{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60936/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60936","id":"gutenberg_60936","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60936","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church calendar","Church year"],"text":"The Cambridge Handbooks of Liturgical Study\n\n GENERAL EDITORS:\n H. B. SWEET, D.D.\n J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D.\n\n THE CHURCH YEAR AND KALENDAR\n\n\n\n\n CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n London: FETTER LANE, E.C.\n C. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n\n [Illustration]\n\n Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET\n Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.\n Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS\n New York: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n\n _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Kalendar of Peterborough Psalter (March)\n\nFitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (MS. 12). Cent. xiii.]\n\n\n\n\n THE CHURCH YEAR AND\n KALENDAR\n\n BY\n JOHN DOWDEN, D.D.,\n Hon. LL.D. (Edinburgh), late Bishop of Edinburgh\n\n Cambridge:\n at the University Press\n 1910\n\n Cambridge:\n PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.\n AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE EDITORS\n\n\nThe purpose of _The Cambridge Handbooks of Liturgical Study_ is to offer\nto students who are entering upon the study of Liturgies such help as may\nenable them to proceed with advantage to the use of the larger and more\ntechnical works upon the subject which are already at their service.\n\nThe series will treat of the history and rationale of the several rites\nand ceremonies which have found a place in Christian worship, with some\naccount of the ancient liturgical books in which they are contained.\nAttention will also be called to the importance which liturgical forms\npossess as expressions of Christian conceptions and beliefs.\n\nEach volume will provide a list or lists of the books in which the study\nof its subject may be pursued, and will contain a table of Contents and\nan Index.\n\nThe editors do not hold themselves responsible for the opinions expressed\nin the several volumes of the series. While offering suggestions on\npoints of detail, they have left each writer to treat his subject in his\nown way, regard being had to the general plan and purpose of the series.\n\n H. B. S.\n J. H. S.\n\n\n\n\n[The manuscript of the present volume was sent to the press only a few\nweeks before the lamented death of the author, and therefore the work\ndid not receive final revision at his hands. In its original draft the\nmanuscript contained a somewhat fuller discussion of some of the topics\nhandled, _e.g._ the work of the mediaeval computists, and such technical\nterms as \u2018Sunday Letters,\u2019 \u2018Epacts,\u2019 etc., as well as a fuller treatment\nof the various Eastern Kalendars. Exigencies of space, however, and the\nscope of the present series, made it necessary for the author to curtail\nthese portions of his work, while suggesting books in which the study of\nthese topics may be pursued by the student. The Editors have endeavoured,\nas far as possible, to verify the references and to supplement them,\nwhere it seemed necessary to do so. In a few cases they have added short\nadditional notes, enclosed in brackets, and bearing an indication that\nthey are the work of the Editors.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTION xi\n\n A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi\n\n I. THE \u2018WEEK\u2019 ADOPTED FROM THE JEWS. The Lord\u2019s Day: early\n notices. The Sabbath (Saturday) perhaps not observed by\n Christians before the fourth century: varieties in the\n character of its observance. The word _feria_ applied\n to ordinary week days: conjectures as to its origin.\n Wednesdays and Fridays observed as \u2018stations,\u2019 or days\n of fasting 1\n\n II. DAYS OF THE MARTYRS. Local observances at the burial places\n of Martyrs. Early Kalendars: the Bucherian; the Syrian\n (Arian) Kalendar; the Kalendar of Polemius Silvius; the\n Carthaginian. The Sacramentary of Leo; the Gregorian\n Sacramentary. All Saints\u2019 Day; All Souls\u2019 Day. The days\n of Martyrs the dominant feature in early Kalendars: the\n Maccabees 12\n\n III. ORIGINS OF THE FEASTS OF THE LORD\u2019S NATIVITY AND THE\n EPIPHANY. Festivals associated with the Nativity in\n early Kalendars 27\n\n IV. OTHER COMMEMORATIONS OF THE LORD. The Circumcision;\n Passiontide, Holy Week; mimetic character of\n observances. The Ascension. The Transfiguration.\n Pentecost 37\n\n V. FESTIVALS OF THE VIRGIN MARY. Hypapante (the Purification),\n originally a festival of the Lord. The same true of the\n Annunciation. The Nativity and the Sleep (_Dormitio_)\n of the Virgin. The Presentation. The Conception. The\n epithet \u2018Immaculate\u2019 prefixed to the title in 1854.\n Festivals of the Theotokos in the East 47\n\n VI. FESTIVALS OF APOSTLES, EVANGELISTS, AND OTHER PERSONS\n NAMED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. St Peter and St Paul.\n St Peter\u2019s Chair,\u2014the Chair at Antioch. St Peter\u2019s\n Chains. St Andrew. St James the Great. St John: St John\n before the Latin gate, a Western festival. St Matthew.\n St Luke. St Mark. St Philip and St James. St Simon\n and St Jude. St Thomas. St Bartholomew. St John the\n Baptist; his Nativity, his Decollation. The Conversion\n of St Paul. St Mary Magdalene. St Barnabas. Eastern\n commemorations of the Seventy disciples (_apostles_).\n Octaves. Vigils 58\n\n VII. SEASONS OF PREPARATION AND PENITENCE. Advent: varieties\n in its observance. Lent: its historical development;\n varieties as to its commencement and its length. Other\n special times of fasting: the three fasts known in the\n West as _Quadragesima_. Rogation days. The Four Seasons\n (Ember Days). Fasts of Eastern Churches 76\n\n VIII. WESTERN KALENDARS AND MARTYROLOGIES: Bede, Florus, Ado,\n Usuard. Old Irish Martyrologies. Value of Kalendars\n towards ascertaining the dates and origins of\n liturgical manuscripts. _Claves Festorum._ The modern\n Roman Martyrology 93\n\n IX. EASTER AND THE MOVEABLE COMMEMORATIONS. Early Paschal\n controversies. Rule as to the full moon after the\n vernal equinox. Hippolytus and his cycle: the so-called\n Cyprianic cycle; Dionysius of Alexandria. Anatolius.\n The Council of Nicaea and the Easter controversy.\n Later differences between the computations of Rome and\n Alexandria. Festal (or Paschal) Letters of the Bishops\n of Alexandria. _Supputatio Romana._ Victorius of\n Aquitaine. Dionysius Exiguus. The Nineteen-year Cycle.\n The Paschal Limits. The Gregorian Reform. The adoption\n of the New Style 104\n\n X. THE KALENDAR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE EAST. The\n Menologies. I. Immoveable Commemorations. The twelve\n great primary festivals; the four great secondary\n festivals. The middle class, greater and lesser\n festivals. The minor festivals, and subdivisions.\n Explanation of terms used in the Greek Kalendar. II.\n The Cycle of Sundays, or Dominical Kalendar 133\n\n APPENDIX I. The Paschal Question in the Celtic Churches 146\n\n APPENDIX II. Note on the Kalendars of the separated Churches of\n the East 147\n\n APPENDIX III. Note on the history of the Kalendar of the Church\n of England since the Reformation 149\n\n\n\nPLATES\n\n 1. KALENDAR OF THE PETERBOROUGH PSALTER _to face Title_\n\n 2. THE SYRIAC MARTYROLOGY \u201d _p. 15_\n\n 3. KALENDAR OF THE WORCESTER BOOK \u201d _p. 93_\n\n 4. KALENDAR OF THE DURHAM PSALTER \u201d _p. 99_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe Church\u2019s Year, as it has been known for many centuries throughout\nChristendom, is characterised, first, by the weekly festival of the\nLord\u2019s Day (a feature which dates from the dawn of the Church\u2019s life\nand the age of the Apostles) and, secondly, by the annual recurrence of\nfasts and festivals, of certain days and certain seasons of religious\nobservance. These latter emerged, and came to find places in the Kalendar\nat various periods.\n\nIn order of time the season of the Pascha, the commemoration of the\ndeath, and, subsequently, of the resurrection of the Saviour, is the\nfirst of the annual observances to appear in history. Again, at an\nearly date local commemorations of the deaths of victims of the great\npersecutions under the pagan Emperors were observed yearly. And some of\nthese (notably those who suffered at Rome) gradually gained positions\nin the Church\u2019s Year in regions remote from the places of their origin.\nSpeaking generally, little as it might be thought probable beforehand,\nit is a fact that martyrs of local celebrity emerge in the history of\nthe Kalendar at an earlier date than any but the most eminent of the\nApostles (who were also martyrs), and earlier than some of the festivals\nof the Lord Himself. The Kalendar had its origin in the historical events\nof the martyrdoms.\n\nSo far the growth of the Kalendar was the outcome of natural and\nspontaneous feeling. But at a later time we have manifest indications of\nartificial constructiveness, the laboured studies of the cloister, and\nthe work of professional martyrologists and Kalendar-makers. To take,\nfor the purpose of illustration, an extreme case, it is obvious that the\nassignment of days in the Kalendar of the Eastern Church to Trophimus,\nSosipater and Erastus, Philemon and Archippus, Onesimus, Agabus, Rufus,\nAsyncretus, Phlegon, Hermas, the woman of Samaria (to whom the name\nPhotina was given), and other persons whose names occur in the New\nTestament, is the outcome of deliberate and elaborate constructiveness.\nThe same is true of the days of Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets,\nonce, in a measure, a feature of Western, as they are still of Eastern\nKalendars. But even all the festivals of our Lord, save the Pascha,\nthough doubtless suggested by a spontaneous feeling of reverence, could\nbe assigned to particular days of the year only after some processes of\ninvestigation and inference, or of conjecture. Whether the birthday of\nthe Founder of the Christian religion should be placed on January 6 or\non December 25 was a matter of debate and argument. Commentators on the\nhistory of the Gospels, the conjectures of interpreters of Old Testament\nprophecy, and such information as might be fancied to be derivable from\nancient annals, had of necessity to be considered. The assignment of the\nfeast of the Nativity to a particular day was a product of the reflective\nand constructive spirit.\n\nIt is not absolutely impossible that ancient tradition, if not actual\nrecord, may be the source of June 29 being assigned for the martyrdom\nof St Peter and St Paul; but a more probable origin of the date is that\nit marks the translation of relics. Certainly the days of most of the\nApostles (considered as the days of their martyrdoms) have little or no\nsupport from sources that have any claim to be regarded as historical.\nThey find their places but gradually, and, it would seem, as the result\nof a resolve that none of them should be forgotten.\n\nCommemorations which mark the definition of a dogma, or which originated\nin the special emphasis given at some particular epoch to certain\naspects of popular belief and sentiment, have all appeared at times\nwell within the ken of the historical student. Thus, \u2018Orthodoxy Sunday\u2019\n(the first Sunday in Lent) in the Kalendar of the Greek Church is but\nlittle concerned with the controversies on the right faith which occupied\nthe great Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. It commemorates\nthe triumph of the party that secured the use of images over the\niconoclasts; this was the \u2018orthodoxy\u2019 which was chiefly celebrated;\nand we can fix the date of the establishment of the festival as A.D.\n842. Again, the commemoration of All Souls in the West was the outcome\nof a growing sense of the need of prayers and masses on behalf of the\nfaithful departed. The ninth century shows traces of the observance\nof some such day; but it was not till the close of the tenth century,\nunder the special impetus supplied by the reported visions of a pilgrim\nfrom Jerusalem, who declared that he had seen the tortures of the souls\nsuffering purgatorial fire, that the observance made headway. We then\nfind Nov. 2 assigned for the festival, which came to be gradually and\nslowly adopted. The feast of Corpus Christi, which now figures so largely\nin the popular devotions of several countries of Europe, and is marked\nas a \u2018double of the first class\u2019 in the service-books of the Church of\nRome, emerges for the first time in the thirteenth century, and was not\nformally enjoined till the fourteenth. The feast of the Conception of St\nMary the Virgin seems to have originated in the East, and to have been\nsimply a historical commemoration, even as the Greeks commemorate the\nconception of St John the Baptist. The Eastern tradition represents Anna\nas barren and well stricken in years, when, in answer to her prayers\nand those of Joachim her spouse, God revealed to them by an angel that\nthey should have a child. This conception was according to the Greek\nMenology \u2018contrary to the laws of nature,\u2019 like that of the Baptist.