, ii. 98 _seqq._
[580] There is historical proof for the existence of confraternities of
the Holy Rosary in the second half of the fifteenth century. That founded
in Cologne in 1474 by Prior Jacob Sprenger, O.P., was celebrated. TH.
ESSER, _U.L. Fr. Rosenkranz_, Paderborn, 1889, 289. It was confirmed by
Sixtus IV. in 1478. _Kirchenlexikon_, x., 2nd ed. 1281.
[581] _Kirchenlexikon_, viii. 2nd ed. 818; Brev. Rom. Dom i., Oct. lectio
7-9. On the 5th August takes place the local feast of Our Lady of the
Snows, “Maria ad Nives,” in the basilica of Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome.
As the office has been incorporated in the Breviary, a short account of
it may be justified in this place. Pope Liberius erected a basilica on
the Esquiline, on the site of Livia’s market, which was called after him
“Liberiana.” In the next century, Sixtus III. restored the church and
changed its title, dedicating it to the Mother of God (_Lib. Pont._,
Liberius, No. 52, Xystus III., No. 63). From henceforth it was known as
“Basilica S. Mariæ,” at the present day, Sta. Maria Maggiore. The miracle
of the snow is not mentioned in any of the original documents, but
only in mediæval writings. The 5th August may have been the day of the
dedication of the basilica. See GRISAR, _Gesch. Roms._, i. 153 A. 1. The
legend of the translation of the Holy House of Loreto (10th Dec.) will
not stand historical investigation. According to trustworthy accounts,
pilgrims to Nazareth already in the eighth century found the holy house
there no longer, but only a church on the site where it had stood.
ADAMNAN, _De Locis Sanctis_, 2, 26; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxviii. 304.
ANTONINUS PLAC., _Itinerarium_, c. 5, in GEYSER, _Itinerarium Hieros._,
161, 197; NICEPHORUS CALL., (_Hist. Eccl._, 8, 30), names Helena as
the foundress of the church built on the spot where the house of the
Anunnciation had stood. See L. DE FEIS, _La Santa Casa di Loreto ed il
Santuario di Nazareth_, Florence, 1904.
[For Our Lady’s feasts as observed in England, see Fr. Bridgett, _op.
cit._, chap. vi. For what may be urged in favour of the Holy House of
Loreto, see an article by the Rev. G. E. Phillips, S.J., in the _Ushaw
Magazine_, March 1908. Trans.]
[582] PFÜLF, _Die Verehrung des hl. Joseph in der Geschichte_, in Stimmen
aus Maria-Laach, xxxviii (1890), 117, _et seqq._ _Révue Bénédictine_,
xiv. 1897, 106 _seqq._, 145 _seqq._, 203 _seqq._ _Le Développement Hist.
du Culte de St Joseph._
[583] _De Syn._, iii. c. 15, 220 _et seqq._
[584] _Script. Vet. Nova Coll._, iv. 15, _et seqq._
[585] “In Antioch. natalis Josephi,” _Codex Epternac._
[586] Printed in the _Analecta Bolland._, i. 19.
[587] _Révue Bénédictine_, xiv. (1897) iii. _seqq._ and 145 _seqq._
[588] _Ib._, 145 _seqq._
[589] PANVINIUS _Vita Sixti IV._, in the continuation to Platina.
[590] GROTEFEND, _Handbuch der Chronol._, ii. _passim_.
[591] PROCOPIUS, _De Ædif._, i. 3.
[592] _De Hær._, 79.
[593] PANVINIUS, _op. cit._
[594] See the article “Anna” by Schegg, and “Joachim” by Jocham in the
_Kirchenlexikon_, 2nd ed., i. and vi. Trithemius wrote a tract on the
worship of St Anne in 1484.
[595] BAILLET, v. 363.
[596] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxix. 1023; _Sermo de S. Matth._, Acta SS.
Boll., 3 Febr. 487.
[597] _Opera S. Leonis I._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lv. 57; lxxiv. 1168
under No. 33.
[598] BELETH, _Rationale Div. Off._ c. 124; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii.
131.
[599] SOCR., _Hist. Eccl._, i. 16: μνήμη τῶν ἀποστόλων.
[600] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 71.
[601] Theophanes, Nicephorus, etc. MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 197.
[602] Edited in Greek by Usener in the Bonn _Lektionskatalog_ for 1877.
[603] DUCHESNE, _Origines_, 255.
[604] GREGOR, Nyss. _Opera_; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 725, 787.
[605] AMBROS., _De Virg._ c. 19, No. 124: “Dies factus est Petrus, dies
Paulus ideoque hodie natali eorum Spiritus Sanctus increpuit dicens,
etc.” MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 299.
[606] _Hom._, 68-73 and _Sermo_, 66-69; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii.
[607] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 295, c. 8; 296, c. 1.
[608] See my article “Petrus und Paulus” in the _Katholik_, 1887, i.
11-39.
[609] CHRYSOSTOM, _Opera_, ed. Montfaucon, ii. 1.
[610] PRUDENTIUS, _Perist._, 12, 2: “Romam per omnem cursitant orantque;”
v. 52: “Aspice per bifidas plebs Romula funditur plateas,” and especially
v. 63: “Transtiberina prius solvit sacra pervigil sacerdos, Mox huc
recurrit duplicatque vota.”
[611] _Sermo_, 84, al. 81 of Leo the Great is entitled: In Octavis SS.
apostolorum. See AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 3, 36.
[612] _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 16, ed. Vales, 518. THEOPHANES, ad an. 492.
[613] Among the Calendars published by Seldenius (_De Synedriis III._, c.
15) one contains it, another on 27th June has “Planctus Pauli” (see p.
212), and the third (p. 241) has another martyr called Basamon. Binterim
is mistaken in thinking the feast is absent from no ancient Calendar
(_Denkw._, v. 383).
[614] Eudocia lived as a widow at Jerusalem, 450-455, and died there. She
had previously visited Jerusalem in 438. MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 47, 68.
[615] A priest of this church, called Philip, was papal legate at the
Council of Ephesus.
[616] DE ROSSI, _Inscr. Chr._, ii. 1, 110, 134, 164. GRISAR, _Gesch.
Roms._, i. 172, pt. I. Other witnesses for the existence of St Peter’s
chain at Rome are ARATOR, _Acta Apost._, i. 1067; JUSTINIAN, _Epist._, in
Labbe-Cossart, iv. 1416; GREGOR M., _Epist._, i. 30, ix. 122, xi. 53, etc.
[617] SIGEBERT of Gemblours mentions the event _ad ann._ 969. MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, clx. 191.
[618] It is not in the Kalendarium Gothicum, the Neapolitan Calendar, nor
in that of Charlemagne belonging to 781 (ed. Piper), nor in the Greek
menologies of Basil and Constantinople.
[619] _Römische Quartalschrift_, 1901, 244 _seqq._ Ranke is much mistaken
in thinking that Bede celebrated the conversion of St Paul “in the
ancient manner” on 30th June. See BEDA, _Martyrol._, ed. Migne, _Patr.
Lat._, xciv. 962.
[620] HIERON. _De Vir. Ill._, c. 7, _Chron. Pasch._ The FASTI IDAT. and
THEOD. LECTOR (_Hist. Eccl._, 2, 61) agree in giving the 3rd March as the
date.
[621] Edited by Usener from a Parisian MS. of the ninth to twelfth
century, in _Anal. Boll._, xiii. 373-78. See the author’s art., “Zur
Gesch. des Aposels Andreas,” in the _Katholik_, 1906, vol. iii.
[622] Printed by Mombritius & Surius in Latin only. C. Chr. Woog (Lips.,
1749) published the Greek text. MORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, i. 245, and
TISCHENDORF, _Acta Apost. Apocr._, Lips., 1861, 105 _seqq._ The πράξεις
τοῦ Ἀνδρέου καὶ Ματθεία (_op. cit._, 432 _seqq._) are full of childish
legends.
[623] _Passio S. Artemii auctore Johanne mon._, c. 16. MIGNE, _Patr.
Gr._, xcvi., 1266. PAULINUS NOL., _Poema_, 19, 33. See also the
_Enconium S. Lucæ_, printed for the first time in the August number of
the _Jahrbuch für protest. Theologie_ for 1890, by Ph. MEYER, and ABU’L
BARAKAT, _Oriens Chr._, Rome, 1902, 337, No. 6. _Tüb. Quartalsch._, 1905,
596 _et seqq._
[624] See the Calendar in SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis Hebr._, and that given
by Mai.
[625] VENANTIUS FORT., _Carmina_, 8, 6. See _Kirchenlexikon_, iii., 2nd
ed., 774, art. “Compostela,” by Hefele.
[626] NOTKER BALBULUS, ad VIII. Kal. Aug., says: “Iussu Herodis regis
decollatus est Hierosolymis.... Hujus ossa ad Hispanias translata.”
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 1125.
[627] Pope Innocent I. flatly denies that any apostle had founded the
Church of Spain. _Epist. ad Decentium_, 25, c. 2: “Aut legant, si in his
provinciis alius apostolorum invenitur, etc.” MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xx.
552.
[628] Edited by Duchesne in _Acta SS. Nov._, vol. ii., pars. 1, 96.
[629] [And also on the 25th May.—Trans.]
[630] HIERON., _De Vir. Ill._, c. 2.
[631] For the proof of this, see the Author’s art. in the _Katholik_,
1887, i. 23.
[632] MORCELLI, i. 168. He can only produce as evidence the Calendars of
Reichenau and Rheinau, but they are sufficient for his purpose.
[633] The _Hieronymianum_ at least says so on the 27th December:
“Adsumptio S. Johannis Evangelistæ apud Ephesum et _ordinatio_
episcopatus S. Jacobi fratris Domini qui ab apostolis primus ex Judaeis
Hierosolymis episcopus est ordinatus.”
[634] THEODOSIUS (530 _circ._), _De Situ Terræ Sanctæ_, ed. Vindob.,
1898, 142, 174. VENANTIUS FORT., _Carmina_, 8, 6.
[635] So the Chronographer of 354. The _Hieronymianum_ in its oldest
recension (Weissenburg) has the entry: “In Africa natalis S. Philippi
Apostoli, Jacobi, Quintiani, etc.” The recensions of Echternach and Metz
have: “Natalis SS. Apostolorum Philippi et Jacobi,” and the incorrect
addition in Africa is transferred to another place.
[636] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 303, 306, note 2.
[637] MORCELLI, ii. 97, gives more particulars. The name Manna implies
that the substance was white—probably the salt which gathers upon walls.
[638] _Op. cit._, i. 167 _et seq._
[639] BAUMSTARK, _Röm. Quartalschrift._, 1899, 314.
[640] There is no explanation of the entry on the 24th June, “VIII. Kal.
Jul. Natalis dormitionis S. Joannis Apost. et Evang. in Epheso.” The view
of those who ascribed the death of a martyr to St John on the grounds of
St Mark x. 39 has never found much support. See SCHANZ, _Kommentar zu
Joh._, 332.
[641] _De Præser._, c. 36.
[642] ABDIAS, _De Historia Certaminis Apostolorum Libri X._, GUTSCHMID
(_Kleine Schriften_, ii. 364-372), considers the author of the _Acta
Simonis_ _et Judæ_ contained in this history is familiar with Persian
customs and lived in the ante-Nicene period. Gutschmid adds that both
apostles preached in Armenia, A.D. 39-47, which was then subject to
Persia, and fancies he can discover allusions to the civil war waged by
the two Persian kings, Vardanes and Gotarzes. In the history Vardanes was
favourable to Greek customs and had been visited by Apollonius of Tyana.
[643] Suana is mentioned by Claud. Ptolem., 5, 13, § 119, as situated in
Greater Armenia. The Suani were a Caucasian tribe. See MURALT, _Chron.
Byz._, i. 85, 150, 211, 218, 250.
[644] _Chron. Pasch._, ed. Bonn, 471; see also 432, and _Cal. Calcasendi_
in Seldenius.
[645] Card. RAMPOLLA, _De Authentico Rom. Pontificis Magisterio_, in
_La Papauté et les Peuples_, ii., Paris, 1900, 8-48. ANDRIES, _Cathedra
Romana, etc._, Mainz, 1872. KELLNER, _Verfassung Lehramt u. Unfehlbarkeit
d. Kirche_, Kempten, 1873.
[646] BENEDICT XIV. (_Opera ined. Heiner_, 65-67) deals with the question
whether the feast commemorates St Peter’s ordination, or the day of his
arrival in Rome, or the foundation of the Roman Church, etc. His history
of the feast is based upon antiquated material, and the greater part of
the treatise is occupied with the proof that St Peter had visited Rome.
[647] MARQUARDT MOMMSEN, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, iii., 2nd ed., 311
_seqq._
[648] Such exclamations as “Bene vos! Bene te patriæ pater, Optime
Cæsar!” were common. OVID, _Fasti_, 2, 616-638. VALERIUS MAX., 2, 1, 8.
MARTIAL., 9, 54. BONGHI, _Die römischen Feste_, translated by Ruhemunn,
Vienna, 1892, 41.
[649] TERTULLIAN., _De Idol._, c. 10.
[650] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 190, 191; _Opera_, v.
[651] See the second Council of Tours, A.D. 567, can. 22.
[652] _Rationale div. off._, c. 83. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii. 87.
[653] GREG. I., _Epist. ad Mellitum_, 11, 76 al.; 9, 71. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, lxxvii. 1215. Statements to the same effect are found in
AUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 47; THEODORET, _De Græc. aff. cur._, 8; SIDONIUS
AP., _Epist._, 4, 15.
[654] Edited by Henschen, _Acta SS. Boll. Junii VII._; MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, xiii.; and recently by Mommsen in the _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, tit. i.
[655] The bishops of Sedunum attended the Councils of Maçon, and
belonged, at a later date, to the province of the Tarantaise. WILTSCH,
_Kirchl. Geographie u. Statistik_, i. 323, 355.
[656] MABILLON, _De Lit. Gall._, ii. 23. MIGNE, lxxii. 182; see also 472,
and DUCHESNE, _Origines du Culte Chrétien_, 266 _et seq._
[657] _Spicilegium_, t. ii.; see _infra_, p. 401.
[658] RANKE, VI. xxx.
[659] According to the edition of DE ROSSI and DUCHESNE in the _Acta SS.
Boll._, we find on the 20th Jan., XV. Kal. Febr., in the Weissenburg
Codex: “Dedicatio Cathedra (sic) S. Petri Apostoli, qua primo Romæ Petrus
Apostolus sedit.” Epternach Codex: “Depositio S. Mariæ et Cathedra Petri
in Roma.” The Bern Codex is imperfect here. On the 22nd February, VIII.
Kal. Mart., the Weissenburg Codex has: “Natale S. Petri Apostoli Cathedra
quam sedit apud Antiochia” (sic). The Epternach has: “Cathedra Petri in
Antioc. et Romæ.” The Bern Codex: “Cathedra S. Petri Apostoli quam sedit
apud Antiochiam.”
[660] BINTERIM & MOOREN, _Die Erzdiözese Köln im Mittelalter_, i., 2nd
ed., 528.
[661] _Bullarium_, ed. Lux., i. 832.
[662] See BÄUMER, 510.
[663] CLEMENTIS ROM., _Recogn_., 10, 70. For a different opinion, see FR.
X. KRAUS, in the third appendix to his _Roma Sott._, and MARUCCHI, who
wrongly considers the feast of the 22nd February commemorated the Vatican
chair of St Peter and that of the 18th January his chair at the Ostrian
Cemetery. Unfortunately the latter feast was unknown in Rome before the
16th century.
[664] Concerning this point, see SCHANZ, _Kommentar zu Matthäus_, 504;
_Markus_, 417; _Lukas_, 251.
[665] CLEMENTIS ROM., _Recogn._, 3, 68.
[666] According to Duchesne, it is the work of a student of Magdalen
College, Oxford, called Rabanus, and belongs to the year 1456. RIETSCH,
10. The work is printed in Migne, _Patr. Gr._, i. 112.
[667] MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 468, 477.
[668] MORCELLI, i. 101, 288 note. Baumstark communicated to the _Röm.
Quartalschrift_, 1900, 310, a Syrian text independent of the Byzantine
tradition, which mentioned Citium as the place of Lazarus’ burial.
[669] EBNER, _Inter Ital._, Freiburg, 1896, 292, 5, 14, 104, etc.
[670] GREGOR. TUR., _De Gloria Mart._, c. 30. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxi. 731. MODESTUS in _Photius_, _Bibl._, cod. 275; ed. Bekker, § 11.
ANONYMUS, in _Vita Willibaldi_, c. 5. MABILLON, _Vitæ SS. Ord. Bened._,
iii., 2, 384. TILLEMONT, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 4.
[671] GLYCAS, _Ann._, 4, 198; ed. Bonn, 554. ZONARAS, 16, 12, § 11, _op.
cit._
[672] See Sdralek, art. “Translation” in KRAUS’ _Realenzykl_., and
ACHELIS, _Die Martyrologien_, 74-76. The editors of the _Monumenta
Germaniæ_ are fully alive to the value of incidents of this kind for the
history of any period.
[673] JAFFÉ (_Reg. R.P._) is doubtful as to its authenticity.
[674] _Synodus S. Symmacho_, 499. THIEL., _Ep. Rom. Pont._, 653. _Lib.
Pontif._, ed. Duchesne, i. 305, 307. VENANTIUS FORT., _Miscellanea_, i.
20; 8, 6.
[675] PASCHALIS I., _Epist._, i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cii. 1086.
[676] Printed in RUINART, _Acta Mart._, 633. The Calendar of
Münsterbilsen in BINTERIM is mentioned further on, page 411.
[677] Pope Symmacus is called “papa urbis” by Avitus in the inscription
of one of his letters. THIEL, _Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum_, 730. In
an inscription in the catacombs the pope describes himself as: “Ego,
Damasus, urbis Romæ Episcopus.”
[678] GRISAR, art. “Liberius” in the _Kirchenlexikon_, vii., 2nd ed.,
1945, and J. WITTIG, _Papst Damasus: Röm. Quartalschrift_, 1902, 77-86.
[679] DESSAU and VON ROHDEN, _Prosographia Imperii Rom._, iii., Berlin,
1897, 349.
[680] See NORIS, _Cenotaphia Pisana_, Venet. 1781, 431 _et seq._, and
MURATORI, _Dissertatio_, i. and ii., in the _Opera S. Paulini Nol._
MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 779 _et seqq._
[681] PAULINUS NOL., _Poema_, 21; v. 60-80, 210-215, 285-290, refer to
the father; v. 314-324, to the son Turcius Asterius. See MURATORI, _op.
cit._
[682] _Cf._ my articles in the _Tüb. Quartalschr._, 1902, 237 _seqq._;
1903, 321 _seqq._; 1905, 258 _seqq._ Fr. Hippolyte Delahaye, in
the _Analecta Bollandiana_ (xxii. 1903, 86 _seq._), when reviewing
my articles, characterised my statements as “trop ingenieuses” and
“fragiles,” without, however, being able to adduce any arguments on the
other side. My first opponent, Dr Kirsch, was at least sufficiently
fortunate as to ferret out a misprint. The sole attempt to overthrow my
conclusions reduces itself to the remark that the “Depositio Martyrum”
is not an exhaustive catalogue of all the Roman martyrs who had suffered
previously to its compilation. I never said it was. But did it not
contain all the _martyres recogniti_ in Rome at the commencement of the
fourth century (_cf._ below, page 350, for Mommsen’s remarks on this
point), it would be a worthless piece of paper from which nothing could
be gathered. Fr. Delahaye seems not to understand that, in dealing with
material of this kind, it is of the utmost importance to start with
what is actually known of the Roman officials and governments of the
period. When he scornfully criticises my work as “trop ingenieux,” I
must say that on my part I have found nothing in his obscure ex cathedra
assertions to upset the date given above to the martyrdom of St Cecilia.
[See LIGHTFOOT, _Apostolic Fathers_, pt. ii. vol. i. 516-522, for a
discussion on St Cecilia’s martyrdom.—Trans.]
[683] NILLES (_Kalendarium_), who usually pays no regard to his reader’s
desire for information on disputed questions, is entirely silent
concerning St Catherine. On the other hand, Kaulen has been satisfied
with following the much criticised article by PFÜLF (_Kirchenlexikon_,
vii². 335), an imperfect piece of work.
[684] _Carmina_, 22-24, ed. Ughelli, _Ital. S._, 10, 47. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, cxlvii. 1240 _seqq._
[685] See PETRUS DAM., _Epist._, 8, 5. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxliv. 471.
[686] Ἐγκώμιον ἐις τοὺς ἁγίους πάντας ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μαρτυρήσαντες
MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, l. 706-712.
[687] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 317: “Fecit ecclesiam B. Mariæ
semper virginis et omnium martyrum.” See BEDE, _Hist. Angl._, 2, 4;
PAULUS DIAC., _Hist. Long._, 4, 37; RORBACHER-RUMP, _Kirchengesch._, x.
107 _seqq._
[688] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 417.
[689] _Id. op._, i. 419. BIANCHINI, 200.
[690] BELETH, _Rationale_, 127. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii. PROBST
(_Kirchenlexikon_, i., 2nd ed., art. “Allerheiligen”) is incorrect in
some of his statements concerning the parts played by Gregory III. and
Gregory IV.
[691] ADO, _Martyrol._, Kal. Nov.: “In Galiis monente s. record. Gregorio
pontifice piissimus Ludovicus imperator omnibus regni et imperii sui
episcopis consentientibus statuit, ut solemniter festivitas omnium
sanctorum in prædicta die annuatim perpetuo ageretur.” MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, cxxiii. 387. Sigebert Gembl. gives the year of its introduction:
“Monente Gregorio papa et omnibus episcopis assentientibus Ludovicus imp.
statuit, ut in Gallia et Germania festivitas omnium sanctorum in Kal.
Nov. celebraretur, quam Romani ex institutione Bonifatii papæ celebrant.”
_Chron._, ad ann. 835. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clx. 159.
[692] NAT. ALEXANDER, _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 23; ed. Paris, 1699.
[693] See ISIDORI, _Reg. Mon._, c. 24, No. 2. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxxiii. 894. A mass for the dead was to be celebrated for all the
departed on the day after Pentecost.
[694] Printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1038, from the _Bibl.
Cluniac._, 338.
[695] _Consuet. Farf._; ed. Albers, 124 (where it is enjoined that the
masses be applied for all souls). _Consuet. of the Carthusians_, by Guigo
(† 1137), c. 11. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clii. 655.
[696] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 494.
[697] BINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdiözese Köln_, i., 2nd ed., 536.
The archivium of St Peter’s in Aix-la-Chapelle possesses a martyrology
belonging to the monastery of the “Kreuzherren,” formerly existing there.
It dates from 1382, and is preceded by a calendar. In this All Souls’ Day
does not appear, neither do St Peter’s Chair on the 18th January, nor St
Gereon and his companions; the eleven thousand virgins are mentioned, but
without St Ursula.
[698] BEROLDUS, 222 _seqq._ (ed. Magistretti). Magistretti is plainly
mistaken when he says the Church of Milan was the first to follow the
example of St Odilo.
[699] SOZOMENUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 3. THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, 18, ed.
Bonn, 33. PROCOP., _De Acclif._, i. 9. NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 7, 50.
[700] MORCELLI, i. 219, and _Acta SS. Boll._, _loc. cit._, 57.
[701] EPIPHANIUS, _Hær._, 21, and THEODORET on _Col._ ii. 18, speak of
the heresy in question. See THOMASSIN, 440.
[702] AMBROSIUS, _Epist._, 21 (11). HILARIUS, _Hom. in Matth._ xxviii.,
and on _Psalms_ 119 and 137. See BAILLET, vi. 2, 404-413.
[703] _Sacram. Leon._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lv. 103.
[704] This addition is also found in a missal at Padua belonging to the
ninth century. See EBNER, _Iter Ital._, 127.
[705] _Lib. Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 262: “intra civitatem,” and the note.
[706] _Acta SS. Boll._, Sept. tit. viii. ADO, _Mart._, 29th Sept. It
stood, according to Ado, in summitate circi, according to Baronius:
circuli molis Hadriani, _i.e._ on the terrace of the Castle of St Angelo.
[707] _Cf._ Lectionary of Silos.
[708] SPELMAN, _Conc._, i. 520.
[709] As, for example, in the ninth century Calendars of Stablo and
Cologne. Notker Balbulus is ignorant of the church on the Via Salaria,
but gives the story of Monte Gargano on the 29th September. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, cxxxi. 1154.
[710] It is the same with the missals of Ivrea and Florence in EBNER,
_Iter Ital._, 28 and 52.
[711] See SCHROD., art. “Schutzengelfest” in the _Kirchenlexikon_, x.,
2nd ed., 2015. The Spanish calendars printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxxv. and lxxxvi., have not the Festival of the Guardian Angels.
[712] MARZOHL and SCHNELLER, iv. 707 note.
[713] TILLEMONT, _Hist. des Emp._, iv., art. ix. 251 _et seq._ Also 93,
art. lxii.
[714] NICEPH. CALL., _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 31. TILLEMONT, _Mém._, vii., art.
viii. 8.
[715] THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, ed. Bonn, i. 37-40.
[716] AMBROSIUS, _De Obitu Theod._, c. 40. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi.
1399. PAULINUS NOL., _Epist. ad Severum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 326.
THEODORET, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 18.