\nIn the West the festival of the Conception appears at the end of the\neleventh or beginning of the twelfth century. The controversies as to its\ndoctrinal significance form part of the history of dogma, and are full\nof instruction: but they cannot be considered here. Up to the year 1854\nthe name of the festival in the Kalendars of the authorised service-books\nof the Roman Church was simply _Conceptio B. Mariae Virginis_. It was as\nrecently as Dec. 8, 1854, by an ordinance of Pope Pius IX, that the name\nwas changed into _Immaculata Conceptio B. Mariae Virginis_. It will thus\nbe seen how changes in the Kalendar illustrate the changes and accretions\nof dogma, facts which are further exhibited by the changes in the rank\nand dignity of festivals of this kind, at first only tolerated perhaps,\nand of local usage, but eventually enjoined as of universal obligation,\nand elevated in the order and grade of festal classification. Again,\nthe considerable number of festivals of the Greek and Russian Churches\nconnected with relics and wonder-working _icons_ throws a light on the\nintellectual standpoint and the current beliefs in these ancient branches\nof the Catholic Church.\n\nNot less instructive in exhibiting the extraordinary growth in the\n_cultus_ of the Blessed Virgin in the West are the inferences which may\nbe gathered from a knowledge of the fact that no festival of the Virgin\nwas celebrated in the Church of Rome before the seventh century, when we\ncompare the crowd of festivals, major and minor, devoted to the Virgin in\nthe Roman Kalendar of to-day. But considerations of this kind are only\nincidentally touched on in the following pages; and they are referred to\nhere simply with a view to show that the study of the Kalendar is not an\nenquiry interesting merely to dry-as-dust antiquaries, but one which\nis intimately connected with the study of the history of belief, and is\ninwoven with far-reaching issues.\n\nIn the enquiry into the origins of ecclesiastical observances the\ndiscovery within recent years of early documents, hitherto unknown in\nmodern days, enforces the obvious thought that our conceptions on such\nsubjects must be liable to re-adjustment from time to time in the light\nof new evidence. Until the day comes, if it ever comes, when it can be\nsaid with truth that the materials supplied by the early manuscripts\nof the East and West have been exhausted, there can be no finality.\nThe document discovered some ten or twelve years ago, in which a lady\nfrom Gaul or Spain, who had gone on pilgrimage to the East, records her\nimpressions of religious observances which she had witnessed at Jerusalem\ntowards the close of the fourth century, has furnished some important\nlight on the subject before us, as well as on the history of ceremonial.\nIn the following pages this document is referred to as the _Pilgrimage\nof Silvia_ (\u2018Peregrinatio Silviae\u2019), without prejudice to the question\nrelating to the true name of the writer. The period when the work was\nwritten is the important question for our purposes; and those who are\nmost competent to express an opinion consider that it belongs to the time\nof Theodosius the Great, and to a date between the years 383 and 394.\n\nThe influence of the early mediaeval martyrologists, Bede, Florus,\nAdo, and Usuard, upon the mediaeval Kalendars, is unquestionable; but\nthe relations of their works to one another, the variations of the\ndifferent recensions and the sources from which they were drawn, are\nstill subjects of investigation. In addition to the brief notices of the\nmartyrologists which will be found in the following pages, the enquirer\nwho desires further information should not fail to study with care the\nrecent treatise of Dom Henri Quentin, of Solesmes, _Les Martyrologes\nhistoriques_.\n\nOf necessity a general outline sketch of the formation of the Kalendar\nis all that can be attempted in the following pages. Local Kalendars,\nmore especially, for most of our readers, those of the service-books of\nEngland, Scotland, and Ireland, present many interesting and attractive\nfeatures; but it has been impossible to deal with them in an adequate\nmanner. Some space has, however, been devoted to the consideration of\nthe Kalendar and Ecclesiastical Year of the Orthodox Church of the East,\nincluding the peculiar arrangement of the grouping of Sundays; and brief\nnotices are given of the fasts and festivals of some of the separated\nChurches of the East.\n\nThe questions concerning the determination of Easter will form the main\ntrial of the patience of the student.\n\nThe early controversies on the Paschal question are not free from\nobscurity; and the interests attaching to the construction of the various\nsystems of cycles, intended to form a perpetual table for the unerring\ndetermination of the date of Easter, are mainly the interests which\nare awakened by the history of human ingenuity grappling more or less\nsuccessfully with a problem which called for astronomical knowledge and\nmathematical skill. Religious interests are not touched even remotely.\nProfound as are the thoughts and emotions which cluster around the\ncommemoration of the Lord\u2019s Resurrection, they are quite independent of\nany considerations connected with the age of the moon and the date of the\nvernal equinox. The scheme for a time seriously entertained by Gregory\nXIII of making the celebration of Easter to fall on a fixed Sunday,\nthe same in every year, has much to commend it. Had it been adopted we\nshould, at all events, have been spared many practical inconveniences,\nand the ecclesiastical computists would have been saved a vast amount of\nlabour. But we must take things as they are.\n\nIf anyone contends that the safest \u2018Rule for finding Easter\u2019 is \u2018Buy\na penny almanack,\u2019 I give in a ready assent. It has in principle high\necclesiastical precedent; for it was exactly the same reasonable plan of\naccepting the determinations of those whom one has good reason to think\ncompetent authorities, which in ancient times made the Christian world\nawait the pronouncements as to the date of Easter which came year by\nyear from the Patriarchs of Alexandria in their Paschal Epistles: while\nfor the date of Easter in any particular year in the distant past, or\nin the future, there are few who will not prefer the Tables supplied in\nsuch works as _L\u2019Art de v\u00e9rifier les Dates_, or Mas Latrie\u2019s _Tr\u00e9sor de\nChronologie_, to any calculations of their own, based on the Golden\nNumbers and Sunday Letters[1]. In the present volume the limits of space\nforbid any detailed discussion of the principles involved and the methods\nemployed in the determination of Easter by the computists both ancient\nand modern. A brief historical sketch of the successive reforms of the\nKalendar is all that has been found possible. Those who seek for fuller\ninformation can resort to the treatises mentioned above or in the course\nof the volume. The chapter on Easter has for convenience been placed near\nthe conclusion of this volume.\n\nIn dealing with both Eastern and Western Kalendars the student will bear\nin mind that only comparatively few of the festivals affected the life\nof the great body of the faithful. A very large number of festivals were\nmarked in the services of the Church by certain liturgical changes or\nadditions. Many of them had their special _propria_; others were grouped\nin classes; and each class had its own special liturgical features. Only\ncomparatively few made themselves felt outside the walls of the churches.\nSome of them carried a cessation from servile labour, or caused the\nclosing of the law courts, or, as chiefly in the Greek Church, mitigated\nin various degrees (according to the dignity of the festival) the rigour\nof fasting. The distinction between _festa chori_ and _festa fori_ is\nalways worthy of observation. A relic of the distinction is preserved in\nan expression of common currency in France, when one speaks of a person\nas of insignificant importance, _C\u2019est un saint qu\u2019on ne ch\u00f4me pas_.\n\nAlthough the general scope of the following pages is wide in intention,\nthe origins of the Kalendar and the rise of the principal seasons\nand days of observance have chiefly attracted the interest of the\nwriter. Later developments are not wholly neglected, but they occupy a\nsubordinate place.\n\nThe enactments of civil legislation under the Christian Emperors and\nother rulers, in respect to the observance of Sunday and other Christian\nholy days, is an interesting field of study; but it has been impossible\nto enter upon it here in view of the limits of space at our disposal.\n\nThe study of Kalendars brings one into constant contact with hagiology,\nthe acts of martyrs, and the lives of saints. It would however have been\nobviously vain to deal seriously in the present volume with so vast a\nsubject, even in broadest outline.\n\nA short Bibliography of some important or serviceable works dealing with\nvarious branches of the subject before us is prefixed.\n\n\n\n\nA SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nACHELIS, H. _Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Werth._ (Berlin,\n1900.)\n\nACTA SANCTORVM. [Of the Bollandists. This vast collection, of which\nthe first volume appeared in 1643, had attained by the middle of the\nnineteenth century, after various interruptions in the labours of the\ncompilers, to 55 volumes, folio, and the work is still in process,\nhaving now reached the early days of November. Various Kalendars\nand Martyrologies have been printed in the work. The Martyrology of\nVenerable Bede, with the additions of Florus and others, will be found\nin the second volume for March; the metrical Ephemerides of the Greeks\nand Russians in the first volume for May; Usuard\u2019s Martyrology in the\nsixth and seventh volumes for June, and also an abbreviated form of\nthe Hieronymian. The second volume for November contains the Syriac\nMartyrology of Dr Wright edited afresh by R. Graffin with a translation\ninto Greek by Duchesne. The same volume contains the Hieronymian\nMartyrology edited by De Rossi and Duchesne.]\n\nASSEMANUS, JOSEPHUS SIMON. _Kalendaria Ecclesiae Universae, in quibus tum\nex vetustis marmoribus, tum ex codicibus, tabulis, parietinis, pictis,\nscriptis scalptisve Sanctorum nomina, imagines, et festi per annum dies\nEcclesiarum Orientis et Occidentis, praemissis uniuscujusque Ecclesiae\noriginibus, recensentur, describuntur, notisque illustrantur._ 4to, 6\ntom. Romae, 1755. The title raises hopes which are not verified. [This\nwork of the learned Syrian, who for his services to sacred erudition was\nmade Prefect of the Library of the Vatican, was planned on a colossal\nscale, but it was never completed, and indeed we may truly say only\nbegun. The six volumes which alone remain are wholly concerned with the\nSlavonic Church. The first four volumes, together with a large part of\nthe fifth, are devoted mainly to the history of Slavonic Christianity.\nThe concluding part of the fifth and the whole of the sixth volume deal\nwith a Russian Kalendar, commencing the year, as in the Greek Church,\nwith 1 September. This is treated very fully, but the work ends here.]\n\nBAILLET, ADRIEN. _Les Vies des Saints._ 2nd Ed. 10 vols. 4to. 1739. [The\nninth volume on the moveable feasts abounds in valuable information; and,\ngenerally, this work may be consulted on the history of the festivals\nwith much profit.]\n\nBINGHAM, JOSEPH. _Origines Ecclesiasticae, or the Antiquities of the\nChristian Church_, etc. [Of the numerous editions of this important\nwork, which has been by no means superseded, the most serviceable is the\nedition to be found in Bingham\u2019s _Works_, 9 vols. 8vo. (1840) \u2018with the\nquotations at length in the original languages.\u2019 The editor is J. R.\nPitman. Volume 7 contains most of what is pertinent to the antiquities of\nthe feasts and fasts of the early Church.]\n\nBINTERIM, A. J. _Die vorz\u00fcglichsten Denkw\u00fcrdigkeiten der Christ-Kathol.\nKirche._ Vol. V. (Mainz, 1829.)\n\nCABROL, FERNAND. _Dictionnaire d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne et de liturgie._\nParis, 1907 (in process of publication).\n\nD\u2019ACHERY, LUCAS. _Spicilegium._ Tom. II. fol. Paris, 1723. [This contains\nthe Hieronymian Martyrology; the metrical Martyrology attributed to Bede;\nthe Martyrology known as _Gellonense_ (from the monastery at Gellone,\non the borders of the diocese of Lod\u00e8ve in the province of Narbonne),\nassigned to about A.D. 804; the metrical Martyrology of Wandalbert the\ndeacon, of the diocese of Tr\u00e8ves, about A.D. 850; and an old Kalendar\n(A.D. 826) from a manuscript of Corbie.]\n\nDUCHESNE, L. _Origines du Culte chr\u00e9tien._ 3rd Ed. 8vo. Paris, 1902.\n[There is an English translation by M. L. McClure, London (S.P.C.K.),\n1903. The merits of Duchesne are so generally recognised that it is\nunnecessary to speak of them here.]\n\nGROTEFEND, H. _Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit._\n4to. 2 vols. Hanover, 1891, 1892-8. [Besides exhibiting in full a large\ncollection of Kalendars of Dioceses and Monastic Orders, not only of\nGermany, but also of Denmark, Scandinavia, and Switzerland, this work\ncontains an index of Saints marking their days in various Kalendars,\nincluding certain Kalendars of England. There is also a Glossary,\nexplaining both technical terms and the words of popular speech and\nfolk-lore in connexion with days and seasons.]\n\nHAMPSON, R. T. _Medii \u00c6vi Kalendarium, or dates, charters, and customs\nof the middle ages, with Kalendars from the tenth to the fifteenth\ncentury; and an alphabetical digest of obsolete names of days: forming\na Glossary of the dates of the middle ages, with Tables and other aids\nfor ascertaining dates._ 8vo. 2 vols. London, 1841. [The first volume is\nmainly occupied with \u2018popular customs and superstitions\u2019; but it also\ncontains reprints of various Anglo-Saxon and early English Kalendars.\nThe second volume is given over wholly to a useful, though occasionally\nsomewhat uncritical glossary.]\n\nHOSPINIAN, RUDOLPH. _Festa Christianorum, hoc est, De origine, progressu,\nceremoniis et ritibus festorum dierum Christianorum Liber unus_ (folio).