[717] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiv. 374: “Via Lavicana S. Helenæ, matris
Constantini imperatoris.” The place of her first burial was the present
Torre Pignattara.
[718] [She appears, however, in the supplement to both the Breviary and
Missal. Trans.]
[719] MARUCCHI, _Nuovo Bull. di Arch. Christ._, iv. 163, takes the
opposite view.
[720] _Vita Constant._, 3, 25.
[721] _Op. cit._, cc. 26-28.
[722] _Op. cit._, cc. 33-40.
[723] _Op. cit._, cc. 42, 43.
[724] In this he says that wonderful things have taken place at the
Lord’s sepulchre during his own life-time. In Constantine’s letter to
Macarius also the references are expressed in general terms.
[725] SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 17. SOZOMENUS, 2, 1. THEODORET, i. 18.
THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, i., ad ann. m. 5817, Chr. 317. CHRYSOSTOM., _In
Joann._, 84. RUFIN., _Hist. Eccl._, i. 8. SULPICIUS SEV., 2, 34.
[726] _Epist. ad Severum_, 21, 5.
[727] _Excerpta Lat. Barbari_, ed. Frick, 359. THEOPHANES gives a
still earlier date, _i.e._ 5817 of the world = 317 A.D. He also places
the death of Macarius and Helena in the same year as the discovery of
the cross. In the _Excerpta Barbari_ we find the words πρὸ ἡ καλανδῶν
Δεκεμβρίων, but this must be an error, for immediately afterwards follows
ὅ ἐστι Θώθ ιζ’. THOTH coincides with September, not with December.
See SCHOENE, _Euseb. Chron._, i. 234. The _Liber Pontificalis_, “Vita
Euseb.,” i. 167, places the finding of the cross on the 3rd May 310; but
this is obviously a mistake.
[728] DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, i., preface, cviii.
[729] _Peregr. Silviæ_, c. 48, ed. Geyer, 74 cod.
[730] GEYER, _Itin. Hierosol._, 149.
[731] ARCULF in Adamnanus, _De Locis Sanctis_, 3, 3; _ib._ 287.
[732] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i., 272, 286. THEOPHANES, ed. Bonn, i.
504, ad ann. 6120. _Chron. Pasch._, ed. Bonn, i. 704, ad ann. 6122,
relates only the carrying away of the cross, and then concludes.
[733] The _Menologium Constantinopolitarium_ has an “Adoratio Pretiosæ
Crucis” on 31st July, the meaning of which is not stated. MORCELLI, i. 63.
[734] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 285, 511.
[735] See the new edition by Wilson.
[736] The text of DE ROSSI and DUCHESNE in _Act. SS._ (54). A better word
would have been “recuperatio.”
[737] EBNER, _Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch. des Missale_, _etc._,
Freiburg, 1896, 123. In addition to these two festivals in honour of the
Holy Cross, the Egyptians and Abyssinians celebrate one on the 6th March,
“Manifestatio S. Crucis per Heraclium Imp.,” instead of the 3rd May. See
the _Synaxaria_ in SELDENIUS and MAI.
[738] MAGISTRETTI, _op. cit._, 141.
[739] DUCHESNE, _Origines_, 113-137.
[740] EBNER (_Iter. Italicum_, 381) proves against Probst that the letter
deals not with an antiquated rite, but with the rite then actually in use
in Rome.
[741] _Epist. Hadr._, 49; _Cod. Carol._, 72. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcviii.
435. The oldest of the numerous existing MSS. is the Codex Ottobonianus
313 (ninth century), originally belonging to Paris. The codex in the
library of the seminary at Mainz is of the middle of the ninth century.
In the Cathedral Library at Cologne are two codices, No. 137 belonging to
the end of the ninth century, and No. 88 somewhat more recent.
[742] Printed together in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii., from the edition
of Mabillon. [See E. Bishop’s art. on the “Earliest Roman Mass-book,”
_Dublin Review_, Oct. 1894. Trans.]
[743] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 18 _et seq._ HONTHEIM, _Prodromus_, i. 358.
[744] See the author’s article in the _Tüb. Quartalschrift_, 1905,
590-608.
[745] _E.g._, the Ordinarium of the diocese of Rouen, etc., in MIGNE,
_Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. 157; the _Consuetudines Avellanenses_, _ib._ cli.
[746] See Appendix xi.
[747] _Regula ad monachos._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii. 396.
[748] “Ut ad capitulum primitus martyrologium legatur et dicatur versus,
deinde regula aut homilia quælibet legatur, deinde a ‘Tu autem’ dicatur”
(HARDOUIN, _Conc._, iv. 1232).
[749] LEO ALLATIUS, _De Libris Eccl. Græcorum_, Romæ, 1645, 78, 82, 91.
DANIEL, _Cod. Lit._, iv. 320 _et seq._
[750] With regard to the Chronograph of 354, Leipzig, 1850, 581, the
title runs: Hic continentur dies nataliciorum martyrum et depositiones
episcoporum, quos ecclesia Carthaginis anniversaria celebrat.
[751] The statement in TEUFFEL (_Gesch. der Röm. Literatur_, iv. 118)
that everything savouring of heathen superstition is omitted, is
incorrect.
[752] W. WRIGHT, in _Journal of Sacred Literature_, October 1865 and
January 1866. A better edition is given by DUCHESNE, _Acta SS. Boll._,
Nov. II. 1, lii.-lxv., under the title: Breviarium Syriacum. [It is
perhaps only fair to add that all scholars are not agreed upon the Arian
character of this document. Trans.]
[753] PHILOSTORGIUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 7, _passim_.
[754] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 718.
[755] _Op. cit._, ii. 1107 and 1237.
[756] SOZOMENUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 13, 14.
[757] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 1102. NESTLE, _Theol.
Literaturztg._, 1894, No. 2, 43.
[758] SAMUEL ANIAN., ed. Mai, 43.
[759] See H. ACHELIS, _Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert_,
Berlin, 1900, 61.
[760] The Bononia mentioned on the 30th December is not Bologna, but
Bononia in Mœsia, now Widdin, to which, according to other documents,
the martyr Hermes also belonged. The town of Tomi, now Kustendsche, was
called Constantia at the end of the fourth century, but in this document
and in Peutinger’s table it appears under its old name. Constantinople
(11th May) and Byzantium (19th May) appear side by side, which marks the
date when this document was drawn up. Babiduna is a slip for Noviodunum
in Mœsia, now Isaktscha.
[761] See ACHELIS, _op. cit._, 33 _et seq._, for the connection between
the Arian martyrology and the _Hieronymianum_.
[762] DUCHESNE, _Acta SS. Boll._, Nov. II., lviii. It is better to say
from the 8th to the 30th than from the 6th to the 30th; for Tirinus
and his sixteen companions are not to be found in the _Hieronymianum_,
and, instead of Arius on 6th June, the Bern Codex has: In Alexandria
Arthoci; the Epternach has Artotis; and the Weissenburg, Ari-thoti. It is
impossible to say whether these names are intended for Arius or not.
[763] See TILLEMONT, _Mém._, vi. 8, art. xxv.
[764] According to the view of DUCHESNE and ACHELIS, the 6th July was the
day of his death. In this case the year would be 335.
[765] The name Eusebius occurs very frequently in this calendar, both
with and without distinguishing additions.
[766] CHRYS., _Hom._, i. 291.
[767] _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 39, 4.
[768] It is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xviii. 878.
[769] Nos autem pæne omnium martyrum distinctis per dies singulos
passionibus collecta in uno codice nomina habemus atque cotidianis
diebus in eorum veneratione missarum solemnia agimus. Non tamen in eodem
volumine quis qualiter sit passus indicatur, sed tantummodo nomen,
locus et dies passionis ponitur. Unde fit, ut multi ex diversis terris
atque provinciis per dies, ut prædixi, singulos cognoscantur martyrio
coronati.—GREG. M., _Registrum_, 8, 29.
[770] The passage is capable of receiving various interpretations. See
DUCHESNE, _Prolegg. ad Mart. Hieron. in Acta SS._, Nov. II. xi., xlvii.
The words are as follows: “Passiones martyrum legite constanter, quas
inter alia in epistola S. Hieronymi ad Chromatium et Heliodorum destinta
procul dubio reperietis, qui per totum orbem terrarum floruere, ut sancta
invitatio vos provocans ad cœlestia regna perducat.” CASSIODOR., _Instit.
Div. Lit._, 32. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxx. 1147.
[771] BEDA, _Liber Retractionis in Acta Ap._, c. i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
xcii. 997: Liber martyrologii, qui B. Hieronymi nomine ac præfatione
intitulatur, quamvis Hieronymus illius libri non auctor sed interpres,
Eusebius autem auctor exstitisse videatur.
[772] HILDUIN., _Epist. ad Ludov. Pium._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvi. 19.
[773] [Since the appearance of the second edition of Dr Kellner’s
_Heortologie_, a work of the first importance on the Roman martyrology
has been published, _Les martyrologes historiques du moyen âge, par Don.
Henri Quentin, bénédictin de Solesmes_, Paris, 1908, Lecoffre. Trans.]
[774] B. KRUSCH (_Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Gesch._, xx. [1895]
437-440 and xxvi. [1901] 349-389) is in favour of Autun as the place of
its origin. But what is gained?
[775] GRISAR (_Gesch. Roms._, 291) thinks it may belong to the time of
Xystus III. (433-446).
[776] Aug. Urbain has attempted to reconstruct the original Martyrologium
Romanum, as it was at the end of the fifth century from the
_Hieronymianum_ HARNACK: _Texte und Unters._, vi. 3, Leipzig, 1901.
[777] Martyrs of the name of Felix, number 118, Saturniuus 86, Januarius
68, Donatus 64, Cajus 40, Alexander 42, Lucian 28, etc. Similarly the
common feminine names and Thecla. Afra occurs four times. Strange
sounding names are found everywhere: _e.g._ Piperion, Prunimus,
Tipecirus, Herifilius, Manira, Itercola, Eunuculus, and Eununculus,
Barbalabia, etc. We are, however, ignorant of the names which the wealthy
Romans were wont to give to their slaves.
[778] See GREGOR. TURON., _Mirac._, i. 63. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 762.
[779] ACHELIS sees in the phrase “in Africa” a reference to the massacres
of Christians by the Vandals. See 101, _seqq._
[780] ACHELIS gives examples, 209, 242, etc.
[781] ACHELIS, 115-118, has collected together 68 instances, which he has
analysed critically and historically as far as possible.
[782] The entries respecting St Gereon and his companions may serve as
an example. St Ursula and Palmatius with the “innumerabiles trevirenses”
have no existence in the _Hieronymianum_. viii. Id. Oct. (8th October):—
BERNE |EPTERNACH |WEISSENBURG
| |
Nothing. | Agrippin. sct. Gereon | Nothing.
|et aliorum cccxcii. mart.|
| |
vii. Id. Oct. Gereon | Et alibi Cassi, eusebi,| Coloniæ Agrippine
cum sociis suis |florenti, jocundi; |nat. sctorum cccxvii.
trecentorum decim et |Agrippinæ depos. scor. |quorum nomina Deus
vii martirum quorum |mart. mart. maurorum cum |scit.
nomina Deus scit. |alis cccxxx. |
| |
vi. Id. Oct. Et | Nothing. | Et alibi ... Heracli,
alibi Cassi, eusebi, | |cassi, eusebi,
florenti, victoris, | |florenti, victoris,
Agrippinæ mallusi | |Agrippinæ mallus
cum aliis trecentos | |cum aliis cccxxx.
xxx. | |
[783] ACHELIS, 91 _seqq._
[784] If this be the case, and it is not free from doubt, still the name
of Arius was not read out “at the altar,” as ACHELIS states (87 and 98),
for the martyrologies were not read at the altar but in the choir, and
it would have happened only were the Weissenburg Codex in use, for other
codices have different readings. The reading of the martyrology—not of
the “Passions” of the martyrs—at the choir office dates back, as far as
the evidence exists, to the ninth century. Bishop Gregorius of Corduba,
whom ACHELIS (98, note 4) places at a very early period, is not an
historical personage; he exists only in the list of bishops contained in
the letters ascribed to St Jerome.
[785] In Codex 2171 nov. acqu. of the Nat. Libr., Paris, ed. by G. Morin
in _Anecdota Maredsolana_, vol. i. 1893. _Cf._ præf., ii., viii., xiii.,
etc. [See also _Le Liber ordinum de l’Eglise d’Espagne du Vᵉ au XIᵉ
siècle_, published by Dom. M. Férotin, 1904. Trans.]
[786] JOH. SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis et Præf. Jurid. Vet. Ebreorum._,
Amstelod., 1679, lib. 3, c. 15, 204-247.
[787] F. WÜSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_, Gotha 1879. Introduction.