\nTiguri, 1593. [This is a work of considerable learning for its day,\nwritten from the standpoint of a Swiss Protestant. A second edition,\nin which replies are made to the criticisms of Cardinal Bellarmine and\nGretser, appeared, also at Zurich, and in folio, in 1612.]\n\nIDELER, LUDWIG. _Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen\nChronologie._ 8vo. 2 vols. Berlin, 1825-26. [Ideler was Royal Astronomer\nand Professor in the University of Berlin. His discussion of the Easter\ncycles cannot be dispensed with. This and his account of the computation\nof time in the Christian Church will be found in Vol. 2 (pp. 175-470).\nThe Gregorian reform is well dealt with.]\n\nKELLNER, K. A. HEINRICH. _Heortology: a history of the Christian\nFestivals from their origin to the present day._ Translated from the\nsecond German edition. 8vo. London, 1908. [Dr Kellner is Professor of\nCatholic Theology in the University of Bonn. An interesting and useful\nvolume, though occasionally exhibiting, as is not unnatural, marked\necclesiastical predilections. It contains prefixed a useful bibliography.]\n\nLIETZMANN, H. _Die drei \u00e4ltesten Martyrologien._ E. tr. 8vo. Cambridge,\n1904. [This little pamphlet of 16 pages exhibits conveniently the\ntexts of (1) what is variously known as the Bucherian, or Liberian,\nor Philocalian Martyrology, (2) The Martyrology of Carthage, and (3)\nWright\u2019s Syrian Martyrology.]\n\nMACLEAN, ARTHUR JOHN (Bishop of Moray). The article \u2018Calendar,\nthe Christian\u2019 in Hastings\u2019 _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_\n[admirable, generally, for the early period.]\n\nMACLEAN, ARTHUR JOHN (Bishop of Moray). _East Syrian Daily Offices._\nLondon, 8vo., 1894. [An appendix deals with the Kalendar of the modern\nNestorians (Assyrian Christians).]\n\nNEALE, JOHN MASON. _A History of the Holy Eastern Church. General\nIntroduction._ London, 8vo., 1850. [Vol. II. gives information at\nconsiderable length on the Kalendars of the Byzantine, Russian, Armenian,\nand Ethiopic Churches.]\n\nNILLES, NICOLAUS. _Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesiae Orientalis et\nOccidentalis, academiis clericorum accommodatum._ 2 tom. 8vo. Oeniponte,\n1896, 1897. [N. Nilles, S.J., Professor in the University of Innsbruck,\ndeals mainly in these volumes with the ecclesiastical year in Eastern\nChurches.]\n\nQUENTIN, HENRI. _Les Martyrologes historiques du moyen age, \u00e9tude sur la\nformation du Martyrologe romain._ 8vo. Paris, 1907.\n\nSAXONY, MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF. _Praelectiones de Liturgiis Orientalibus._\nTom. I. 8vo. Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1908. [This volume is mainly concerned\nwith the Kalendars and Liturgical Year of the Greek and Slavonic\nChurches. It is lucid and interesting.]\n\nSEABURY, SAMUEL, D.D. _The Theory and Use of the Church Calendar in the\nmeasurement and distribution of Time; being an account of the origin and\nuse of the Calendar; of its reformation from the Old to the New Style;\nand of its adaptation to the use of the English Church by the British\nParliament under George II._ 8vo. New York, 1872. [Excellent on the\nrestricted subject with which it deals. It does not deal with Christian\nFestivals beyond the question of the determination of Easter, but is\nlargely concerned with matters of technical chronology, the ancient\ncycles, golden numbers, epacts, etc.]\n\nSMITH, WILLIAM, AND CHEETHAM, SAMUEL. _A Dictionary of Christian\nAntiquities._ 2 vols. London, 1875, 1880. [The articles contributed by\nvarious scholars, as was inevitable, vary much in merit. Those on the\nfestivals by the Rev. Robert Sinker are particularly valuable. This work\nis cited in the following pages as _D. C. A._]\n\nWORDSWORTH, JOHN, Bishop of Salisbury. _The Ministry of Grace._ London,\n8vo., 1901. [This learned work, under a not very illuminative title,\ndiscusses, _inter alia_, with a thorough knowledge of the best and most\nrecent literature of the subject, the development of the Church\u2019s fasts\nand festivals. It stands pre-eminent among English works dealing with the\nsubject.]\n\n[GASQUET, ABBOT, AND BISHOP, EDMUND. _The Bosworth Psalter._ London,\n1908. Contains valuable information about some Mediaeval Kalendars, with\ndiscussions of them. Edd.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE WEEK\n\n\nThe Church of Christ, founded in Judaea by Him who, after the flesh, was\nof the family of David, and advanced and guided in its earlier years by\nleaders of Jewish descent, could not fail to bear traces of its Hebrew\norigin. The attitude and trend of minds that had been long familiar with\nthe religious polity of the Hebrews, and with the worship of the Temple\nand the Synagogue, showed themselves in the institutions and worship of\nthe early Church. This truth is observable to some extent in the Church\u2019s\npolity and scheme of government, and even more clearly in the methods\nand forms of its liturgical worship. It is not then to be wondered at\nthat the same influences were at work in the ordering of the times and\nseasons, the fasts and festivals, of the Church\u2019s year.\n\n\n_The Week and the Lord\u2019s Day._\n\nMost potent in affecting the whole daily life of Christendom in all ages\nwas the passing on from Judaism of the Week of seven days. Inwoven, as\nit is, with the history of our lives, and taken very much as matter of\ncourse, as if it were something like a law of nature, the dominating\ninfluence and far reaching effects of this seven-day division of time are\nseldom fully realised.\n\nThe Week, known in the Roman world at the time of our Lord only in\nconnexion with the obscure speculations of Eastern astrology, or as\na feature, in its Sabbath, of the lives of the widely-spread Jewish\nsettlers in the great cities of the Empire, had been from remote times\naccepted among various oriental peoples. It would be outside our province\nto enquire into its origin, though much can be said in favour of the view\nthat it took its rise out of a rough division into four of the lunar\nmonth. But, so far as Christianity is concerned, it is enough to know\nthat it was beyond all doubt taken over from the religion of the Hebrews.\n\nIt is not improbable that at the outset some of the Christian converts\nfrom Judaism may have continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath, the\nseventh or last day of the week: and that attempts were made to fasten\nits obligations upon Gentile converts is evident from St Paul\u2019s Epistle\nto the Colossians (ii. 16). But it is certain that at an early date\namong Christians the first day of the week was marked by special\nreligious observances. The testimony of the Acts of the Apostles and the\nEpistles of St Paul shows us the first day of the week as a time for\nthe assembling of Christians for instruction and for worship, when \u2018the\nbreaking of bread\u2019 formed part of the service, and when offerings for\ncharitable and religious purposes might be laid up in store[2]. The name\n\u2018the Lord\u2019s day,\u2019 applied to the first day of the week, may probably be\ntraced to New Testament times. The occurrence of the expression in the\nRevelation of St John (i. 10) has been commonly regarded as a testimony\nto this application[3].\n\nIn the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (tentatively assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to\nbetween A.D. 70 and 79, and by others to about A.D. 130-131) we find the\npassage (c. 15), \u2018We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also\nJesus rose from the dead.\u2019 The date of the _Teaching of the Apostles_ is\nstill reckoned by some scholars as _sub judice_. But, if it is rightly\nassigned to the first century, its testimony may be cited here. In it is\nthe following passage:\u2014\u2018On the Lord\u2019s own day (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd)\ngather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanks, first\nconfessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure\u2019 (c. 14).\n\nThe next evidence, in point of time, is a passage in the _Epistle of\nIgnatius to the Magnesians_ (cc. 8, 9, 10), in which the writer dissuades\nthose to whom he wrote from observing sabbaths (\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2)\nand urges them to live \u2018according to the Lord\u2019s day (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd) on\nwhich our life also rose through Him.\u2019 It is impossible to suppose\nthat in early times the Lord\u2019s day was held to be a day of rest. The\nwork of the servant and labouring class had to be done; and it has been\nreasonably conjectured that the assemblies of Christians before dawn\nwere to meet the necessities of the situation. Lastly, the passage from\nthe _Apology_ of Justin Martyr (_Ap._ i. 67) is too well known to be\ncited in full. He describes to the Emperor the character and procedure\nof the Christian assemblies on \u2018the day of the sun,\u2019 which we know from\nother sources to have been the first day of the week. Writings of the\nApostles or of the Prophets were read: the President of the assembly\ninstructed and exhorted: bread, and wine and water were consecrated and\ndistributed to those present and sent by the Deacons to the absent:\nalms were collected and deposited with the President for the relief of\nwidows and orphans, the sick and the poor, prisoners and strangers. Later\nthan Justin we need not go, as the evidence from all quarters pours in\nabundantly to establish the universal observance of \u2018the first day of the\nweek,\u2019 \u2018Sunday,\u2019 \u2018the Lord\u2019s day,\u2019 as a day for worship and religious\ninstruction[4].\n\n\n_The Sabbath (Saturday)._\n\nLack of positive evidence prevents us from speaking with any certainty\nas to whether there was among Christians any recognised and approved\nobservance of Saturday (the Sabbath) in the first, second and third\ncenturies. There is no hint of such observance in early Christian\nliterature; and there are passages which rather go to discountenance the\nnotion[5].\n\nDuchesne, whose opinion deservedly carries much weight, comes to the\nconclusion that the observance of Saturday in the fourth century was not\na survival of an attempt of primitive times to effect a conciliation\nbetween Jewish and Christian practices, but an institution of\ncomparatively late date[6]. Certainly one cannot speak confidently of the\nexistence of Saturday as a day of religious observance among Christians\nbefore the fourth century.\n\nEpiphanius[7], in the second half of the fourth century, speaks of\nsynaxes being held _in some places_ on the Sabbath; from which it may\nprobably be inferred that it was not so in his time in Cyprus.\n\nIn the Canons of the Council of Laodicea (which can hardly be placed\nearlier than about the middle of the fourth century, and is probably\nlater) we find it enjoined that \u2018on the Sabbath the Gospels with other\nScriptures shall be read\u2019 (16); that \u2018in Lent bread ought not to be\noffered, save only on the Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s day\u2019 (49); and that \u2018in\nLent the feasts of martyrs should not be kept, but that a commemoration\nof the holy martyrs should be made on Sabbaths and Lord\u2019s days\u2019 (50).\nYet it was forbidden \u2018to Judaize and be idle on the Sabbath,\u2019 while,\n\u2018if they can,\u2019 Christians are directed to rest on the Lord\u2019s day. The\n_Apostolic Constitutions_ go further; and, under the names of St Peter\nand St Paul, it is enjoined that servants should work only five days\nin the week, and be free from labour on the Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s day\n\u2018with a view to the teaching of godliness\u2019 (viii. 33). Uncertain as are\nthe date and origin of the _Constitutions_ they may be regarded as in\nsome measure reflecting the general sentiment in the East in the fifth,\nor possibly the close of the fourth century[8]. From these testimonies\nit appears that the Sabbath was a day of special religious observance,\nand that in the East it partook of a festal character. Falling in\nwith this way of regarding Saturday we find Canon 64 of the so-called\n_Apostolic Canons_ (of uncertain date, but possibly early in the fifth\ncentury[9]) declaring, \u2018If any cleric be found fasting on the Lord\u2019s\nday, or on the Sabbath, except one only [that is, doubtless \u201cthe Great\nSabbath,\u201d or Easter Eve], let him be deprived, and, if he be a layman,\nlet him be segregated[10].\u2019 The _Apostolic Constitutions_ emphasise the\nposition of the Sabbath by the exhortation that Christians should \u2018gather\ntogether especially on the Sabbath, and on the Lord\u2019s day, the day of the\nResurrection\u2019 (ii. 59); and again, \u2018Keep the Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s day\nas feasts, for the one is the commemoration of the Creation, the other\nof the Resurrection\u2019 (vii. 23\u00b3). We find also that one of the canons of\nLaodicea referred to above is in substance re-enacted at a much later\ndate by the Council in Trullo (A.D. 692) in this form, that except on the\nSabbath, the Lord\u2019s day, and the Feast of the Annunciation, the Liturgy\nof the Pre-sanctified should be said on all days in Lent (c. 52).\n\nIn the city of Alexandria in the time of the historian Socrates the\nEucharist was not celebrated on Saturday; but other parts of Egypt\nfollowed the general practice of the East. Socrates says that Rome agreed\nwith Alexandria in this respect[11].