[788] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 453.
[789] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i. 286.
[790] LE QUIEN, _op. cit._, 452, 476.
[791] A. MAI, _Nova Collectio Veterum Script._, iv. 15-34.
[792] WÜSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_, 10, Hatur. The Patriarchs mentioned above
are also omitted.
[793] LE QUIEN, _op. cit._, ii. 479 and 445-466.
[794] When the name of St John Chrysostom occurs more than once in the
Byzantine, Egyptian, and Syrian calendars, it commemorates certain events
connected with him besides the day of his death (14th September). Such
dates are the 7th May and the 13th November, the 27th January is the day
of his return to Constantinople, _i.e._ his translation by Proclus under
Theodosius II., in 448, and is celebrated by the Greeks and Syrians. The
meaning of the other two days is unknown; See Morcelli, i. 223; ii. 41.
[795] A. MAI, _Nova Collectio Veterum Script._, iv. 92-122.
[796] WÜSTENFELD, _Synaxarium, etc._, 97.
[797] _Op. cit._, 120 _seqq._
[798] MORCELLI, _Calend. Eccl. Const._ i., 227.
[799] MORCELLI (_op. cit._, i. 15), declares it is the oldest, and older
than the Menologium Sirleti in particular.
[800] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i. 475.
[801] Both appear in the Calendar of the Syrian Church: Jacobus Zebedæi
on the 30th April, Jacobus Alphæi on the 9th October, and Jacobus frater
Domini on the 23rd October and 28th December.
[802] Printed in MORCELLI, i. 69-105.
[803] GAMS, _Series Epp._, 904.
[804] _Nova Collectio Script. Vet._, v., Romæ, 1821, 58-65.
[805] _E.g._ in Aurelian of Arles, † 553 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii.,
596): “In martyrum festivitatibus, etc.”
[806] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxviii., 881. MONE, _Lat. und. Griech.
Messen aus dem 2-6 Jahrhundert_, Frankfurt, 1850.
[807] Projectus, deacon of Bishop Evasius of Asti, appears to belong
to the Lombard period, and his veneration dates from about the time of
Luitprand (713-743).
[808] _Calendarium Romanum nongentis annis antiquius_, ed. F. Joh.
Fronto, Parisiis, 1652. The title Calendarium is not well chosen.
[809] _Liber Pontif._, ed. Duchesne, i. 420.
[810] _Op. cit._, 402, Vita Gregorii, ii.
[811] _Introduction_, 98.
[812] [Much light has recently been thrown upon these calendars and their
relation to one another by Dom. Henri Quentin, _op. cit._ Trans.]
[813] BEDA, _Hist. Eccl._ iii., 24. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcv. 290.
[814] Printed in the _Acta SS. Boll._, March, vol. ii. Both recensions
are placed side by side in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xciv. A “Kalendarium
Anglicanum” is in the same vol., 1147 _et seqq._ BEDE’S words under the
7th Feb. are remarkable: “Britaniis in Augusta natale Augusti Episcopi et
martyris.” The feast of All Saints is given on the 1st Nov. as well as
the feast on the 13th May, whose transference to the 1st Nov. only took
place later under Gregory IV. (827-844). No explanation has been given of
Andrew with 2597 companions on the 19th August.
[815] WANDELBERT, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxi. 577. See also cxix. 10,
11.
[816] And the same is true of the other works mentioned: _e.g._, FLORUS
has admitted Gereon and 315 companions on the 10th October, who are
omitted by BEDE, but he knows nothing of Ursula. WANDELBERT mentions on
the 21st October flocks of virgins amounting to some thousands murdered
by the tyrant in Cologne, whose trophies adorn the banks of the Rhine.
Gereon has Cassius, Florentius, and Victor as his companions (MIGNE,
_Patr., Lat._, xciv. 1067, 1078; cxxi. 614).
[817] Edited with an introduction, English translation, and notes by
Whitley Stokes in the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, i.,
Dublin, 1880.
[818] Edited by the same under the title, _Felire hui i Gorman: The
Martyrology of Gorman_, among the publications of the Bradshaw Society,
London, 1895. See also _Analecta Boll._, xiii. 193. BELLESHEIM, _Gesch.
der kathol., Kirche in Irland_, i. 239 _seqq._
[819] DÜMMLER (_Das Martyrologium Notkers_, _etc._, in the _Forschungen
z. deutsch. Gesch._, xxv. 201), incorrectly dates it from between 860-870.
[820] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiii. 146-178.
[821] _Ib._, 182-202.
[822] _Ib._, 292-419.
[823] _Ib._, 143, 144. Mosander, before Rosweyde, had edited the larger
Ado by itself without the smaller.
[824] “Quod ego diligenti cura _transscriptum_ ... in capite hujus libri
ponendum putavi.” _Transscriptum_ cannot be understood of mere copying
(describere) but of re-editing. The Roman Calendar makes no mention of
Old Testament names, Jeremias, Moses, etc., nor of Alban, Servatius, etc.
Accordingly this _Mart. Rom. Parvum_ has not the importance which ACHELIS
(p. 112) attributes to it.
[825] BÄUMER, 474.
[826] H. LÆMMER, _De Martyrol. Rom._, 19.
[827] BŒHMER-WILL, _Regesta Archiep. Mogunt._, i. 67, 68. The martyrology
of Rabanus is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cx.
[828] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 1070. See also BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v.
62. “Cujas causæ nos utpote barbari et in extremis mundi climate positi
sumus ignari.”
[829] LÆMMER, _op. cit._, 10-17.
[830] BENEDICT, xiv., _De Servorum Die Beatificatione_, i. 43, and iv.
2, 17. N. PAULUS, _Martyrolog. u Brevier als histor. Quellen_, Katholik,
1900, i. 355.
[831] [The reader will find much information bearing upon English
heortology in the following works:—_A Menology of England and Wales_, by
R. Stanton, 1887, London, Burns & Oates; _Die Heiligen Englands_, by F.
Liebermann, 1889, Hannover, Hahn; _The Bosworth Psalter_, ed. by Gasquet
and Bishop, 1908, London, Bell & Sons. Trans.]
[832] Edited by Ferd. Piper, Berlin, 1858.
[833] LANFRANC, i. 9. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 472-478.
[834] HARTZHEIM, iv. 106, for A.D. 1307. The correct date, according to
Binterim, is 1307. _Conc._, vi. 118, note 1, 1308. JOERRES regards the
sixth canon as not authentic, _Röm. Quart. Schr._, 1902.
[835] HARTZHEIM, vi. 498.
[836] J. Braun (_Innsbr. Zeitschr. für Kath. Theol._, 1901, i. 155
_seqq._) contends that white was not the only liturgical colour in
antiquity, and rests his contention on some representation (not
miniatures) of the fifth to the ninth centuries in which yellow, brown
and other colours appear. But “white” is not to be taken as meaning
always “snow-white,” and the natural colour of silk and wool would border
on yellow. The representations may have grown darker through age, or been
painted over at a later date. At any rate the proofs on which he relies
are not sufficiently strong to overthrow the received view which is based
on many statements in original sources.
[837] SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, 2, 5 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccxiii. 77): In
colore pro qualitate temporis alternatur, albo utimur in resurrectione
... rubeo in pentecoste. The passage in Johannes Abrinc., _De Off. Eccl._
(MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii., 62) is defective and obscure. It seems
only to refer to the high priest of the Old Testament.
[838] DURANDUS, _Rationale Div. Off._, 3, 18. The _Ordo Rom._ xiv., c.
49 _seqq._ of the thirteenth century mentions five colours: white, red,
green, violet and black.
[839] INNOCENT III., _De S. Alt. Myst._, i. 65; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
ccxvii., 799-802.
[840] For the history of liturgical vestments, see J. Braun, S.J., _Die
Priesterlichen Gewänder des Abendlandes_, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897,
and a larger and more recent work by the same author, _Die Liturgische
Gewandlung im Occident u. Orient, etc._, Freiburg im Breisgau,
1907. [Also J. Wilpert, _Die Gewandlung der Christen in den ersten
Jahrhunderten_, Cologne, Bachem, 1898. Trans.]
[841] See THALHOFER, _Liturgik_, ii. 82, who points out this meaning in
Micrologus.
[842] “Sacramenta” is found, amongst others, in INNOCENT I., _Epist._,
17, c. 5, 12; 25, c. 4.
[843] TERTULL., _De Exhort. Cast._, 11; _Apol._, 2; _Ad uxor._, 2, 8; _De
Præscr._, 4; _De Virg. Vel._, 13; _De Corona_, 2; _De Carne Christi_, 2,
etc. Tertullian uses “sacrificium,” _De Cultu Fem._, 2, 11, etc. CYPRIAN,
_Epist._, 12, 2; 15, 1; _Ad Cæc._, 9 and 17, etc. AMBROSIUS, _De Obitu
Valent._, 2, 113; _In Psalm._, 38, c. 25; 118, c. 48; _Epist._, 39, 4.
[844] _De Civ. Dei_, 10, 6-20; _Cont. Faustum_, 20, 18; _Enarr. in
Psalm._, 33, c. 6; 106, c. 13; _Epist._, 54, 4; 149, 15; 159; _Sermo_,
137, 8; 310, 30; 311, 18; 345, 4, etc.
[845] BARONIUS, _Annales_, ad an. 34, c. 59.
[846] _Epist. I. ad Gundobadum_, c. i., and _Epist._, 3.
[847] _Test. De Anima_, c. 9.
[848] The formula in question runs: Ἀπολύεσθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, _i.e._ “Depart
in peace,” or, Πορεύεσθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, or, Ἐν εἰρήνῃ προελθῶμεν. DANIEL,
_Cod. Lit._, iv. 79, 131, 370, 449. “Ite missa est” literally means: Go,
it is the dismissal.
[849] _Peregr. Silviæ_, ed. Geyer, c. 24 _seqq._
[850] “Missa autem quæ fit ... hoc est oblatio”; the passage seems to
have been corrected. The other passage adduced by Professor Funk (_Tüb.
Theol. Quartalschr._, 1904, 56) to prove the contrary—“fit oblatio in
Anastase maturius, ita ut fiat missa ante solem”—ought to be translated:
“the Mass took place earlier, so that its conclusion came before
sunrise.” Missa here = the dismissal at the end of Mass.
[851] CASSIAN, _De Cœnobiorum Institutis_, 2, 7, 13 and 15; 3, 7; 11, 15.
[852] See LEO I., _Sermo_, 41, c. 3; _Epist._, 156, c. 5. Once, in
_Epist._, 9, c. 8, we find “missa.” But the general employment of the
term cannot be inferred from its use in one isolated instance.
[853] “Missa catechumenorum” meant originally not that part of the Mass
at which the catechumens assisted, but the dismissal of the catechumens.
[854] For _missæ_ in the sense of the canonical hours, we may cite
GREGOR. M., _Epist._, 2, 12; 3, 63; 11, 64; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,
lxxvii. 1187; in the sense of the Mass: _Epist._, 4, 39; _Hom._, 50,
8; as a general term for both, _Epist._, 3, 63; 4, 18, etc. As regards
St Benedict’s usage, Fr. Lindenbauer, O.S.B., draws our attention to
Mattins. It means dismissal at the hours: _Regula_, c. 17 (MIGNE, lxvi.
460), but Mass, _ib._ c. 35, 60.
[855] _Acta S. Ludgeri_, c. 20. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcix. 779.
[856] _Agathense_ 506, can. 30: “missæ vespertinæ.”
[857] _E.g._, _Braccarense_, ii., can. 64; _Agath._, can. 47.
[858] _Epist._, 1, 20, c. 3-5.
[859] As by Prof. Funk, _Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1904, No. 1.
[860] It was published by B. Georgiades from a MS. discovered in the
Monastery of Chalki (Constantinople, 1885-86), then by Bratke, Bonn,
1891, and by BONWETSCH, _Hippolyts Werke_, vol. i., Leipsig, 1897.
[861] In Cyril of Scythopolis, the Arabian bishop, George of Horta
(before 724), and Photius, _Bibl. cod._, 222, 163 b, ed. Bekker, and
perhaps also in Germanus. The passages are collected in BONWETSCH, _op.
cit._, xv. _seqq._, and partially in GALLANDI, _Bibl. Vet. Patr._, II.
Such minute indications of time in so ancient a writer were too precious
to be passed over.
[862] The _Liber Generationis_ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, iii. 651 _seqq._,
_Corp. Inscr. Lat._, and FRICK, _Chron. Min._, i. 1-77) is certainly a
part of the Chronicle of Hippolytus, as Mommsen has conclusively proved
(_Abhandl. der Sächs. Akademie d. Wissensch._, 1850, i. 586 _seqq._).