\n\nIt is certain that very commonly, though not universally, in the East\nthe Sabbath was regarded as possessing the features of a weekly festival\n(with a eucharistic celebration) second in importance only to the Lord\u2019s\nday. And Gregory of Nyssa says, \u2018If thou hast despised the Sabbath, with\nwhat face wilt thou dare to behold the Lord\u2019s day.... They are sister\ndays\u2019 (_de Castigatione_, Migne, _P.G._ xlvi. 309).\n\nIn the West we find also that the Sabbath was a day of special religious\nobservance; but there was a variety of local usage in regard to the\nmode of its observance. At Rome the Sabbath was a fast-day in the time\nof St Augustine[12]; and the same is true of some other places; but the\nmajority of the Western Churches, like the East, did not so regard it.\nIn North Africa there was a variety of practice, some places observed\nthe day as a fast, others as a feast. At Milan the day was not treated as\na fast; and St Ambrose, in reply to a question put by Augustine at the\ninstance of his mother Monnica, stated that he regarded the matter as one\nof local discipline, and gave the sensible rule to do in such matters at\nRome as the Romans do[13]. In the early part of the fourth century the\nSpanish Council of Elvira corrected the error that every Sabbath should\nbe observed as a fast[14].\n\nAs to the origin of the Saturday fast we are left almost wholly to\nconjecture. It has been supposed by some to be an exhibition of\nantagonism to Judaism, which regarded the Sabbath as a festival; while\nothers consider that it is a continuation of the Friday fast, as a kind\nof preparatory vigil of the Lord\u2019s day. It is outside our scope to go\ninto this question.\n\nA relic of the ancient position of distinction occupied by Saturday may\nperhaps be found in the persistence of the name \u2018Sabbatum\u2019 in the Western\nservice-books. Abstinence (from flesh) continued, \u2018de mandate ecclesiae,\u2019\non Saturdays in the Roman Church. For Roman Catholics in England it\nceased in 1830 by authority of Pope Pius VIII.\n\n This seems a convenient place for saying something as to\n the use of the word _Feria_ in ecclesiastical language to\n designate an ordinary week-day. The names most commonly\n given to the days of the week in the service-books and other\n ecclesiastical records are \u2018Dies Dominica\u2019 (rarely \u2018Dominicus\u2019)\n for the Lord\u2019s Day, or Sunday; \u2018Feria II\u2019 for Monday; \u2018Feria\n III\u2019 for Tuesday, and so on to Saturday which (with rare\n exceptions) is not Feria VII but \u2018Sabbatum.\u2019\n\n Why the ordinary week-day is called \u2018Feria,\u2019 when in classical\n Latin \u2018feriae\u2019 was used for \u2018days of rest,\u2019 \u2018holidays,\u2019\n \u2018festivals,\u2019 is a question that cannot be answered with\n any confidence. A conjecture which seems open to various\n objections, though it has found supporters, is as follows: all\n the days of Easter week were holidays, \u2018feriatae\u2019; and, this\n being the first week of the ecclesiastical year, the other\n weeks followed the mode of naming the days which had been used\n in regard to the first week. A fatal objection to this theory,\n for which the authority of St Jerome has been claimed, is\n that we find \u2018feria\u2019 used, as in Tertullian, for an ordinary\n week-day long before we have any reason to think that there was\n any ordinance for the observance of the whole of Easter week by\n a cessation from labour[15].\n\n Another conjecture, presented however with too much confidence,\n is that put forward on the authority of Isidore of Seville[16]\n by the learned Henri de Valois (Valesius). He alleges that the\n ancient Christians, receiving, as they did, the week of seven\n days from the Jews, imitated the Jewish practice, which used\n the expression \u2018the second of the Sabbath,\u2019 \u2018the third of the\n Sabbath,\u2019 and so on for the days of the week: that \u2018Feria\u2019\n means a day of rest, in effect the same as \u2018Sabbath,\u2019 and that\n in this way the \u2018second Feria\u2019 and \u2018third Feria,\u2019 etc., came to\n be used for the second and third days of the week[17].\n\n The astrological names for the days of the week, as of the Sun,\n of the Moon, of Mars, of Mercury, etc., were generally avoided\n by Christians; but they are not wholly unknown in Christian\n writers, and sometimes appear even in Christian epitaphs.\n\n In the ecclesiastical records of the Greeks the first day of\n the week is \u2018the Lord\u2019s day\u2019; and the seventh, the Sabbath,\n as in the West. But Friday is _Parasceve_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae), a\n name which in the Latin Church is confined to one Friday in\n the year, the Friday of the Lord\u2019s Passion, which day in the\n Eastern Church is known as \u2018the Great Parasceve.\u2019 With these\n exceptions the days of the week are \u2018the second,\u2019 \u2018the third,\u2019\n \u2018the fourth,\u2019 etc., the word \u2018day\u2019 being understood.\n\n It is worth recording that among the Portuguese the current\n names for the week-days are: _segunda feira_, _ter\u00e7a feira_,\n etc.\n\n\n_Wednesday and Friday._\n\nLong prior to any clear evidence for the special observance among\nChristians of the last day of the week we find testimonies to a religious\ncharacter attaching to the fourth and sixth days.\n\nThe devout Jews were accustomed to observe a fast twice a week, on the\nsecond and fifth days, Monday and Thursday[18]; and these days, together\nwith the Christian fasts substituted for them, are referred to in the\n_Teaching of the Apostles_ (8), \u2018Let not your fastings be with the\nhypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but\ndo ye keep your fast on the fourth and parasceve (the sixth).\u2019 In the\n_Shepherd of Hermas_ we find the writer relating that he was fasting and\nholding a _station_[19]. And this peculiar term is applied by Tertullian\nto fasts (whether partial or entire we need not here discuss) observed on\nthe fourth and sixth days of the week[20]. Clement of Alexandria, though\nnot using the word _station_, speaks of fasts being held on the fourth\nday of the week and on the parasceve[21].\n\nAt a much later date than the authorities cited above we find the\n_Apostolic Canons_ decreeing under severe penalties that, unless for\nreasons of bodily infirmity, not only the clergy but the laity must fast\non the fourth day of the week and on the sixth (_parasceve_). And the\nrule of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays still obtains in the Eastern\nChurch[22].\n\nThese two days were marked by the assembling of Christians for\nworship. But the character of the service was not everywhere the same.\nDuchesne[23] has exhibited the facts thus: In Africa in the time of\nTertullian the Eucharist was celebrated, and it was so at Jerusalem\ntowards the close of the fourth century. In the Church of Alexandria the\nEucharist was not celebrated on these days; but the Scriptures were read\nand interpreted. And in this matter, as in many others, the Church at\nRome probably agreed with Alexandria. It is certain, at least as regards\nFriday, that the mysteries were not publicly celebrated on these days at\nRome about the beginning of the fifth century. The observance of Friday\nas a day of abstinence is still of obligation in the West.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nDAYS OF THE MARTYRS\n\n\nWe now pass from features of every week to days and seasons of yearly\noccurrence.\n\nIn point of time the celebrations connected with the Pascha are the\nearliest to emerge of sacred days observed annually by the whole Church.\nBut for reasons of convenience it has been thought better to defer\nthe consideration of the difficult questions relating to the Easter\ncontroversies till the origin of the days of Martyrs and Saints has been\ndealt with.\n\nThe Kalendar in some of its later stages exhibits a highly artificial\nelaboration. But in its beginnings it was, to a large extent, the outcome\nof a natural and spontaneous feeling which could not fail to remember in\nvarious localities the cruel deaths of men and women who had suffered\nfor the Faith with courage and constancy in such places, or their\nneighbourhoods. The origins of the Kalendar show in various churches,\nwidely separated, the natural desire to commemorate their own local\nmartyrs on the days on which they had actually suffered.\n\nAs regards the order of time there is ample reason to convince us that\nthe commemorations of martyrs were features of Church life much earlier\nthan those of St Mary the Virgin, of most of the Apostles, and even of\nmany of the festivals of the Lord Himself.\n\nThe marks of antiquity that characterise generally the older Kalendars\nand Martyrologies are (1) the comparative paucity of entries, (2) the\nfewness of festivals of the Virgin, (3) the fewness of saints who were\nnot martyrs, (4) the absence of the title \u2018saint,\u2019 and (5) the absence of\nfeasts in Lent.\n\nAgain, the local character of the observance of the days of martyrs is\na marked feature of the earlier records which illustrate the subject.\nNow and then the name of some martyr of pre-eminent distinction in other\nlands finds its way into the lists; but it remains generally true that\nin each place the martyrs and saints of that place and its neighbourhood\nform the great body of those commemorated. And in addition to the\nnatural feeling that prompted the remembrance of those more particularly\nassociated with a particular place, the fact that the commemorations were\noriginally observed by religious services in cemeteries, at the tombs\nor burial places of the martyrs, tended at first to discountenance the\ncommemoration of the martyrs of other places whose story was known only\nby report, whether written or oral.\n\nThe day of a martyr\u2019s death was by an exercise of the triumphant faith\nof the Church known as his birthday (_natale_, or _dies natalis_, or\n_natalitia_). It was regarded as the day of his entrance into a new and\nbetter world. The expression occurs in its Greek form as early as the\nletter of the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp (_c._\n18).\n\nThere can be no doubt that at an early date records were kept of the\nday of the death of martyrs. Cyprian required that even the death-days\nof those who died in prison for the faith should be communicated to him\nwith a view to his offering an oblation on that day (_Ep._ xii. (xxxvii.)\n2). It is in this way probably that the earliest Kalendars of the Church\noriginated.\n\n[Illustration: Ancient Syriac Martyrology, written A D. 412\n\n(Brit. Mus. Or. Add. 12150, _fol._ 252 _v_, _ll._ 1-20, _col._ 1.) The\nplate shows the entries from St Stephen\u2019s Day to Epiphany.]\n\nWe purpose dealing more particularly with the early Roman Kalendars.\nThe earliest martyrology that has survived is contained in a Roman\nrecord transcribed in A.D. 354. It is known, sometimes as the _Liberian\nMartyrology_ (from the name of Liberius, who was bishop of Rome at\nthe time), sometimes as the _Bucherian Martyrology_, from the name\nof the scholar who first made it known to the learned world[24], and\nnot uncommonly as the _Philocalian_, from the name of the scribe. It\npresents many interesting, and some perplexing features, which cannot be\ndealt with here. We must content ourselves with noticing that, besides\nrecording, as in a serviceable almanack, several pagan festivals, it\nmarks the days of the month of the burials (_depositiones_) of the\nbishops of Rome from A.D. 254 to A.D. 354, and also the burial-days of\nmartyrs, twenty-five in number. In both lists the cemeteries at Rome\nwhere the burials took place are noted. But there are also entered three\necclesiastical commemorations which do not mark entombments, (1) \u2018viij\nKal. Jan. (Dec. 25) Natus Christus in Bethleem Judeae\u2019; (2) \u2018viij Kal.\nMart. (Feb. 22) Natale (_sic_) Petri de Cathedra\u2019; (3) \u2018Nonis Martii\n(March 7) Perpetuae et Felicitatis Africae[25].\u2019 The appearance of St\nPerpetua and St Felicitas in a characteristically Roman document is a\nstriking testimony to the fame of these two African sufferers for the\nFaith[26]. The use of the word _natale_ in connexion with St Peter\u2019s\nchair not improbably marks the dedication of a church; and, at all events\nat a later period, the word seems sometimes used as equivalent simply to\na festival, or perhaps a festival marking an origin or beginning\u2014as, for\nexample, _Natale Calicis_, of which something will be said hereafter (p.\n40). Easter could not appear in the Kalendar properly so-called; but the\ndocument contains cycles for the calculation of Easter, and a list of the\ndays on which it would fall from A.D. 312 to A.D. 412.\n\nEarly Kalendars would be of much value in our enquiries; but they are\nfew in number. The following three deserve notice. (1) The _Syrian\nMartyrology_ first published by Dr W. Wright in the _Journal of Sacred\nLiterature_ (Oct. 1866). It was written in A.D. 411-12, but represents\nan original of perhaps about A.D. 380. It is Arian in origin, and has\nelements that show connexions with Alexandria, Antioch, and Nicomedia;\nand its range of martyrs is much wider than that of other early documents\nof the kind. Yet of Western martyrs we find only in Africa Perpetua and\nSatornilos and ten other martyrs[27] (March 7) and \u2018Akistus (?Xystus II)\nbishop of Rome\u2019 (Aug. 1). We find St Peter and St Paul on Dec. 28; St\nJohn and St James on Dec. 27; and \u2018St Stephen, apostle\u2019 on the 26th[28].\n(2) The _Kalendar of Polemius Silvius_, bishop of Sedunum, in the upper\nvalley of the Rhone (A.D. 448). It contains the birthdays of the Emperors\nand some of the more eminent of the heathen festivals, such as the\nLupercalia and Caristia, but with a view, apparently, of supplanting them\nby Christian commemorations. The Christian festivals recorded are few\nin number, those of our Lord being Christmas, Epiphany, and the fixed\ndates, March 25 for the Crucifixion, and March 27 for the Resurrection.