[863] That interpolations of this kind were formerly made by unskilful
hands is shown by the addition to the MS. belonging to Mount Athos, by
the Slav translation: Καὶ Γάϊου Καῖσαρος τὸ τέταρτον καὶ Γαίου Κεστίου
(instead of Sentii) Σατορνῖνου, the consuls for the year 41 A.D., which
Bonwetsch has placed in the text, although within brackets.
[864] LEO ALLATIUS, _De Dominicis et Hebdom. Recent. Græcorum_, Cologne,
1648, 1400 quoted by Daniel, _Cod. Lit._, iv. 212 _seqq._ ALT., 181-221.
NILLES, II. xvii.-xxi.
[865] The adjective is formed after the analogy of ἄκερως.
[866] ANSELM speaks of him, _Epist._, 3, 43 and 77; 4, 114. MIGNE, _Patr.
Lat._, clviii. EADMER refers to him, _Hist. Novorum._, 5, 492 and 497.
MIGNE, clix.
[867] It is found in MSS. among the works of the elder Anselm, to whom
it was at first ascribed. Fr. de Buck and others set it down to the
nephew, but in the earliest codex at Canterbury, belonging to the twelfth
century, it is expressly described as a work of Eadmer’s. See THURSTON
ET SLATER, _Eadmeri Mon. Cant. Tractatus de Conceptione S. Mariæ_, Frib.
Brisg., 1904.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
GIVING THE CHIEF EVENTS RELATING TO THE LITURGY AND FESTIVALS OF THE
CHURCH
1st cent. Reference to Easter by St Paul (1 Cor. v. 7 _et seqq._). Pascha
nostrum immolatus est Christus. Itaque epulemur, non in fermento veteri
... sed in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis.
2nd cent. The 6th Jan. observed as Christ’s birthday in Alexandria by a
section of the Christians.
3rd cent. The Festivals of Easter and Pentecost mentioned by Tertullian
(_De Bapt._, 19) and Origen (_C. Cels._, 8, 22).
304. Evidence for the Feast of the Epiphany in Thrace.
320. Discovery of the Holy Cross by St Helena. Excerpta lat. Barbari.
321. Constantine the Great, by the law of 3 July, forbids law courts to
sit on Sunday (_Cod. Theod._, 2, 8 de feriis i.).
325. The Ascension mentioned by Eusebius.
326. Death of St Helena at the age of 80, foundress of the churches at
Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.
335. Consecration of the church built by Constantine in Jerusalem on 14th
Sept. It was named Martyrium or Anastasis (Euseb., _Vita Constant._, 3,
25, and 35). The same day is also the Feast ὑψώσεως τοῦ τιμίου σταυροῦ.
340. Observance in Egypt of the fast of forty days mentioned by St
Athanasius.
337-352. Under Pope Julius I., 25th Dec. kept at Rome as Festival of
Christ’s Nativity.
354. In Rome, 22nd Feb. kept as Natale Petri de Cathedra, and 29th June
as day of the Apostles’ death.
356. Translation of St Timothy’s relics to Constantinople on 1st July
(Fasti Idat., _Hieron. Chron._).
357. 3rd March, translation of relics of St Andrew and St Luke to the
basilica of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (Fasti Idat., _Chron.
Pasch. Hieron._, catal. 7).
360. The Festival of the Epiphany in Gaul mentioned by Ammianus
Marcellinus.
379. 25th Dec. celebrated for the first time as Christmas in
Constantinople by St Gregory Naz.
380. Evidence for Epiphany in Spain (_Syn. Sarag._, c. 3). Theodosius the
Great publishes a law on 27th March forbidding the sittings of law courts
during the forty days of Lent.
385-387 (_circ._). The Presentation of Christ in the Temple mentioned by
the pilgrim from Gaul in Jerusalem; also the feast of the 14th Sept.
370-380 (_circ._). Compilation of an Arian Calendar on Martyrology.
386. The Nativity of Christ celebrated for the first time in Antioch
on 25th Dec. By a law of 26th Feb., Theodosius forbids unauthorised
translations of the bodies of the saints, the dividing into parts of the
remains of the martyrs, and all traffic in relics.
386. By the law of 26th Feb., judges of arbitration were forbidden to
exercise their functions on Sunday. 20th May games in the circus and
theatrical representations were forbidden.
389. Theodosius I. and Valentinian II. publish a law forbidding the law
courts to sit for seven days before and seven days after Easter.
394. The relics of the Apostle St Thomas translated to the great church
in Edessa (Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 18; _Chron. Edess._, ed. Assemani).
395. Christmas definitely established in Constantinople.
398. St John Chrysostom chosen patriarch of Constantinople, 26th Feb.
399. Honorius and Arcadius forbid races on Sunday (_Cod. Theod._, 2, 8,
23).
400. The same emperors forbid games in the circus on Christmas, Epiphany,
and during Eastertide.
402. Discovery of the relics of St Stephen, Gamaliel, and Nicodemus by
the priest Lucian of Jerusalem at Caphargamala. Some writers date this
5th Dec. 415.
405. The day of the death of SS. Peter and Paul mentioned as an
ecclesiastical festival in Rome by Prudentius (_Perist._, 12).
425. Theodosius extends prohibition of games to Whit-week.
431. Bishop Paul of Emesa mentions that Christmas had been introduced in
Alexandria.
348. The patriarch Proclus has the relics of St John Chrysostom brought
to Constantinople on 27th Jan.
439. The Empress Eudocia translates the relics of St Stephen from
Jerusalem to Constantinople and lays them in the basilica of St Lawrence,
21st Sept.
440 (_circ._). St Leo refers to the Ember fasts in Rome.
448 (_circ._). The Calendar of Bishop Polemius Silvius of Sion for
Southern Gaul.
452. Discovery of the head of John the Baptist, and its translation to
Constantinople on 24th Feb.
470 (_circ._). Rogation procession introduced by Mamertus of Vienne.
491. Perpetuus, Bishop of Tours, orders the Advent fast. The two
Festivals of the Nativity and Beheading of the Baptist celebrated in
Tours.
492. The Festival of SS. Peter and Paul on 29th June adopted in
Constantinople.
492-496. Pope Gelasius appoints the ordination of priests to take place
at the Embertides.
500 (_circ._). The monks of Palestine keep the annual commemoration of
the Holy Mother of God (μνημὴ τῆς θεοτόκου) in their monasteries.
504. The Emperor Anastasius has the relics of the Apostle Bartholomew
brought to the city of Daras, on the borders of Mesopotamia, which he had
fortified.
506. The Council of Agde (canon 63) includes the Nativity of St John
Baptist among the festivals of obligation.
534. Justinian I. renews the prohibition against the sittings of the law
courts on 25th Dec. and 6th Jan.
542. Candlemas celebrated for the first time in Constantinople on 2nd
Feb., and ordered to be observed throughout the empire by Justinian. The
patriarch Menas translates the relics of SS. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to
the recently completed basilica of the Apostles in Constantinople.
Before 565. Justinian I. builds a church of St Anne in the second region
of Constantinople.
582-602. The three Festivals of Our Lady’s Nativity, Annunciation, and
Purification said to have been introduced by the Emperor Maurice.
Sixth cent. The Sundays in Advent to the number of five appear in the
Gelasianum.
592-600. Composition of the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum.
Before 604. Pope Gregory the Great increases the solemnity of the Litania
Major in Rome.
609 or 610. The Emperor Phocas grants the Pantheon to Pope Boniface IV.,
who adapts it as a church, and dedicates it to our Lady and all the Holy
Martyrs, on 13th May. Since then it has been called Maria ad Martyres.
629. King Siroes of Persia restores to the Emperor Heraclius the part of
the Holy Cross which had been taken from Jerusalem.
650 (_circ._). Evidence for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
for Spain in the Lectionary of Silos.
687-701. Pope Sergius I. orders processions (litaniæ) in Rome on the
Feasts of the Annunciatio Domini, Dormitio, and Nativitas B.V.M.
731. The Ven. Bede composes his martyrologium.
747. The Embertides legally established in England.
769. The same in Germany.
781 (_circ._). The Octava Domini (1st Jan.) appears as the Festum
Circumcisionis in the Calendar of Charlemagne.
Between 784 and 791. Under Adrian I., the Sacramentarium Gregorianum sent
to the Frankish Empire, and introduced there.
Between 786 and 797. Paul the deacon compiles a Homilarium at the command
of Charlemagne.
787. The second Council of Nicæa re-establishes the worship of images.
800 (_circ._). Compilation of the Menologium of Constantinople.
Between 827 and 835. Gregory IV. changes the Feast of All the Martyrs
(13th May) into a Feast of All Saints, and places it on the 1st Nov.
835. The Emperor Louis the Pious introduces the Feast of All Saints into
the Frankish Empire.
Between 902 and 920. The first Sunday after Pentecost kept as a Festival
of the Holy Trinity in Liège by Bishop Stephen.
993. The first papal canonisation—that of St Ulrich by Pope John XV.
998. Abbot Odilo of Cluny introduces the Commemoratio Omnium Fidelium
Defunctorum (2nd Nov.) in his Order.
10th cent. The Festum Conceptionis B.V.M (8th Dec.) appears in several
calendars (_e.g._ the Neapolitan).
1000-1025. Composition of the Menologium Basilianum.
1068-1071. Adoption of the Roman rite in Aragon under King Sancho Ramirez.
1078. Adoption of the Roman rite in Castile.
1080 (_circ._). Gregory VII. fixes the number of Sundays in Advent at
four, and suppresses deviations from the Roman custom of observing Advent.
Between 1093-1109. The Festum Conceptionis B.V.M. introduced into England
by St Anselm of Canterbury.
1128-29. The Feast of Our Lady’s Conception introduced into some English
monasteries.
1140. The same feast introduced at Lyons.
1166. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus puts out an order concerning festivals.
1198. Innocent III. enjoins the Bishop of Worms to celebrate the Festum
Conversionis S. Pauli Ap. in his diocese as it is in Rome (_Reg._, i.
44). In the statutes of the synod held by Bishop Odo of Paris it is
enjoined to say the Ave Maria.
Before 1216. Innocent III. regulates the use of liturgical colours.
1247. Corpus Christi celebrated for the first time in Liège.
1260. The Conversion of St Paul adopted in Cologne by Archbishop Conrad
von Hochstaden.
1263. The General Chapter of the Franciscans at Pisa enjoins the Feast of
Our Lady’s Conception for the whole Order.
1264. The Feast of Our Lady’s Visitation prescribed for the whole Church
by Urban IV.
1298. Boniface VIII. raises all festivals of Apostles to the rank of
Festa duplicia.
1311. Clement V. at the Synod of Vienne repeats the injunction to
celebrate Corpus Christi throughout the Church.
1316. John XXII. repeats and confirms the bull of Urban IV. with regard
to Corpus Christi.
1328. The Synod of London appoints the Conceptio B.V.M. as a holy day of
obligation for the province.
1334. The Festum SS. Trinitatis enjoined by John XXII. to be kept
throughout the Church.
1354. Innocent VI., at the request of the Emperor Charles IV., appoints
the Festum Lanceæ et Clavorum.
1371. Gregory XI. institutes the Festum Præsentationis B.V.M.
1389. Urban VI. makes the Festum Visitationis B.V.M. a universal feast
for the whole Church.
1408. Chancellor John Gerson finds fault with the number of festivals.
1416. Publication of the book of Nicholas of Clemangis against the
increase of holy days.
1423. The Festum VII. Dolorum B.V.M. adopted in Cologne.
1452. The Feast of the Seven Dolors approved by the provincial Synod of
Cologne.
1456. Calixtus III., following the precedent of the Greeks, orders the
Feast of Our Lord’s Transfiguration to be celebrated on 6th Aug.
1464. The Festival of Our Lady’s Presentation introduced into the Duchy
of Saxony, and, in 1468, into the province of Mainz.
1474. Sixtus IV. gives his approval to the public veneration of St Joseph
and St Anne.
1477. Sixtus IV. inserts the Conceptio Immaculatæ Virg. Mariæ into the
Roman Breviary.
1523. Publication of Luther’s little work on baptism in German.
1536. Cardinal Quiñones, O.S.F., puts out his edition of the Breviary for
the use of the secular clergy. It was approved by Clement VII. and Paul
III., and widely used, but withdrawn under Pius V. in 1568.
1536-37. The Devotion of the Forty Hours introduced in Milan.
1563. The Council of Trent in its session (xxv.) of 5th Dec. commits to
the Pope the final arrangements concerning the details of the Breviary
and Missal.
1568. The revised Roman Breviary published.
1570. The revised Roman Missal published.
1582. Reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII. takes effect on 15th Oct.
1584. Publication by papal bull of 14th Jan. of the official
Martyrologium Romanum prepared by Baronius.
1588. Sixtus V. institutes the Congregatio Rituum by the bull Immensa
Æterni.