\nThere are only six saints\u2019 days. The _depositio_ of Peter and Paul on\nFeb. 22; Vincent, Lawrence, Hippolytus, Stephen, and the Maccabees on\ntheir usual days. Other features of interest must be passed over[29].\n(3) The _Carthaginian Kalendar_[30] has been assigned as probably about\nA.D. 500[31]. It is thus described by Bishop J. Wordsworth, \u2018It has, in\nthe Eastern manner, no entries between February 16 and April 19, _i.e._\nduring Lent. Its Saints are mostly local, but some twenty are Roman,\nand a few other Italian, Sicilian, and Spanish. It also marks SS. John\nBaptist (June 24), Maccabees, Luke [Oct. 13], Andrew, Christmas, Stephen\n[Dec. 26], John Baptist [probably an error of the pen for John the\nEvangelist] and James (Dec. 27) [\u2018the Apostle whom Herod slew\u2019], Infants\n[Dec. 28] and Epiphany [sanctum Epefania][32].\u2019 It may be added that\nthis Kalendar marks the _depositiones_ of seven bishops of Carthage, not\nmartyrs, whose anniversaries were kept.\n\nIn one of the African Councils of the fourth century it was enacted\nthat the Acts of the martyrs should be read in the church on their\nanniversaries. But Rome was slow in adopting this practice[33].\n\nIt will be seen that as time went on the strictly local character\nof the martyrs commemorated was invaded by a desire to record the\nfamous sufferers of other parts of the Christian world. Rome, with its\ncharacteristic conservatism in matters liturgical, seems to have been\nslower than other places to yield to this impulse. At Hippo we find\nAugustine commemorating, beside local martyrs, the Roman Lawrence and\nAgnes, the Spanish Vincent and Fructuosus, and the Milanese Protasius and\nGervasius whose bones (as was believed) had been recently discovered. He\nalso commemorated the Maccabees, St Stephen, and both the Nativity and\nDecollation of the Baptist. On the other hand in the laudatory sermons\nthat have come down to us we find Chrysostom at Antioch commemorating\nonly the saints of Antioch, and Basil, at Caesarea in Cappadocia, only\nthose of his own country.\n\nThe Sacramentary, which is called after Pope Leo (A.D. 440-461), shows\nsigns of a somewhat later date; but it is unquestionably a Roman book;\nand the Kalendar which we can construct from it represents the Kalendar\nof Rome as it was not later than about the middle of the sixth century.\nIt gives us the following days; but it must be observed that the months\nof January, February, March, and part of April are unfortunately\nmissing[34].\n\n The first is April 14, Tiburtius (a Roman martyr). There follow\n \u2018Paschal time\u2019: April 23, George (Eastern)[?][35]; Dedication\n of the Basilica of St Peter, the Apostle; the Ascension of the\n Lord; the day before Pentecost; the Sunday of Pentecost; the\n fast of the fourth month; June 24, natale of St John Baptist;\n June 26, natale of SS. John and Paul (two Romans, brothers,\n martyrs under Julian); June 29, natale of the Apostles Peter\n and Paul (at Rome); July 10, natale of seven martyrs who are\n named (all at Rome; and the cemeteries where their bodies\n rest are named); Aug. 3[36], natale of St Stephen (bishop of\n Rome and martyr, more commonly commemorated on Aug. 2); Aug.\n 6, natale of St Xystus and of Felicissimus and Agapitus (all\n martyrs at Rome); Aug. 10, natale of St Lawrence (Rome); Aug.\n 13, natale of SS. Hippolytus and Pontianus (Romans); Aug.\n 30, natale of Adauctus and Felix (at Rome); Sept. 14, natale\n of SS. Cornelius and Cyprian (the former bishop of Rome, the\n latter bishop of Carthage, his contemporary); Sept. 16, natale\n of St Euphemia (at Rome); Fast of the seventh month; Sept.\n 30, natale (_sic_) of the basilica of the Angel in Salaria\n (on the Via Salaria: evidently for the foundation or the\n dedication of a church at Rome, probably under the name of St\n Michael); Depositio of St Silvester (bishop of Rome, no date:\n in the Bucherian Martyrology it is at Dec. 31); Nov. 8 (or\n 9), natale of the four crowned saints (all at Rome); Nov. 22,\n natale of St Caecilia (Roman martyr); Nov. 23, natale of SS.\n Clement and Felicitas (both Roman martyrs); Nov. 24, natale\n of SS. Chrysogonus and Gregorius (the first, a Roman martyr,\n the second, uncertain[37]); Nov. 30, natale of St Andrew,\n Apostle; Dec. 25, natale of the Lord; and of the martyrs,\n Pastor, Basilius, Jovianus, Victorinus, Eugenia, Felicitas, and\n Anastasia (Eugenia was perhaps the Roman lady martyred with\n Agape; Anastasia was of Roman origin, though she suffered death\n in Illyria: her name appears in the canon of the Roman mass.\n The persons intended by the other names are more uncertain);\n Dec. 27, natale of St John, Evangelist; Dec. 28, natale of the\n Innocents.\n\nIt has been thought well to give in full this list, defective though it\nis (as lacking the opening months of the year). It exhibits indeed a\nlarge preponderance of celebrations of local interest; but there are\nclear indications that already the martyrs of other places than Rome are\nsecuring themselves positions in the Roman Kalendar.\n\nThe collection of masses and other liturgical offices known as the\nGelasian Sacramentary are not without interest in illustrating the\ndevelopment of the Kalendar, more particularly among the Franks. But we\npass on to consider the features of the distinctively Roman service book,\nwhich, by a somewhat misleading name, has been called the _Gregorian\nSacramentary_. In its present form (though it contains many ancient\nelements) it is probably not earlier than the close of the eighth\ncentury. Omitting notices of moveable days, and exhibiting the dates\nby the days of the month in our modern fashion, the Kalendar runs as\nfollows[38], some remarks being added within marks of parenthesis.\n\n =January.= 1. Octava Domini (the octave of Christmas). 6.\n Epiphania (called in the older Roman Kalendar \u2018Theophania,\u2019 as\n by the Greeks). 14. St Felix \u2018in Pincis\u2019 (on the Pincian). 16.\n St Marcellus, Pope. 18. St Prisca (at Rome). 20. SS. Fabian and\n Sebastian (both at Rome). 21. St Agnes (at Rome)[39]. 22. St\n Vincent (Spain). 28. Second of St Agnes (Octave).\n\n =February.= 2. Ypapante, or Purification of St Mary. 5. St\n Agatha (Sicily: a church at Rome dedicated to her). 14. St\n Valentine (presbyter at Rome).\n\n =March.= 12. St Gregory, Pope. 25. Annunciation of St Mary.\n\n =April.= 14. SS. Tiburtius and Valerian (at Rome). 23. St\n George (Eastern: church \u2018in Velabro\u2019 at Rome). 28. St Vitalis\n (of Ravenna: a church at Rome).\n\n =May.= 1. SS. Philip and James, Apostles. 3. SS. Alexander,\n Eventius and Theodulus (Pope, and two presbyters at Rome). 6.\n Natale of St John before the Latin gate (Rome). 10. SS. Gordian\n and Epimachus (both at Rome). 12. St Pancratius (at Rome, where\n a church was dedicated to him). 13. Natale of St Mary \u2018ad\n Martyres\u2019 (dedication of the Pantheon at Rome by Boniface IV).\n 25. St Urban, Pope.\n\n =June.= 1. Dedication of the Basilica of St Nicomedes (at\n Rome). 2. SS. Marcellinus and Peter (at Rome: a church in their\n honour is said to have been erected by the Emperor Constantine\n on the Via Lavicana). 18. SS. Marcus and Marcellianus (both at\n Rome). 19. SS. Protasius and Gervasius (Milan). 24. Natale of\n St John Baptist. 26. SS. John and Paul (two brothers at Rome).\n 28. St Leo, Pope. 29. Natale of SS. Peter and Paul, Apostles\n (Rome). 30. Natale of St Paul (the Apostle).\n\n =July.= 2. SS. Processus and Martinianus (legendary\n soldier-martyrs at Rome). 10. Natale of the Seven Brethren\n (at Rome). 29. SS. Felix, Simplicius, Faustinus and Beatrix\n (Pope Felix II; the others commemorated at Rome on the Via\n Portuensis). 30. SS. Abdon and Sennen (martyrs at Rome).\n\n =August.= 1. St Peter \u2018in Vincula\u2019 (more commonly \u2018ad Vincula\u2019:\n it is probable that the date marks the dedication of a church\n at Rome). 2. St Stephen, bishop (of Rome). 5. SS. Xystus,\n bishop, Felicissimus and Agapitus (all of Rome). 8. St Cyriacus\n (deacon, at Rome: perhaps marks the date of his translation\n by Pope Marcellus). 10. Natale of St Lawrence (Rome). 11. St\n Tiburtius (martyred outside Rome on the Via Lavicana). 13. St\n Hippolytus (martyr according to the legend at Rome). 14. St\n Eusebius, presbyter (at Rome). 15. Assumption of St Mary. 17.\n St Agapitus (at Praeneste). 22. St Timotheus (martyr at Rome).\n 28. St Hermes (at Rome). 29. St Sabina (virgin-martyr at Rome).\n 30. SS. Felix and Adauctus (both at Rome).\n\n =September.= 8. Nativity of St Mary. 11. SS. Protus and\n Hyacinthus (both at Rome). 14. SS. Cornelius and Cyprian:\n also Exaltation of Holy Cross (Cornelius, Pope, Cyprian of\n Carthage). 15. Natale of St Nicomedes (presbyter martyr\n at Rome). 16. Natale of St Euphemia, and of SS. Lucia and\n Geminianus (all at Rome). 27. SS. Cosmas and Damian (Eastern).\n 29. Dedication of the Basilica of the Holy Angel Michael.\n\n =October.= 7. Natale of St Marcus, Pope. 14. Natale of St\n Callistus, Pope.\n\n =November.= 1. St Caesarius (an African deacon martyred in\n Campania). 8. The four crowned saints (at Rome). 9. Natale of\n St Theodorus (Asia Minor). 11. Natale of St Menna: likewise St\n Martin, bishop (Menna, Asia Minor: Martin of Tours). 22. St\n Caecilia (Roman). 23. St Clement: likewise St Felicitas (both\n Roman). 24. St Chrysogonus (Roman). 29. St Saturninus (a Roman,\n martyred at Toulouse). 30. St Andrew, Apostle.\n\n =December.= 13. St Lucia (Syracuse). 25. Nativity of the Lord.\n 26. Natale of St Stephen. 27. St John, Evangelist. 28. Holy\n Innocents. 31. St Silvester, Pope.\n\nWhen we examine these lists we find (1) the principal festivals of\nthe Lord, of His Mother, and of His Apostles placed as they are still\nnoted in the Kalendar. It may be observed that Jan. 1 is not styled\nthe Circumcision; and there is no reference to the Circumcision in the\ncollect. In the mass for the Epiphany the leading of the Gentiles by a\nstar and the gifts of the Magi are the prominent features. The use of the\nname Ypapante as the first name for the Purification (Feb. 2) suggests\nthe Eastern origin of the festival. We find (2) the great majority of\nthe saints recorded to be Roman martyrs\u2014or of martyrs connected with\nRome, either in fact or by legend; but (3) there are a few famous martyrs\nfrom other regions of the world, as St George, St Vincent, SS. Cosmas\nand Damian, and St Lucy, of Dec. 13. And Martin of Tours has a place. We\nalso find that some of the obscurer saints of the earlier list disappear.\nFrequent pilgrimages to the East, together with the interchange of\nliterary correspondence between the churches, are sufficient to account\nfor the appearance of the Oriental martyrs. The leading features of\nthe Western Kalendar, as it prevailed in the mediaeval period, and has\nsubsisted to the present day, are already apparent.\n\nIt will be seen that All Saints does not appear on Nov. 1; and yet it\nwas certainly observed in many churches in England, France, and Germany\nduring the eighth century. It is placed at Nov. 1 in the _Metrical\nMartyrology_ attributed to Bede, who died in A.D. 735. Though therefore\nthis Martyrology, as we now possess it, shows signs of having been\nre-handled, it seems hazardous to attribute the origin of the festival,\nas is done by some, to the dedication of a church at Rome \u2018in honorem\nOmnium Sanctorum\u2019 by Pope Gregory III (A.D. 731-741).\n\nMuch obscurity attends the origin of All Souls\u2019 Day. It would seem that\nAmalarius of Metz, early in the ninth century, had inserted in his\nKalendar an anniversary commemoration of all the departed, and this was\nprobably (as the context suggests) immediately after All Saints\u2019 Day; but\nthe practice of observing the day did not at once become general, and the\nearliest clear testimony to Nov. 2 does not emerge till the end of the\ntenth century, when Odilo, abbot of Clugny, stimulated by a vision of the\nsufferings of souls in purgatory, reported to him by a pilgrim returning\nfrom Jerusalem, enjoined on the monastic churches subject to Clugny the\nobservance of Nov. 2. The practice rapidly spread.\n\nThe dominant influence of the Roman Church in Europe carried eventually\nthe main features of the Roman Kalendar into all regions of the West. In\nearly times at Rome the anniversary of a martyr was ordinarily kept, not\nin the various churches of the city and suburbs, but at the particular\ncemetery or catacomb where he was buried, or at the tomb within some\nchurch which had been erected over the place where his remains rested.\nOutside the walls, and at various distances along the great roads that\nled from the city, most of these commemorations were celebrated. As\nM. Batiffol has put it, with substantial correctness, \u2018the old Roman\n_Sanctorale_ is the _Sanctorale_ of the cemeteries[40].\u2019 It is a striking\nand impressive illustration of the looking of the Western peoples to Rome\nfor guidance in matters of religion that even obscure saints buried in\nthe cemeteries of the neighbourhood of the Apostolic See now have places\nin the religious commemorations of all the remotest Churches of the Roman\nobedience.\n\nThe study of the origins of the Kalendar of the city of Rome illustrates\nthe general proposition that the martyrdoms of a particular city or\ndistrict form the main feature of each local Kalendar. To enter into\ndetail in respect to the early Kalendars of the other provinces and\ndioceses of Europe, even when the scanty evidence surviving makes the\nenquiry possible, is too large a task to be attempted here.