1596. Publication of the Pontificale Romanum.
1602. Clement VIII. takes steps for a revision of the Roman Breviary,
and, in 1604, of the Roman Missal.
1608. Paul V. institutes the Feast of the Guardian Angels.
1614. Paul V. publishes the Ritual prepared by the Cardinal of San
Severino.
1621. Gregory XV. appoints the 19th March as a Festival of St Joseph for
the universal Church.
1631. Urban VIII. proposes a fresh revision of the Breviary.
1634. Revision of the Roman Missal by Urban VIII.
1642. Urban VIII. reduces the number of festivals (in foro) by the bull
Universa per orbem.
1644. The Conceptio B.V.M. made a holy day of obligation for Spain.
1666. Archbishop Harduin of Paris suppresses the festivals of three
Apostles and St Michael. These feasts were restored by his successor, de
Harlay, in 1673.
1668. Publication of Thiers’ book “De Festorum Dierum Imminutione” at
Lyons. Commencement of the public worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
1669. Clement IX. institutes the Congregatio Indulgentiarum et SS.
Reliquarum.
1683. Innocent XI., at the request of the Emperor Leopold, establishes
the Festival of the Name of Mary in commemoration of the relief of Vienna.
1708. The Conceptio B.V.M. appointed a feast in choro of the universal
Church.
1721. Pope Innocent XIII., at the request of the Emperor Charles VI.,
appoints the Feast of the Name of Jesus to be celebrated on the second
Sunday after Epiphany.
1727. Benedict XIII. proposes a further reduction of feast days for Spain.
1741-1747. Commission in Rome, under the presidency of Cardinal
Gonzaga, for the improvement of the Breviary. The legends were severely
criticised, and much valuable material was collected for future use.
1747. Muratori speaks in favour of the reduction of feast days in his
work “Della Regolata Divozione de’ Cristiani.”
1765. Clement XIII. appoints the Feast of the Sacred Heart. M. Gerbert
writes his “De Dierum Festorum Numero Minuendo, Celebratione Amplianda.
S. Blasian.” Benedict XIV. discusses the same subject (_Diss. de Festorum
de Præcepto Imminutione._ _Cf._ _De Serv. D. Beatif._, 4, 2).
1772. New regulations for feast days in Prussia.
1788. Decrease of Catholic festivals in Prussia by Pius VI. This
arrangement forms the basis of that now in use.
1802. Concordat with France, by which the feasts falling on week days
were reduced to four.
1828. Convention of Leo XII. with Prussia concerning feast days.
1854. Definition of the Conceptio Immaculata and extension of the feast
to the whole Church.
INDEX
Abbo of Fleury, 160
Abdias [pseudo-Abdias], 298
_Acta, The, of Martyrs_, 208 _seq._
Ado, _see_ Martyrology
Adolf III. (Archbishop of Cologne), 199
⸺ of Essen (Carthusian), 270 n.
Adrian I. (Pope), 344
Agde, Synod of, 68
d’Ailly, Peter, 274
Aix-la-Chapelle, Council of, enumeration of festivals, 22, 188, 194,
348
Alacoque, Marg. Mary, Bl., 126
Alanus de Rupe, 269
Albero II. (Bishop of Liège), 258
Alcuin, 72, 78, 116 _seq._, 222
Alexander II. (Pope), 116, 118
⸺ III. ” on rest from labour, 12
⸺ Severus (Emperor), 317 _seq._
Alfanus (Abbot of Monte Cassino), 322
Altfrid, his use of the word _Missa_, 436
Alvarus Pelagius, 260
Amadeus of Lausanne, 272
Amalarius, 67, 98, 160, 193
_Ambarvalia, The_, 190
Ambrose, St, on the date of Easter, 53 n., 73, 92, 93, 148 _seqq._,
196, 283, 334, 436 _seq._
_Amburbalia, The_, 190
Anastasius (Emperor), 286
Andrew of Crete, 236
Anne, St, festival of the Conception of, 242
Anselm of Canterbury, St, 248 _seqq._, 255, 445
⸺ the younger, 248 _seqq._, 255, 445
Antioch, the Lenten fast at, 99, 108;
Christmas at, 131 _seq._
Antony of Grenoble, 125.
Apostles, The, on the date of Easter, 54
_Apostolic Canons, The_, 41, 92, 96 _seq._
⸺ _Constitutions, The_, on observance of Sunday and Saturday, 12;
list of feasts in, 20;
on fasts, 91, 94 _seq._, 97, 106, 112, 114
_Arabic Canons, The_, 40
Arator, 284
Arcadius (Emperor), forbids races on Sunday, 19, 131, 135
_Arian Martyrology, The_, 282, 294, 349, 360;
_see_ Calendars
Arius (heretic), 360 _seq._
Arles, Synods of, 118, 436
Artemius, St (Martyr), 290
Athanasius, St, 55, 92, 149, 220
Augsburg, Corpus Christi procession at, 124
Augustine, St, 57, 72;
said to have composed the _Exsultet_, 81, 97, 100, 106, 113, 146,
156, 159, 168, 172, 217 _seq._, 223, 229, 283 _seq._, 303
Aurelian (Bishop of Arles), 210
Austria, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Autpert (Abbot of Monte Cassino), 278
Auxerre, Synods of, 61, 164, 171
Avignon, Synod of (A.D. 1457), 260
Avitus (Bishop of Vienne), 70, 192;
on the word _Missa_, 432
⸺ (priest of Braga), 223
Bacchylus of Corinth, 39
Baillet, Adrien, on the Lenten fast, 97, 210, 216 n., 320, 420
Baldwin (Archbishop of Treves), 124, 199;
statutes of, 423
Bardenhewer, O., 265
Baronius (Cardinal), _see_ Martyrology
Basel, Council of, 259 _seq._, 267
Basil II. (Emperor), _see_ Menology
_Basilidians, The_, 146, 167
Bäumer, Dom. (O.S.B.), 210
Bavaria, festivals for, 32, 201;
_see_ Festivals of obligation: _German States_
Bede, The Ven., on date of Easter, 58 _seq._, 231 n., 289 n., 297;
_see_ Calendars; Martyrology
Beleth (liturgist), 256, 280, 304
Belgium, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Belgrade, Victory over the Turks at, 105
Benedict IX. (Pope), 315
⸺ XIII. ” 31, 275
⸺ XIV. ” 32, 287, 302 n., 410, 420
⸺ Canon, the Ordo of, 222
_Benedictines, The_, and the Immaculate Conception, 250 _seq._, 255,
261
Benevento, Council of (A.D. 1091), 102
Bernard, St., 255 _seq._, 272, 274
⸺ (Bishop of St Davids), 250, 255
Bernardine de Bustis, 274
⸺ of Siena, St., 166, 274
Berno of Reichenau, 115, 160, 189 n.
Bethlehem, Christmas at, 153
Binterim, Ant., 62, 327, 420
Bolsena, The miracle of, 122
Bonaventure, St., on the Immaculate Conception, 258
Boniface, St., on festivals, 22, 80 n., 116 _seq._, 160, 164, 188,
238;
_see_ Lectionary
⸺ IV. (Pope), 324
⸺ VIII. ” 16, 280
⸺ IX. ” 267
Bonn, The Martyrs of, 373
Borromeo, Charles, St., 186, 327
Boucher [Bucherius] Ægidius (S.J.), 137
Braun, J. (S.J.), 430 n.
Brazil, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Brigid, St. (of Sweden), 274
Burchard of Worms, Canons of, 24
Byzantine Empire, festivals in the, 26 _seqq._
Cecilia, St., 315 _seqq._
Caius (Pope), 206
Cajetan, James (Cardinal), the _Ordo Romanus_ of, 85
Calcasendi, Abulaibsan Achmed, _see_ Calendars
_Calendars_:—
Alt-Corbie, 412
Anglo-Saxon (Winchester), 413
Arian, 352 _seq._
Armenian, 283
Bede, 218, 230, 287;
_see_ Martyrology
Besançon (S. Protadii), 414
Bologna, 411
Calcasendi, 26, 218, 225, 300 n., 331, 383
Carthage, 206, 286, 294, 316, 350
Charlemagne, 165, 282, 292, 300, 306, 412
Cologne, 307, 327, 332 n., 412, 416
Coptic, 168, 211, 218, 224 _seq._, 273, 299 _seq._, 312, 332, 338;
description of the, 381 _seq._
English (Church of England), 36
Floriac, 414
Freising, 416
Fronteau (of St Geneviève), 165, 170, 175, 179 _seq._, 293, 300
_seq._, 306;
description of the, 400
“Germanicum pervetustum sæc. X.,” 416
Gotho-Gallican, 230, 306, 413
Gregorian, 46, 211, 299
Jewish (Semitic), 15, 44, 46, 47 _seq._, 49, 51
Julian, 45, 46, 50 _seq._, 57
Luxeuil, 230
Mainz, 414
Mantua, 414
Mozarabic, 218, 230, 254
Neapolitan, 218, 245, 275, 282, 290, 293 _seq._, 300, 306;
description of the, 394 _seqq._
Nestorian, 283
Philocalian, 136 _seqq._, 151, 217, 350 _seq._;
_see_ Chronograph
Polemius Silvius, 69, 119, 169, 191, 217, 283, 351
Roman (of the 7th century), 411
⸺ (Modern), 421
Silos, 218
Stablo, 332 n., 417
Syro-Macedonian, 45, 46, 50, 211, 218
Toledo, 230
Tours, 412;
_see_ Perpetuus
Treves, 417
Vallombrosa, 414
Werden (Verdinense), 414
_See_ Ideler; Mai; Maimonides; Selden; Sonnatius; Tondini
_Calendars, Early_, 206 _seq._, 316, 345, 347 _seqq._, 410 _seq._
Calixtus I. (Pope), 185
⸺ III. ” 105
_Calvinism_, the festivals retained by, 35, 75
Campeggio (Cardinal-legate), 30
Capistran, John, St, 105
Capocci, Peter (Cardinal), 121
Carthage, fasts of the stations at, 97;
dedication of churches at, 195, 206;
_see_ Calendars
Cassian, John, 110, 128, 434
Cassiodorus, 141, 364
Catulfus, on the Holy Trinity, 117 n.
_Charistia, The_ (or _Cara Cognatio_), 302 _seq._
Charlemagne, 84;
Homilarium of, 165, 179;
Capitulary of, 188, 344;
_see_ Calendars
Charles II. (King of Spain), 275
Chosroes (King of Persia), 338 _seq._
Chrodegang, Canons of, 100, 188
_Chronograph, The_ (A.D. 354), 140 _seq._, 295 n., 306, 350 n.
Chrysologus, Peter, St, 163, 218, 230, 233, 265, 284
Chrysostom, John, St, 99, 108, 131 _seqq._, 143, 168, 170, 284, 324
Ciofani (Prussian agent in Rome), 33
Clemangiis, Nicholas de, 30
Clement of Alexandria, 39, 89, 141, 167, 437
⸺ I. (Pope), 205
⸺ V. ” 122
⸺ VII. ” 166
⸺ VIII. ” 16, 262, 266
⸺ IX. ” 262, 333
⸺ X. ” 270, 333
⸺ XI. ” 262, 271, 274
⸺ XIII. ” 127
⸺ XIV. ” 32 _seq._, 200
Cloveshove, Council of, 188, 403
Codinus, George, the _de officiis_ of, 27, 224
Cologne, Synod of, 123 n., 199, 258;
feasts for archdiocese of, 422;
the Three Kings at, 441 _seq._;
_see_ Calendars; Lectionary; Sacramentary.
Compostela, relics of St James at, 292
Constance, Council of, 24, 115, 125 n.
Constantine (Emperor), on the observance of Sunday, 9 _seq._, 17, 41,
74, 81, 136, 196, 281, 297, 328, 333
Constantinople, festival of the Ascension at, 108;
_see_ Menology
Constantius (Emperor), 149, 196, 281, 290, 318
Copts, festivals observed by the, 26 _seq._, 70;
Synaxaria of the, 105, 159, 238, 291;
_see_ Calendars
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 153
Cuspinianus, John, 137
Cyprian, St, 40, 72, 138, 146, 151, 206, 431
Cyril, St, of Alexandria, 128
⸺ of Jerusalem, 92, 135, 154 _seq._
Delahaye, Hipp. (S.J.), 320 n.
_Depositio Episcoporum, The_, 137 _seq._, 149 n., 318, 349
⸺ _Martyrum_, 137 _seq._, 149 n., 320 n., 349, 356, 375, 417
De Rossi, J. B., 138, 319, 365
De Waal, 289
Diocletian (Emperor), 205
Dionysius of Alexandria, 91
⸺ the Areopagite, 235
Dominic, St, and the Rosary, 269 _seq._
⸺ of Prussia (Carthusian), 270 n.
_Dominicans, The_, and the Immaculate Conception, 259 _seq._
Duchesne, L., Mgr., 315, 365, 368
Durandus, on Lent, 104;
on the Immaculate Conception, 256, 322
Eadmer, 271, 446
_Easter_, the centre of the Church’s year, 3;
history of, 37 _seqq._;
_see_ Martin; Nilles; Passover
Ebner, 322
Eccard, 137
Eligius of Noyon, 70
Elsinus, _see_ Helsinus
Elvira, Synod of, 110 n.
England, Feasts of the B.V.M. in, 271 n.;
Christmas in, 439 _seq._;
The Immac. Concept. in, 445 _seq._;
_see_ Calendars; Festivals of obligation
Ennodius (Bishop of Pavia), 81
Ephesus, Death of St John at, 297 _seq._
Ephrem Syrus, 129, 197
Epiphanius, 56, 128
Erfurt, Council of, 280
Erwig (Spanish King), 164
Essen, The _Liber Ordinarius_ of, 125;
_see_ Sacramentary
Ethelred (King), and the feast of St Michael, 331
Eucherius (Bishop of Lyons), 304
Eudocia (Empress), 224, 287
Eugenius IV. (Pope), 124
Eusebius (Eccl. historian), 9 _seq._;
on Easter, 41, 55, 90;
on Lent, 92 _seq._, 106, 149, 195 _seq._, 206, 211, 296, 308, 335,
359 _seqq._
Eustorgius (Bishop of Milan), 441
Euthymius, on the Assumption, B.V.M., 236
Eve (recluse at Liège), 120 _seq._
Exeter, Synod of, 252
Fabian, Pope, 205
Felicitas, St (Martyr), 138
Felix (anti-Pope), 149, 318
⸺ II. (Pope), 343
_Feralia_ (concluding day of the _Parentalia_), 302 _seq._
Ferdinand III. (Emperor), 275
_Feriæ_, origin of the name, 2, 7;
as distinguished from festivals, 14
_Festivals_, their two chief divisions, 3;
Jewish, 5 _seq._;
their classification, 13 _seq._;
increase in number of, 19;
first lists of, 20 _seq._;
in Canon law, 24;
large number of, 25 _seq._;
rights of bishops in respect of, 28 _seq._, 31;
their reduction, 31 _seq._;
of the Greek eccl. year, 442 _seqq._;
_see_ Feriæ; Paleologi
_Festivals of obligation in_:—
Austria, 424;
Belgium, 424;
Brazil, 428;
England, 426;
France, 424;
German States, 424 _seq._;
Holland, 426;
Italy, 424;
Poland, 32, 427;
Portugal, 427 _seq._;
Prussia, 32 _seqq._, 424;
Rome, 423 _seq._;
Russia, 428;
Spain, 427;
Switzerland, 426;
United States, 428.
Festus (Senator), 286
Flavian (Bishop of Antioch), 132
_Forty Hours Prayer, The_, _see_ Plantanida
France, alteration in festivals in, 34 _seq._;
Holy Saturday in, 83;
_see_ Festivals of obligation
Franchi di Cavalieri, 210
Francis of Assisi, St, introduces the Crib, 156
_Franciscans, The_, influence on the Liturgy, 15 _seq._;
and the Immac. Conc., 257 _seqq._;
and Visit. B.V.M., 267;
and cultus of St Joseph, 274
Frederick William II. (King of Prussia), 33
Fronteau, _see_ Calendars
Formosus (Pope), 308
Fulbert (Bishop of Chartres), 231
Fulgentius, 166, 168, 230
Gabriel the Archangel, 332.
_Gallic pilgrim, The_, _see_ Silvia
Gamaliel (Rabbi), on the Jewish Calendar, 49
Gelasius I. (Pope), 175, 343;
_see_ Sacramentary
Gellonense, _see_ Martyrology
George (Bishop of Nicomedia), 243
Georgius Hamartolus, 174
Gereon, St (Martyr), 373, 414 _seq._
Germanus (Patr. of Constantinople), 236
Germany, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Gerson, John (the Chancellor), 30, 274
Gertrude, St, 126, 274
Gerunda, Synod of, 61, 193
Glycas, on St Mary Magdalen, 314
Gorman (Abbot), _see_ Martyrology
Grammont, Peter de (Bishop of Besançon), 126
Gratian, decretal of, 24, 100
Gregory the Great (Pope), 76, 96, 102, 151, 159, 179, 192, 229, 343,
363, 407, 435;
_see_ Calendars; Sacramentary
⸺ II. (Pope), 343, 400
⸺ III. (Pope), 324 _seq._, 400
⸺ IV. ” 325
⸺ VII. ” 16, 186, 189
⸺ IX. ” decretal of, 24 _seq._, 199
⸺ XI. ” 266
⸺ XII. ” 276
⸺ XIII. ” 270, 276, 409
⸺ XV. ” 275
Gregory of Nazianzus, 130 _seq._, 151
⸺ of Nyssa, 131
⸺ of Tours, 192, 211, 237, 284, 314, 435
⸺ Thaumaturgus, 207
Gretser, Jacobus (S.J.), 419
Guyard (Bishop of Cambrai), 121
Heinrich II. (Archbishop of Cologne), 199
Helena (Empress), 107, 196, 333 _seq._
Helperich (Monk of St Gall), 74
Helsinus (_or_ Elsinus), 248
Henry of Ghent, 253
Henschen (Bollandist), 137, 210, 403
Heraclius (Emperor), 232, 338 _seq._
Hermas, on fasting, 89
Hetto (Bishop of Basel), statute of, 23, 198
Hilduin (Abbot), on the Martyrology, 365
Hippolytus (Bishop of Porto), canons and cycle of, 40 _seq._, 57, 91,
97, 99, 112, 141 _seq._, 146, 167 _seq._;
on the date of Christmas, 437 _seq._
Holland, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Honorius (Emperor), forbids races on Sunday, 19, 131
Hugh (Abbot of Reading), and the Immac. Conc., 248
Hugo (Cardinal-legate), approves feast of Corpus Christi, 121
Hunyadi, George, 105
Hydatius, on the date of Christ’s birth, 141
Ibsung, Katharina, her legacy for feast of Corpus Christi, 124
Ideler, on the Jewish Calendar, 49
Ignatius, St (of Antioch), 39, 209, 212
Ildefonsus, St (Bishop of Toledo), 227
Ingelheim, Council of, 24
Innocent I. (Pope), 76, 98, 292 n., 434
⸺ III. ” on liturgical colours, 429
⸺ VIII. ” 261 n.
⸺ IX. ” 272
⸺ X. ” 262
⸺ XI. ” 264
⸺ XIII. ” 166
Irenæus, St, 39, 55, 90 _seq._, 111, 141, 431, 437
Isaias, his prophecy on the Messias, 43
Isidore of Seville, 54, 67, 73, 254
Italy, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Ivo (Bishop of Chartres), Canons of, 24
_Jacobites, The_, 297
James of Landsberg (Carthusian), 126
James of Nisibis (Bishop), 355
James Pantaleon (afterwards Pope Urban IV.), 121
Januarius (Bishop), his inquiries from St Augustine, 57, 72
Jerome, St, 145, 153, 182, 273, 294, 300, 308, 364 _seq._, 431;
_see_ Lectionary; Martyrology
Jerusalem, practices observed at, 9, 62 _seq._, 99, 107, 112 _seq._,
152 _seq._, 171, 173 _seqq._, 194 _seq._
Joachim, St, in the Greek Breviary, 246
John, St (Apostle and Evangelist), 43
⸺ Damascene, St, 235 _seq._, 242, 265, 390, 448
⸺ (Bishop of Eubœa), 242, 246
⸺ of Hildesheim (Carmelite), 442
⸺ (Bishop of Jerusalem), 223
⸺ of Lausanne, 121
⸺ (Bishop of Nicea), 131 n., 135 _seq._, 154, 167
⸺ III. (Pope), 296
⸺ XXII. ” 118, 124
⸺ II. (Archbishop of Prague), 268
⸺ (Bishop of Strassburg), 124
Josephus, 143, 145 n., 155
Juliana of Retinne, 120
Julius I. (Pope), 135, 150, 154 _seq._
⸺ II. ” 276
Justin (Emperor), 174
Justin, Martyr, on Easter, 39, 44
Justinian (Emperor), legislation about Sunday, 18, 173 _seq._, 275,
281, 328
Juvenal (Bishop of Jerusalem), 153, 236
_Kings, The Three_, 441 _seq._
Lacordaire, Père (O.P.), 315
Lambeck, 137
Lanfranc (Archbishop of Canterbury), statutes of, 198 _seq._, 421
_seq._, 445
Laodicea, Synod of, decree on celebration of Saturday, 11 _seq._, 73
Launoi, 210
Lazarus, St, 310 _seqq._
⸺ (Bishop of Aix), 314
_Lectionary_:—
of St Boniface, 160
of Cologne, 161 n.
“Comes Albini,” The, 161 n., 306
of St Jerome, 182 _seq._
of Luxeuil, 67, 159, 180, 232, 238, 281, 397
of Münster, 161 n.
of Silos, 67, 101, 159, 166, 175, 340;
description of, 378 _seqq._, 397
of Spires, 306
Syrian, The, 225, 291, 294, 299, 331;
description of, 393
of Treves, 161 n.
of Victor of Capua, 160
Leo I. (Emperor), 267
⸺ VI. ” on the observance of Sunday, 10, 242 n., 312, 314
Leo the Great, St (Pope), 76;
on fasting, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 151, 159, 166, 183, 185 _seq._,
229, 306, 435;
_see_ Sacramentary
⸺ III. (Pope), 193, 275, 400
⸺ IV. ” 80 n., 237
⸺ XII. ” 33
⸺ XIII. ” 263, 276, 333
Leopold I. (Emperor), 275
Leslæus (S.J.), on feast of the Immac. Conc., 254
Liberius (Pope), 142, 147 _seqq._, 191, 207, 271 n., 318
Liège, Synod of, 258
_Liturgy, The_, in time of Tertullian, 9
Loménie, C. F. de (Bishop of Coutances), 126
Loreto, the Holy House of, 271 n.
Louis the Pious (Emperor), 325 _seq._
Lucianus (priest of Jerusalem), 223
Luther, on observance of festivals, 35
Lyons, Second Council of, 193
Mabillon (O.S.B.), 78, 159, 207, 237, 297, 340, 350, 397
Macarius (Bishop of Jerusalem), 335 _seq._
Maçon, Synod of, 21, 61, 158
Mai (Cardinal), Calendars published by, 322, 384, 396
Maimonides, on the Jewish Calendars, 49
Mainz, Council of, directions about festivals, 23, 194, 198, 238,
331;
_see_ Calendars
Maizières, Philip de, and feast of Present. B.V.M., 266
Mamertus (Bishop of Vienne), and Rogation processions, 191
_Mandatum, The_, 73
Manuel Comnenus (Emperor), reduces number of holidays, 26, 242, 245,
266, 288, 312, 329
Marcellina (sister of St Ambrose), 148 _seq._
Marcellus, his discovery of head of St John Baptist, 221
“Maria,” explanation of the name, 264
Maria Teresa (Empress), 32
Martène, on the blessing of Palms, 62
Martin (Bishop of Dumio), on date of Easter, 58
⸺ V. (Pope), 124
_Martyrologies_, 214, 273, 292, 297, 345 _seq._
_Martyrology_:—
of Ado, 288, 307, 312, 316, 319, 335;
description of the, 405 _seq._
of Bede, 293, 307, 312, 335, 341;
description of the, 401 _seq._
of Besançon, 327
of Corbie, 57, 306
of Florus, description of the, 401 _seq._
the Gellonense, 57, 413
of Gorman, 404
of St Jerome, 57, 288, 290, 293, 295, 297 _seqq._, 307, 312, 316,
332, 335, 340, 359 _seq._, 363 _seq._
of Notker Balbulus, description of the, 405 _seq._
of Œngus, description of the, 401 _seq._
of Rabanus Maurus, 312, 316;
description of the, 405 _seq._
the Roman (of Baronius), 409
of Toledo, 299
of Usuardus, 288, 307, 312 _seq._, 316, 319, 335;
description of the, 405 _seq._
of Wandlebert, 306;
description of the, 401 _seq._
Mary, the Blessed Virgin, position of her festivals, 3
_Mass_ [Missa], explanation of the word, 430 _seqq._
Maurice (Emperor), 237
⸺ de Sully (Bishop of Paris), 256
Maximinus (Bishop of Aix), 311
Maximus of Turin, 151 n., 169, 207, 218, 230, 283
Melito of Sardis, 39
_Menology_:—
of Basil, 156, 218, 242, 273, 291, 296, 299 _seq._, 312,
322, 331, 370, 390 _seqq._
of Constantinople, 105, 218, 225, 273, 300, 322, 338, 339 n., 387
_seqq._
Metaphrastes, Simeon, 266 n., 321, 329
Metrophanes (Bishop of Constantinople), 289
Michael of Atriba, Synaxarium of, 238, 386
_Micrologus, The_, 116 _seq._, 161, 186
_Missa_, _see_ Mass
_Missal_:—
Gallican, 197, 232
Gotho-Gallican, 67, 69, 76, 83, 101, 159, 237, 297, 397
Leonine, 114, 397
Roman, 103, 188, 399
Trani, 322
_See_ Sacramentary
_Missals_, The earliest, 214, 343, 345
Modestus (Patr. of Jerusalem), 236, 314
Mommsen, T., 137, 320 n., 350
_Montanists_, Xerophagiæ of the, 99, 110 n.