\n\nThe account of the commemorations of the early martyrs may be brought\nto a close by calling attention to a festival of general and perhaps\nuniversal observance before the fifth century\u2014the festival of the\npre-Christian martyrs, the seven Maccabees, on Aug. 1. It was not\nunnatural in the age of persecution, or when the memories of the great\npersecutions were still fresh, to fasten upon the Old Testament story\nof heroic constancy. After the Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chains in the West,\nand the Procession of the Holy Cross in the East had displaced it from a\nposition of primary importance, it was not wholly forgotten; and even now\nin both East and West in a subsidiary manner the memory of the Maccabees\nis still preserved in the services of the Church on Aug. 1. Chrysostom\nspeaks of the celebration being attended in his day by a great concourse\nof the faithful, and we possess three homilies of his for the festival.\nAugustine shows us that the festival was observed in Africa in his\ntime, and mentions that there was a church called after the Maccabees\nat Antioch, a city named, he makes a point to inform us, after their\npersecutor, Antiochus Epiphanes. There are still extant sermons for the\nfestival preached by Gregory Nazianzen, and, at a later date, by Pope Leo\nthe Great.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE LORD\u2019S NATIVITY: THE EPIPHANY: THE FESTIVALS WHICH IN EARLY TIMES\nFOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY ON THE NATIVITY\n\n\nIt is certain that the assigning of the birth of the Lord to Dec. 25\nappears first in the West; and it is not till the last quarter of the\nfourth century that we find it becoming established in some parts of\nthe East. St Chrysostom in a homily delivered in A.D. 386 distinctly\nrelates that it was about ten years earlier the festival of Dec. 25 came\nto be observed at Antioch, and that the festival had been observed in\nthe West from early times (\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd)[41]. At Constantinople the festival\nwas kept on Dec. 25, apparently for the first time, in A.D. 379 or 380;\nand about the same time it appears in Cappadocia, as we learn from the\nfuneral oration on Basil the Great pronounced by his brother, Gregory of\nNyssa. At Alexandria this date was adopted before A.D. 432. At Jerusalem,\nhowever, the Nativity was observed on Jan. 6 not only in the time of the\n_Pilgrimage_ of \u2018Silvia,\u2019 but, if we may credit the Egyptian monk Cosmas\nIndicopleustes, even as late as at the middle of the sixth century. This\nwriter relates that the people of Jerusalem, arguing from Luke iii. 23\n(where, as he interprets the passage, Jesus is said to be _beginning_ to\nbe thirty years of age at His baptism) celebrated the Nativity together\nwith the Baptism on Jan. 6[42].\n\nBut when did the observance of Dec. 25 make its appearance in the West?\nIt must have been a well-marked festival at Rome when it appeared in\nthe Bucherian Kalendar in A.D. 336 (see p. 15). And about one hundred\nyears earlier (as we learn from his commentaries on Daniel) Hippolytus\nwas led to infer, partly from a belief (however it originated) that\nthe Incarnation took place at the Passover, and partly by a process of\ncalculation with the help of his cycle, that the actual Incarnation\ntook place on March 25 in the year of the world 5500 (or B.C. 3), and\nconsequently the Nativity on Dec. 25[43].\n\nThe Bishop of Salisbury (J. Wordsworth) offers an ingenious conjecture\nwhich may possibly point to the early Eastern practice of commemorating\nthe Nativity on Jan. 6 having originated in a similar way. Sozomen, the\nhistorian, writing in the fifth century, states that the Montanists\nalways celebrated the pascha on the eighth day before the Ides of April\n(_i.e._ April 6), if it fell on a Sunday, otherwise on the following\nSunday (_H.E._ vii. 18). The Bishop thinks that the belief that April 6\nwas the proper day of the pascha \u2018may probably have been an opinion quite\nunconnected with their [the Montanists\u2019] sect.\u2019 But he rightly admits\nthat \u2018actual facts are not yet forthcoming[44].\u2019\n\nConjectures of this kind, though at present unsupported, are well worth\nremembering, if for no other reason, because students of early Christian\nliterature are thus put on the alert to note any testimonies which make\nfor, or else go to invalidate, the suggestion offered. I may add that the\nMontanist notion, as recorded by Sozomen, that the creation of the sun\nin the heavens took place on April 6, is of a kind that would well fall\nin, among fanciful speculators, with the notion that the Incarnation also\ntook place on the same day[45].\n\nWhy this time of the year, late in December or early in January, was\nassigned for the Nativity is a question which it is not possible\nto answer with confidence. It is conceivable that the insecure and\nblundering argument alleged, among others, by Chrysostom may have had\nweight. He supposes that Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was the\nHigh Priest, and that he had entered the Holy of Holies on the day of\nAtonement when the angel appeared to him. The day of Atonement was in\nSeptember. Six months later (Luke i. 26) the Annunciation was made to St\nMary; and after nine months the Saviour was born.\n\nBy others it has been suggested that the festival of Christmas on Dec.\n25 did not originate in any such calculations; but was suggested by the\npagan festival _Natalis Solis Invicti_ marked at that day. The solstice\nwas passed. The sun was entering on its new increases. \u2018The Light of the\nworld,\u2019 \u2018the Sun of righteousness\u2019 was to take the place of the sun-god\nin the heavens[46].\n\nThe Theophany, or Epiphany (Jan. 6), is, like its name, as\ncharacteristically Eastern in its origin as the feast of the Nativity\n(Dec. 25) is Western; but when it passed into the West it was in thought,\neither at the outset or certainly soon, separated from the Nativity; and\neventually, while the baptism of Christ was not ignored, the main stress\nof liturgical allusion was on the visit of the Magi, so that the festival\nis not uncommonly designated simply as the feast of the Three Kings. In\nthe East the dominant thought is the manifestation of Christ\u2019s divinity\nat his baptism: and in the Basilian Menology the day is simply named \u2018The\nBaptism of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u2019 And it is to this connexion, baptism\namong the Greeks being known as \u2018illumination,\u2019 that has been attributed\nanother name for the day, \u2018the lights\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1)[47].\n\nIt is not improbable that the feast of the Epiphany made its way to the\nWest, through the churches of Southern Gaul, whose affinities with the\nEast are recognised facts of history. At all events it is in connexion\nwith Gaul that we find the first reference to the Epiphany in the West.\nThe pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, in his account of the Emperor\nJulian in A.D. 361 visiting a Christian church at Vienne, says that\nit happened on the day in the month of January which Christians call\n\u2018Epiphania\u2019 (_Hist._ xxi. 2).\n\nThe Epiphany was observed in the African Church by the orthodox in the\ntime of Augustine, but he tells us that the Donatists did not observe\nit, \u2018because they love not unity, nor do they communicate with the\nEastern Church.\u2019 The latter expression falls in with the supposition that\nthe West derived the festival from the East. In the ancient Kalendar\ncalled the Kalendar of Carthage (unfortunately of uncertain date) we\nfind at Jan. 6 the entry \u2018Sanctum Epefania\u2019 (_sic_). In Spain, as we\nlearn from the canons of the Council of Saragossa (can. 4), the festival\nwas recognised as a considerable commemoration before A.D. 380. For\nRome, we have to note the silence of the Bucherian Kalendar; but for\nthe fifth century we have the testimony of Pope Leo, and we possess no\nfewer than eight sermons of his upon the festival of the Epiphany; in\nthese the manifestation of Christ to the Magi is the truth upon which\nhe chiefly enlarges. Elsewhere in the West we have references to other\nmanifestations of the Deity of Christ, as at His baptism, and His first\nmiracle at Cana. But generally, as in the East the baptism, so in the\nWest the manifestation to the Gentiles is the leading note of preachers\nor theologians[48].\n\nAmong the Armenians the Epiphany is reckoned one of the five chief\nfestivals: it is preceded by a week\u2019s fast, and is followed by an octave.\nIt is by them still reckoned as the day of the Nativity.\n\n\n_The festivals of the days immediately following Christmas._\n\nWe see that in the Gregorian Kalendar the commemorations of St Stephen\n(Dec. 26), St John the Evangelist (Dec. 27), and Holy Innocents (Dec.\n28), in the order with which we are familiar, were already established\nin the West. And long before the period of the Gregorian Kalendar we\nhave evidence that in some parts of the East before the close of the\nfourth century a group of festivals commemorating eminent saints of the\nNew Testament were celebrated between the feast of the Nativity and\nthe first of January. Basil the Great died on Jan. 1 A.D. 379; and his\nbrother Gregory of Nyssa delivered the funeral oration at his burial. In\nthis discourse the preacher speaks of a group of feasts preceding the\nfirst of January, namely of St Stephen, St Peter, St James and St John,\nand St Paul. It may with some reason be believed that the dates of these\nfestivals had no relation, real or fancied, to the days of the deaths of\nthese saints of the Church\u2019s beginnings.\n\n As regards St James we know that he was killed at the time\n of the Passover, so that the Hieronymian Martyrology makes\n the day in December to be the day of his consecration to the\n episcopate. Liturgists have said it was becoming that the\n King of glory should come into the world accompanied by the\n chiefs of his court. And it is not a wholly baseless fancy that\n already there was a desire (of which at a later period we have\n many illustrations) to connect a great festival with one or\n more other commemorations associated with it in thought. The\n memories of the age of the martyrs would naturally suggest the\n name of the protomartyr; while the relations of the Lord to St\n James, St John, and St Peter, and the eminence of St Paul may\n perhaps sufficiently account for their appearance here.\n\nThere is little doubt that at the close of the fourth century the\nchurches of Asia Minor had festivals of St Stephen on Dec. 26, St James\nand St John on Dec. 27, and St Peter and St Paul on Dec. 28[49]. And in\nthe West our earliest information shows us St Stephen on Dec. 26; but\nthere are variations as regards the other festivals. The ancient Kalendar\nof Carthage shows us on Dec. 27 \u2018St John _the Baptist_ and James the\nApostle, whom Herod slew,\u2019 and Holy Innocents on Dec. 28[50].\n\nThe earliest Roman service-books show us only St John on Dec. 27, and he\nis St John _the Evangelist_[51]. Yet in the so-called Martyrology of St\nJerome (which, though interpolated, contains many ancient features), we\nfind at this day, together with \u2018the Assumption of St John at Ephesus,\u2019\n\u2018the ordination to the episcopate of James, the Lord\u2019s brother, who was\ncrowned with martyrdom at the paschal time[52].\u2019 The Holy Innocents\n(Dec. 28) is known in the Latin books since the sixth century, and may\nwell have been earlier; but Peter and Paul are found together on another\nday (June 29), the day of their martyrdom at Rome, as was generally\nassumed. Though we are not able to determine with precision on what day\nthe Innocents of Bethlehem were commemorated in early times, there can\nbe little doubt that there was some commemoration of those whom, as St\nAugustine says, \u2018the Church has received to the honour of the martyrs.\u2019\n\nThere are some reasons for conjecturing that the commemoration of the\nInnocents was at first in association with the Epiphany. In the second\nhalf of the fourth century the poet Prudentius has some pretty lines on\nthe Holy Innocents as martyrs in his hymn on the Epiphany[53]. And Leo\nthe Great in more than one of his sermons on the Epiphany has laudatory\npassages on the martyrdom of the Innocents. Yet in estimating the\nweight that should attach to such references it should be remembered\nthat Herod\u2019s slaughter of the children at Bethlehem is in the Gospel\nnarrative so closely connected with the visit of the Magi that it would\nnot be unnatural for both poet and preacher to touch on that striking\nstory, although there were no intentional commemoration of the Innocents\nattached by the Church to that day. In the Byzantine Kalendar the\nFourteen Thousand Holy Infants are commemorated on Dec. 29. In the\nArmenian Kalendar the Fourteen Thousand Innocent Martyrs are commemorated\non June 10. It deserves notice that in the Mozarabic Kalendars we find\n\u2018St James the Lord\u2019s Brother\u2019 at Dec. 28; \u2018St John Evangelist\u2019 at Dec.\n29; and \u2018St James the Brother of John\u2019 at Dec. 30.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nOTHER COMMEMORATIONS OF EVENTS IN THE LORD\u2019S LIFE. PENTECOST\n\n\nThe commemoration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was in\nthe nature of things a natural and inevitable outcome of the religious\nbeliefs and feelings of the infant Church. The fixing of days for the\ncommemoration of other events in the life of our Lord came with thought\nand reflection; they belong to the period of constructiveness, and we\nhave no evidence to show that their appearance was very early. Tertullian\nis silent about other days than Sunday (the Lord\u2019s Day), the Pasch\n(including the Passion and the Resurrection), and Pentecost[54]; and\nOrigen particularises the Lord\u2019s Day, the Parasceve (perhaps in the sense\nof the weekly Friday \u2018station\u2019), the Pasch, and Pentecost, as being days\nspecially observed by Christians[55].\n\n=The Circumcision= is obviously dependent on whatever was regarded\nas the date of the Nativity, and is the result of reflection and\necclesiastical constructiveness. It is eight days after the Nativity\non Jan. 1, with all Christendom, save the Armenians, who celebrating\nthe Nativity (together with other Epiphanies of the Lord) on Jan. 6,\nnaturally observe Jan. 13 as the day of the Circumcision. The day is not\nnoted in the Bucherian Kalendar, nor in the Carthaginian. Baillet[56]\ncomes to the conclusion that it appears first as appointed for general\nobservance as a festival, about the middle of the seventh century, and\nin Spain, where servile work was forbidden on this day. But it would\nappear from the Canons of the Fourth Council of Toledo that the day was\nthen observed with penitential features (canon 11). From the Sermons of\nAugustine we learn that in his time Jan. 1 was observed by Christians as\na solemn fast, in protest against the licentious revelry and excesses\nof the pagans at this time of the year[57]. And as late as the Second\nCouncil of Tours (A.D. 567) it is enjoined that, while all other days\nbetween the Nativity and the Epiphany are to be treated (in regard to\nuse of food) as festivals, an exception is to be made for the space of\nthree days at the beginning of January, for which time the fathers had\nappointed litanies to be made \u2018ad calcandam Gentilium consuetudinem.\u2019\nBut it should be remarked that the canon (17) dealing with the subject\nhas special reference to fasts to be observed by monks. It is therefore\nnot impossible that the fast had by this time ceased to be observed by\nthe general body of the faithful, but, in a spirit of conservatism,\nwas regarded as proper to be maintained in the monasteries. The canon\nis interesting for another reason; it affords perhaps the earliest\nexample of the use of the term \u2018Circumcision\u2019 as applied to this day,\nwhich appears in the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries simply as\n_Octava Domini_, _i.e._ the octave of the Nativity. In the Gelasian\nSacramentary there is no emphasis in the service on the Circumcision,\nwhile the prayer called _Ad populum_ distinctly points to a prohibition\nagainst partaking of the _convivium diabolicum_ of the pagans. And a mass\nimmediately following that for the Octave, entitled _Ad prohibendum ab\nidolis_, points in the same direction. The Gregorian Sacramentary shows\nno reference to the Circumcision in the prayers of the mass[58].\n\nEven in the early part of the seventh century Isidore of Seville condemns\nthe indecent gaieties indulged in on this day, and recalls the ancient\ninjunction that the day should be observed as a fast[59]. The fourth\nCouncil of Toledo (canon 11) represents as the practice of Spain and Gaul\nthe omission of the singing of _Alleluia_ on the Kalends of January,\n_propter errorem gentilium_.\n\nIn the later Western service-books the thought of the Circumcision is\ngiven greater prominence, and intermingles with the thoughts suggested by\nthe Octave. The feast of the Circumcision appears in the Greek Church in\nthe eighth century[60].\n\n=Commemoration of Passiontide; Holy Week= (the \u2018Great Week,\u2019 as it is\nstyled in the East). The commemoration of the death of the Saviour is\nthe primitive and essential element: other days were given places as\nthe result of reflection, and of the desire to reproduce liturgically\nin a mimetic way the events of the Lord\u2019s history during the last\npaschal week. We possess the early testimony of Tertullian for the _dies\nPaschae_, for so he names the day. He tells us that it was a public and\ngeneral fast, and that the kiss of peace was omitted from the services\nof the Church[61]. But for Palm Sunday, _Coena Domini_, and the Great\nSabbath we have no evidence till much later. It is from Palestine that\nwe get the earliest notice of the rites of Palm Sunday. In her account\nof the ceremonies at Jerusalem \u2018Silvia\u2019 describes the procession of\npalm-bearers on the Sunday of the Great Week. The feast of Palms is also\nmentioned in the life of Euthymius, abbot in Palestine, who died at a\nvery advanced age in A.D. 473. But in the West the carrying of palms does\nnot appear earlier than the ninth century. The commemoration (_Natalis\nCalicis_) of the institution of the Eucharist on the night before the\nLord suffered probably had its rise about the same time as Palm Sunday;\nand a certain mimetic character was given to the rites of the Thursday\nby delaying the celebration of the Liturgy till the evening. This was\nfurther enhanced in the Church of Carthage (A.D. 397), which in view of\nthe original institution of the Eucharist having been after supper, made\nan express synodical declaration that the rule of fasting communion was\nbinding \u2018excepto uno die anniversario, quo coena domini celebratur[62].\u2019\nAnd St Augustine expressly affirms that the practice of the Church did\nnot condemn communion after the evening meal on the Thursday in Holy\nWeek[63]. The name _Dies Mandati_ (which has probably given us our\n_Maundy Thursday_) is not very ancient. In mediaeval times the particular\nmandate of the Lord was taken to be the feet-washing, before or during\nwhich were sung the words \u2018Mandatum novum do vobis[64].\u2019\n\nAt Rome, as late as the time of St Leo, in regard to the days specially\nobserved in Holy Week, the only distinction from ordinary weeks seems\nto have been the commemoration of the institution of the Eucharist on\nThursday. The adoration of the Cross on Good Friday (which we find at\nJerusalem in the days of \u2018Silvia\u2019) and the mass of the pre-sanctified\nwere later additions, and are regarded by Duchesne as having been\nintroduced into the West in the seventh or eighth century[65]. The\nobservances of the Saturday were those of the vigil of Easter.\n\n=The Ascension=: in the Greek Kalendar, and frequently in Greek\nwriters, with a different connotation, \u2018the Taking up,\u2019 \u2018Assumption\u2019\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2)[66], was celebrated forty days after Easter, as the actual\nAscension took place forty days after the Resurrection; it is obviously\na festival of the constructive period. There is no mention of it in\nthe earliest Christian writings; but, without here going into details\nof evidence, it may be stated that the festival was observed, possibly\nearly in, and certainly before, the close of the fourth century. It is\nnoticed by \u2018Silvia\u2019 (though the name Ascensa is not given to it) as\na day on which at Bethlehem, where the vigil was kept, the bishop of\nJerusalem and the presbyters preached, but it does not appear that the\nEucharist was celebrated. There was a procession back to Jerusalem in the\nevening. Augustine classes the day with the Passion, the Resurrection,\nand the advent of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), as observed \u2018anniversaria\nsolemnitate[67].\u2019 In the Sacramentary of Leo many masses _in Ascensa_\n(= _Ascensione_) _Domini_ are to be found. Both in the East and in some\nparts of the West it was customary to celebrate the festival outside the\ncities,\u2014a practice suggested doubtless by Luke xxiv. 50.\n\nIt may be remarked that many old English writers, both before and after\nthe Reformation, use the term \u2018Holy Thursday\u2019 for this day.\n\n=The Transfiguration= (Aug. 6 in the Byzantine[68], Ethiopic, and\nlater mediaeval and modern Roman Kalendars: on the 7th Sunday after\nPentecost in the Armenian) is of late appearance. If a certain canon\n(or prose hymn) on the Transfiguration attributed to John of Damascus\nbe really his, it would point to the probable observance of the day in\nthe eighth century in the East. In the West the festival appears much\nlater; but the evidence indicates its having had a partial and local\nobservance long before it was enjoined by Pope Calixtus III for the\nChurch generally in A.D. 1457. This Pope appointed an office for the day,\nwhich was afterwards somewhat altered by Pius V. The action of Calixtus\nwas prompted by thankfulness for a victory over the Turks at Belgrade.\nAmong the Greeks the Transfiguration is a day of great solemnity. It is\npreceded by a \u2018proheortia\u2019 and affects the following eight days. The\nArmenians observe a preparatory fast for a week[69].\n\n=Pentecost.= This word as commonly employed by early Christian writers\nsignifies the whole period of fifty days after the Resurrection. It\nis thus that the term is used by Tertullian in a passage (_de Idolat._\n14) where he compares the number of festival days among the pagans with\nthe number of Christian festivals. The same is probably true where he\nspeaks of Pentecost as \u2018ordinandis lavacris latissimum spatium\u2019 (_de\nBaptismo_ 19). During that period fasting, and kneeling at prayer, at\nleast in the public assemblies, were forbidden: and _Alleluia_, which\nhad been silent, was resumed. It seems, however, that once at least\nTertullian had in view, in the use of the word, the day on which the\nperiod closed[70]. Origen in a similar way uses the word for the whole\nperiod, but also seems to distinguish between the general and more\nrestricted signification of the word[71]. Earlier than either of these\nis the testimony of Irenaeus (if we may accept it as his) cited, as from\nhis lost book _On the Pascha_, by Pseudo-Justin (_Quaest. et Respons. ad\nOrthodoxos_, 115), where Irenaeus speaks of not kneeling in Pentecost,\nas that time is of equal dignity with the Lord\u2019s day, \u2018Pentecost\u2019 being\nhere used evidently for a season. On the other hand, the compiler,\nwhoever he was, of the _Quaestiones_, in which Irenaeus is quoted, in\nthe same place speaks of not kneeling \u2018from the Pascha to Pentecost,\u2019\nusing the latter term in its restricted sense. In the newly-recovered\n_Testament of the Lord_[72] Pentecost is used for the fifty days between\nEaster and our Whitsunday (i. 28, 42; ii. 12). An interesting survival\nof the old signification of Pentecost is still to be found in the Greek\nservice-books, where the term _Mesopentecoste_ is used for special festal\nobservances mid-way between Easter and Whitsunday, commencing on the\nWednesday following the third Sunday after Easter, and lasting for a week.\n\nIn the forty-third canon of the Council of Elvira (A.D. 305) we have a\nclear example of the use of the word Pentecost for the fiftieth day. And\nafter that date the word is widely used in that sense: while the festival\nitself assumes gradually more and more dignity and importance. \u2018Silvia\u2019\ndescribes the elaborate ceremonial observed on this day at Jerusalem\ntowards the close of the fourth century.\n\nThere are considerable difficulties attendant on an attempt to assign\na precise date to the addition of an octave to this festival; and the\nfestal character of the octave week was affected by the ember days\noccurring in that week. In the Gelasian Sacramentary, as it has come\ndown to us, we have the \u2018propers\u2019 for a mass on the Sunday of the octave\nof Pentecost. The mass may be described as a mass of the Holy Spirit,\npraying for protection for the Church from the allurements of the vain\nand deceitful philosophy of the world; true knowledge of the nature of\nGod was given by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom,\nand knowledge, and understanding, and counsel. The benedictions, which\nimmediately follow, on those who return to the Catholic unity from the\nArian and other heresies, suggest that it was in this way that the\noctave of Pentecost came at a later date to be made a festival in honour\nof the mystery of the blessed Trinity[73]. The public reception to the\nCatholic unity of Arian and other heretics would gradually cease to be a\nfeature of the season: but the liturgical colouring of the service would\nremain, and would have to be accounted for. As a matter of fact, however,\nthe establishment of a festival of the Trinity with a special office and\nmass was of late date. It makes its appearance in the Low Countries in\nthe tenth century, and made its way but slowly, and with varying success.\nPope Alexander II, who died in A.D. 1073, when consulted on the subject,\nwrote that according to the Roman rite there was no day set apart to\ncommemorate the Trinity any more than the Unity of the Divine Being,\nand that every day of the year was truly consecrated to the honour of\nthe Trinity in Unity. It was not till the fourteenth century, under the\npontificate of John XXII, that the Roman Church received the feast of the\nTrinity and attached it to the first Sunday after Pentecost[74].\n\nIn England, according to Gervase of Canterbury, Archbishop Thomas\nBecket instituted the principal feast of the Trinity on the octave of\nPentecost[75].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nFESTIVALS OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN\n\n\nI. _Western Kalendars._\n\nThe history of the origin of some of the following festivals is obscure;\nand it is impossible to be precise as to the dates of their first\nappearance. We speak with some reservation of the Festival of Feb. 2,\nknown first in the West, as well as in the East, by the name Hypapante\n(_i.e._ \u2018the Meeting\u2019 of Simeon with the Lord and His Mother), and\nafterwards as the Purification of the Virgin. It seems at first in the\nWest to have been a festival of our Lord rather than of the Virgin. In\nthe _propria_ for \u2018Yppapanti\u2019 (_sic_) in the Gregorian Sacramentary the\nallusion to St Mary is of the slightest. Hence at the time when it first\nappeared in the West it may be reckoned as having no special reference to\nSt Mary. The Church of Rome does not appear (according to Duchesne) to\nhave observed any festival of the Virgin before the seventh century, when\nit adopted the four following festivals from the Church of Byzantium.