Monte Gargano, 332
Morcelli, S. A., 298, 390
Morin, G. (O.S.B.), 186
Naogeorgius, 200 n.
Napoleon I. (Emperor), his regulations for holy days, 34 _seq._
Narcissus (Bishop of Jerusalem), 39
Neuching, Synod of, 61
Nicæa, 1st Council of, 92, 106
Nicephorus (historian), 174, 328
Nicolas I. (Pope), 100
Nilles, on the date of Easter, 52 n.
Nisan, the 15th day of, 41;
Jewish celebrations on, 42, 53 n.
Nogaroli, Leonardo, composes office of the Immac. Conc., 261
Noris (Cardinal), 137
Normandy, Feast of the Immac. Conc. in, 251 _seqq._
Notker Balbulus, 292, 332 n.;
_see_ Martyrology
⸺ of Liège, 327
_Octave_, origin of the, 15
Odilo, St (of Cluny), 233, 326
Odo de Sully (Bishop of Paris), 164, 268
Œngus, _see_ Martyrology
_Ordos_ [Ordinaria, Ordines], description of, 347
Origen, festivals known to, 17, 106, 112, 127, 167, 172, 306, 308
Orleans, Synods of, 95, 98, 101, 171, 192
Orosius, on the date of Christ’s birth, 141
Osbert de Clare (O.S.B.), and the Immac. Conc., 248, 250, 252
Otgar, (Archbishop of Mainz), 165, 180
Otho I. (Emperor), 288
Otricus, (Bishop of Milan), 327
Oxford, Synod of (A.D. 1222), 252
Paleologi, The (Emperors of Constantinople), festivals under, 27
_Palms_, blessing of, 62, 67 _seq._;
figures carried in the procession of, 69
Panvinius Onuphrius, 137
_Parentalia, The_ (heathen festival of the dead), 302
Paschal I. (Pope), 316
Passaglia, on the Immac. Conc., 240 _seqq._
_Passiones_, of Martyrs, 209, 317
_Passover, The_, its connection with Easter, 38, 40, 41 _seqq._, 57
Paul, St (the Apostle), on the Passover, 44;
in Rome, 138
⸺ (the Deacon), 84, 165
⸺ (Bishop of Emesa), 128
⸺ IV. (Pope), 308
⸺ V. ” 263, 333
Paulinus of Nola, 169, 290, 319, 334
Peckham, John (Archbishop of Canterbury), 118
Pelagius I. (Pope), 296
⸺ II. ” 192
Perpetua, St (Martyr), 138
Perpetuus of Tours, his list of festivals, 20;
calendar of, 57;
on fasts, 98, 158 _seq._, 218, 286
Peter St (the Apostle), date of arrival and death in Rome, 138
⸺ (Cardinal-legate), 164
⸺ of Celle (Bishop of Chartres), 256
⸺ Damian, St, 322
⸺ (Bishop of Edessa), 62
Philastrius, on Christmas, 169 n.
Philip IV. (King of Spain), 262
Philocalus, Furius, 136;
_see_ Calendars
Philogonius (Martyr), 132
Philoponus, Joannes, on the date of Easter, 53 n.
Philostorgius (historian), 290, 352
Phocas (Emperor), 324
Pilate, The spurious Acts of, 57
Pius V. (Pope), 16, 119, 264, 266, 270, 431
⸺ VI. (Pope), 32 _seq._, 200
⸺ IX. ” 239, 262 _seq._, 275
Plantanida, Joseph (O.S.F.C.), and the Forty Hours Prayer, 125
Pliny, letters of, 8
Poland, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Polemius Silvius, 304, 305;
_see_ Calendars
Polycrates of Ephesus, 39, 55, 281
Porphyrius (Bishop of Antioch), 353
Portugal, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Potho of Prüm, on feast of the H. Trinity, 118 n.;
on the Immac. Conc., 256
Preller, 137
_Processions_, 189 _seqq._
Proclus (Patr. of Constantinople), 233, 234
Prosper (of Aquitaine), on date of Christ’s birth, 141
Protadius (Bishop of Besançon), his Calendar, 327
_Proto-evangelium_ of James, The, 246
Protonika, legend of, and the Holy Cross, 337
Prudentius, 98, 285
Prussia, Good Friday in, 74 n.;
_see_ Festivals of obligation
Pulcheria (Empress), 236
_Quartodecimans, The_, 39, 40, 50, 54
Quedlinburg, Council of, 100
Rabanus Maurus, 77, 87, 311;
_see_ Martyrology
Rainald of Dassel (Archbishop of Cologne), 441
Raphael, The Archangel, 332
Ravenna, The New Year at, 163
Recceswinth (Spanish King), 164
Reims, Synod of, 30
Remigius (Monk and Bishop of Lyons), 202 n., 406
Richardis (Empress), 315
Rietsch, J., on St Mary Magdalen, 315
Robert de Thorete (Bishop of Liège), 120 _seq._
_Robigalia, The_, 191
Roger II. (of Naples), 244
⸺ (Bishop of Salisbury), 250, 255
Romanesia, Feast of the Ascension at, 108
Rome, method of fixing Easter in, 51, 54;
Synod of, 61;
_see_ Calendars; Festivals of obligation; Martyrology
Roncalli, on the Calendar, 137
_Rosary, The_, 268 _seqq._;
Confraternities of the, 270 n.
Rotricus (Bishop of Rouen), 252
Rouen, Council of (A.D. 650), 164
Rudolph (Bishop of Bourges), 23
Rufinus, 319
Russia, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Sabas, St, _see_ Typicum
_Sabbath, The_, its position in the Church, 6
_Sacramentaries_, description of the, 342 _seqq._
_Sacramentary_:—
Cologne, in Cathedral library at, 415
Düsseldorf, in library at, 415
Essen, 84
Gallican, 110
Gelasian, 67 _seq._, 76, 78, 83, 102 _seq._, 114, 116, 156, 160,
163, 169, 175, 178, 180, 184 n., 187, 198, 219, 222, 229, 280,
285, 288, 292, 306, 330, 340;
description of, 343, 398
Gregorian, 62, 69, 72, 78, 83, 87, 101 _seqq._, 114, 116 _seq._,
163, 165, 170, 175 n., 178 _seqq._, 187, 198, 222, 228, 288,
292, 299, 306, 330, 340;
description of, 344, 398 _seq._
Leonine, 156, 178, 184 n., 198, 219, 222, 280, 285, 330;
description of, 343
Mozarabic, 101, 156
Salbarus (Persian General), 339
_Saturday_, its liturgical observance, 12
Saxony, festivals in, 35
Schrader, Clemens (S.J.,), on the Immac. Conc., 240 _seqq._
Schulting, Cornelius, 419
Scotus, Jo. Duns, 259
Sedatus (Bishop of Béziers), 169
Selden, John, Calendars published by, 218, 225, 238, 273, 286 n.,
299, 322, 381
Seligenstadt, Synod of, 223
Serapion (Abbot of Thmuis), 92
Sergius I. (Pope), 175, 229, 237, 344
Servilius Paulus (proconsul), 39
Severus, Sulpicius, 141
Sicardus (Bishop of Cremona), 255 _seq._
Siculus Peter, 247
Sidonius Apollinaris, 191
Siena, The _Liber Ordinarius_ of, 322
Silos, _see_ Calendars; Lectionary
Silvia (The Gallic pilgrim), on Christian worship, 8, 62 _seqq._, 86;
on Fasts, 93, 99, 107, 112 _seq._, 129, 152, 154 _seq._, 171, 173,
175, 196, 338, 433 _seq._
_Simchah Thorah_, festival of the, 111
Simplicius (Pope), 224
Sirleto (Cardinal), 308, 409
Siroes (King of Persia), 339
Sixtus I. (Pope), 51, 55
⸺ III. ” 271 n.
⸺ IV. ” 261 _seq._, 266, 274, 276, 326
⸺ V. (Pope), 264, 266
Socrates (Eccl. historian), 96, 106, 336
Sonnatius (Bishop of Reims), statutes of, 21;
Calendar of, 229 n., 238
Sophronius (Patriarch), 448
Sozomen (Eccl. historian), 9 _seq._, 207, 336
Spain, reduction of festivals in, 31;
Advent in, 159;
Feasts of B.V.M. in, 227, 254, 262;
St James in, 292 _seqq._;
_see_ Festivals of obligation
Sprenger, Jacob (O.P.), 270 n.
Stachys (Bishop of Constantinople), 289
Stephen (Bishop of Liège), 116 _seq._
_Sunday_, origin of the name, 7;
laws for its observance, 9 _seq._;
law-courts cease to sit on, 18;
races forbidden on, 19
Switzerland, _see_ Festivals of obligation
Symmachus (Pope), 208, 318 n., 331
_Synagogue, The_, its influence on the Church’s year, 5
_Synaxis_ [Synaxaria], of St John Baptist, 219, 345, 349;
_see_ Copts, Michael of Atriba
Szabolcs, Council of, 198
Tarragona, Synod of, 31
_Tenebræ_, The Office of, 71
Tertullian, 5;
his enumeration of feasts, 17;
on Easter, 40, 44, 56, 89 _seqq._, 99, 106;
on Pentecost, 111 _seq._, 127, 141, 172, 184;
on Christian burial, 213, 310, 431, 437
Theodore, on Feasts of B.V.M., 227
Theodorus Lector, 286
Theodosius II. (Emperor), his legislation about holy days, 19, 130,
220, 224
Theodulf, on Ember days, 188
Theophanes (historian), 328, 337 n.
Theophilus of Alexandria, 220
Theophilus of Cæsarea, on Easter, 40, 59
Thomas Aquinas, St, 122, 258
Thomassin, Louis, 419
Tillemont (historian), 210, 220, 320, 420
Toledo, 4th Synod of, 74, 80, 100, 164
6th ”, 193
8th ”, 100
10th ”, 232
_See_ Calendars, Martyrology
Tondini, Cæsar (Barnabite), on the Calendar, 52 n.
Tours, festivals celebrated at, 20;
second council of, 164, 331;
_see_ Calendars
Trani, _see_ Missal
_Translation_, of relics, 220, 267, 281, 292
Trent, Council of, 31, 263
Treves, Synod of, 268;
_see_ Calendars, Lectionary
Tribonianus, 134
Trithemius (Abbot), 274, 276 n., 403
Trullan Synod, the, 73, 100, 105, 232, 387
Turcius Almachius (Prefect of Rome), 317 _seqq._
_Typicum, The_, of St Sabas, 243, 447 _seq._
Tyre, Synod at, 195
Uranius (Bishop of Emesa), 221
Urban I. (Pope), 317
⸺ IV. ” _see_ James Pantaleon
⸺ VI. ” 267, 276
Urban VIII. (Pope), his constitution _Universa per orbem_, 29, 30, 200
Usuardus, _see_ Martyrology
Valens (Emperor), 130, 220
Valentia, council of, 213 n.
Valentinian II. (Emperor), law on Sunday rest, 10;
regulation of legal vacations, 17 _seq._, 134
Valesius, on the Lenten fast, 97
_Veil_, the Lenten [Hunger Veil], 104
Venantius Fortunatus, 316
_Vestments_, Liturgical, 428 _seqq._
Victor (Bishop of Capua), _see_ Lectionary
⸺ (Pope), 39, 55, 59, 90
Vienne, Council of, 124
Vigilius (Bishop of Trent), 191
Vincent Ferrer, St, 274
Walter (Bishop of Orleans), 23
⸺ (Bishop of Rouen), 252 n.
Wandelbert of Prüm, 57;
_see_ Martyrology
Warinus of Worcester, 248
Willibald, St (Bishop of Eichstätt), 314
Worcester, Synod of, 252
Wüstenfeld, F., 381 _seq._
_Xerophagiæ, The_, 99
Zacharias (Patr. of Jerusalem), 339
⸺ (Pope), 80 n., 164
Zeno of Verona, 151, 155, 165
Zosimus (Pope), 81
PRINTED BY TURNBULL AND SPEARS, EDINBURGH
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Heortology : A history of the Christian festivals from their origin to the present day" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.