\n\n1. =The Purification= (or, in early times, Hypapante). Its date (Feb.\n2) is determined by counting forty days from Christmas (Luke ii. 22:\ncompare Levit. xii. 2, 4).\n\nA feast of much dignity and importance (_cum summa laetitia, ac si\nper Pascha_) commemorating the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple\nis noticed as celebrated (towards the close of the fourth century) at\nJerusalem at the time of the pilgrimage of \u2018Silvia.\u2019 It was observed on\nFeb. 14 (the 40th day after the Epiphany, reckoned as the day of the\nLord\u2019s Nativity): but \u2018Silvia\u2019 does not appear to have regarded it as in\nany sense having special reference to St Mary. The words of the pilgrim\nsimply record the incident in the Temple; and it looks as if the feast\nwere only commemorative of a remarkable event in the history of the Lord.\n\nIt may be pointed out that the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord in\nthe Temple is still observed by the Armenians on Feb. 14, as they still\ncelebrate the Nativity on Jan. 6.\n\nThe origin of the consecrating of candles and carrying them in procession\nwhich has given us the low Latin names _candelaria_ and _candelcisa_, the\nFrench _chandeleur_, the Italian _candelora_, the German _Lichtmesse_,\nand our English name _Candlemas_, and which from early times formed a\nstriking feature in the ritual of the Feast, has been conjecturally\nconnected by some with a symbolical setting forth of the words of\nSimeon (Luke ii. 32); and by others with the ceremonial of the heathen\n_Lupercalia_. But the matter is still involved in doubt.\n\nIn the East the establishment of the festival throughout the Empire\nis generally assigned to Justinian in the year 542. The appearance of\nHypapante in the so-called Gregorian Sacramentary is, it need scarcely be\nsaid, no proof that the festival was observed in the time of Gregory the\nGreat.\n\nThe word \u2018Hypapante\u2019 lingered long in the West. We find it as the only\nname of the festival in the Martyrology of Bede; and one hundred and\nfifty years later the day is marked in Usuard as simply \u2018Hypapante\nDomini.\u2019\n\n2. =The Annunciation= (March 25) like \u2018Hypapante\u2019 was probably\noriginally a feast of our Lord, as marking the time of the Incarnation.\nInferentially it may be considered as well established both in the\nEast and West considerably before the close of the seventh century.\nDuchesne considers that we have very clear testimony to this feast before\nthe Council in Trullo (A.D. 692), where it was spoken of as already\nestablished. Perhaps earlier, or, at latest, almost contemporary, in the\nWest is the testimony of what is known as the tenth Council of Toledo\n(?A.D. 694)[76] where the complaint is made that in various parts of\nSpain the festival of St Mary was observed on various days, and it is\nfurther added that as the festival cannot be fitly celebrated either in\nLent, or when overshadowed by the Paschal festival, the Council ordains\nthat for the future the day should be xv Kal. Jan. (Dec. 18) and the\nNativity of the Lord on viii Kal. Jan. (Dec. 25). It is plain that\nsomething of the nature of an octave was to follow the festival of Dec.\n18; and there is added in a somewhat apologetic tone, \u2018nam quid festum\nmatris nisi incarnatio verbi?\u2019 (canon 1). The Trullan Council took a\ndifferent course. While continuing to prohibit all other festivals during\nLent, it sanctioned the celebration of this. In the Milanese rite the\nfeast was celebrated on the fourth Sunday in Advent. In the Mozarabic\nMissal we find in the Kalendar the Annunciation of St Mary marked both on\nMarch 25 and Dec. 18; the latter being distinguished as the \u2018Annunciation\nof the O,\u2019 referring to the great Antiphons sung at that season.\n\nThe older titles of the festival were the \u2018Annunciation of the Lord,\u2019\n\u2018the Annunciation of the Angel to the Blessed Virgin Mary,\u2019 or \u2018the\nConception of Christ.\u2019\n\nThe rules in the Roman rite for transferring the Annunciation to another\nday under certain circumstances will be found in technical works of the\ncommentators.\n\n3. =The Nativity of the Virgin= (Sept. 8). This also is found in the West\ntowards the close of the seventh century. Durandus, who is often more\nfanciful than wise, had in this case perhaps some historical foundation\nfor his assertion that the festival was founded by Pope Sergius I in A.D.\n695. The story of Joachim and Anna, the parents of St Mary, is found in\ncertain apocryphal Gospels which circulated among the Gnostics[77].\n\n4. =The Sleep, or (later) Assumption, of the Virgin= (Aug. 15) appears in\nthe West about the same time as the _Annunciation_ and the _Nativity of\nthe Virgin_. All three were unknown to Gregory the Great. It originated\nin the East, and was there known as the Sleep and (afterwards) the\nTranslation. According to the historian, Nicephorus Callistus, the\nfestival was founded by the Emperor Maurice (A.D. 582-602). It is beyond\nour province here to deal with the legend of St Mary\u2019s body as well as\nsoul being taken up to heaven. The festival made its way slowly in Gaul,\nbut was eventually adopted by Charlemagne. As late as the twelfth century\nit was not universally observed in the East.\n\nThe advance in the titles of the festival from _depositio_, _pausatio_,\n_dormitio_ to _transitus_ and _assumptio_ is not without significance. In\nBede the name is _Dormitio_.\n\nIt will be observed that all these four festivals came to Rome from\nByzantium. In the later mediaeval period they were of universal\nobligation in the West[78].\n\nFor notices of the observance of the death of St Mary on Jan. 18, see\nBaillet, _op. cit._, VI. 11.\n\n5. =The Presentation of St Mary= (_praesentatio_, _illatio_, _oblatio_)\nin the Temple at Jerusalem. In the modern Roman Kalendar at Nov. 21, it\nis a \u2018greater double.\u2019 It does not appear in the Kalendar of the Sarum\nBreviary or Missal; but the _Sarum Enchiridion_ (1530) gives Nov. 21,\nand the Office is printed in the Breviary. There were many exceptions to\nthis feast being observed[79]. The festival is based on a legend[80] that\nat an early age Mary was dedicated to the service of God in the Temple,\nand that there she grew up, and served under the priests and Levites.\nThe first appearance of the festival is at Constantinople; and there is\nevidence for it there in A.D. 1150. It passed to the West towards the\nclose of the fourteenth century[81]. And with more certainty than is\nusually possible in such enquiries we can trace its introduction to the\nimpression made by the accounts, brought back from Cyprus, by Philip\nde Mazi\u00e8res, of the solemnities of the feast in the East. Pius V (A.D.\n1566-1572) withdrew it from the Roman Kalendar; but it was restored by\nSixtus V (A.D. 1585-1590).\n\n6. =The Conception of St Mary= (Dec. 8). Since Dec. 8, 1854, when Pius\nIX (in the Apostolic Letters _Ineffabilis Deus_) decreed the doctrine\nof the _Immaculate Conception_ to be a necessary article of the Faith,\nthe epithet _Immaculate_ has been prefixed to the original title in\nthe service-books of the Roman Communion. In the Greek Church the\nday observed is Dec. 9, and the title is the _Conception of St Anna,\ngrandmother of God_, the Easterns connecting the word \u2018conception\u2019 with\nthe person who conceived, while the Latins connected it with the person\nwho was conceived. The festival was commanded to be observed throughout\nthe Empire of the East by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in the middle of\nthe twelfth century.\n\nThe evidence seems to point to the fact that, like several other\nfestivals of the Virgin, this originated in the East. In the Greek\n_Horologion_ we find it related that, according to the ancient tradition\nof the Church, Anna was barren and well stricken in years, and also that\nher spouse Joachim was an aged man. In sorrow for their childlessness\nthey prayed to the Lord, who hearing their prayers intimated to them\nby an angel that they would have a child, and in accordance with the\npromise Anna conceived[82]. It appears that the festival had no dogmatic\nsignificance; and it had its parallel in the historical festival, still\nobserved in the Greek Church on Sept. 23, of the Conception of St\nJohn the Baptist, a festival which also had a place in the old Latin\nMartyrologies.\n\nIn the West the local observance of the day is associated commonly with\nthe name of St Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, who, in one form of\nthe story, on a voyage from England to Normandy during a storm vowed to\nestablish the festival. But the day is marked in some English Kalendars\njust before the Norman Conquest, though at first it had a very limited\nacceptance[83]. It is plain that at an early date there were some who\nconnected the festival with the belief that St Mary differed from other\nmortals in being without original sin. For when the Chapter of the\nCathedral of Lyons were about to institute the festival in that church,\nSt Bernard of Clairvaux wrote (A.D. 1140) expostulating with them partly\non the ground that though St Mary was, as he believed, sanctified in\nthe womb, yet her conception was not holy. He added that this was a\nnovel festival, \u2018quam ritus Ecclesiae nescit, non probat ratio, non\ncommendat antiqua traditio\u2019; and declares that it was the outcome of the\nsimplicity of a few unlearned persons, the daughter of inconsiderateness\n(_levitatis_), and the sister of superstition (_Epist._ 174).\n\nJohn Beleth, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, towards the close\nof the twelfth century argued much in the same way as St Bernard. And in\nthe following century, and towards its close, such a leading authority as\nDurandus, bishop of Mende, in his _Rationale_ says that there were some\nwho would celebrate this festival, but that he could not approve of it,\nbecause St Mary was conceived in original sin, though she was sanctified\nin the womb.\n\nAs regards the Church of Rome (properly so called), Innocent III in\nthe beginning of the thirteenth century declares in one of his sermons\n(_Serm._ II _de Joan. Bapt._) that no other conception than that of the\nLord Jesus was celebrated in the Church. Nevertheless the celebration of\nthe day spread both in France, and, more particularly, in England. The\nCouncil of Oxford (A.D. 1222) approved of the feast, but distinguished\nit from the other feasts of the Virgin by leaving it to be observed or\nnot at discretion. In the province of Canterbury the day was made of\nobligation by Archbishop Simon Mepeham (A.D. 1328-33).\n\nIn 1263 the Franciscans resolved to celebrate the festival publicly in\ntheir churches. But even the Franciscans were not agreed among themselves\nas to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Alvarus Pelagius, the\nSpanish Theologian, Great Penitentiary of Pope John XXII, in his _de\nPlanctu Ecclesiae_ (1332) declares that \u2018the new and fantastic opinion\nshould be cancelled by the faithful.\u2019\n\nAs is well known, the Dominicans took a strong and even violent part\nagainst the doctrine. The greatest doctor of the thirteenth century,\nThomas Aquinas, had clearly pronounced that St Mary was not sanctified\ntill the infusion of her _anima rationalis_. But with regard to the feast\nof the Conception he states that inasmuch as the Roman Church, though not\ncelebrating the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, tolerates the practice\nof certain Churches which do celebrate it, the celebration of the feast\nis not to be wholly reprobated; and he adds that we must not infer from\nthe observance of the day that St Mary was holy in her conception, but\nbecause we are ignorant as to the time when she was sanctified, the feast\nof her sanctification rather than of her conception is celebrated on the\nday of her conception[84]. Accordingly in Dominican Kalendars we find\nthe day marked as _Sanctificatio Mariae_.\n\nThe Council of B\u00e2le (1439) adopted a constitution applicable to the whole\nChurch that the feast should be observed according to the ancient and\nlaudable custom on Dec. 8, and that it should be known under the title of\nthe _Conception_ of the Blessed Virgin Mary, forbidding the use of the\nname _Sanctification_, as having a less extended use. The Roman See, not\nrecognising this Council, did not take action till A.D. 1477, when Sixtus\nIV, who had been a Franciscan, published an ordinance (and it is the\nvery first decree of any Pope on the subject) granting large indulgences\nto all the faithful who celebrated, or assisted at, the Mass and Office\nof the Conception on the festival or throughout its octave. In 1483 the\nsame Pope pronounced excommunication on any preachers who asserted that\nSt Mary was conceived in original sin or that those who observed the\nfestival sinned[85]. Clement VIII (1592-1605) raised the festival to\nthe rank of a greater double. The later history of the festival can be\npursued in Baillet, and in recent writers dealing with Pius IX.\n\nFor minor festivals of the Virgin, such as \u2018St Mary at Snows,\u2019 the\nVisitation of St Mary, the Espousals (_Desponsatio_), the Most Holy Name\nof Mary, the Seven Sorrows, the Rosary of St Mary, Blessed Mary of Mount\nCarmel, the Expectation of the Delivery (_part\u00fbs_), and others, the\nreader may consult Baillet, the _Catholic Dictionary_, etc.\n\n\nII. _The Orthodox Church of the East._\n\nA reference to the classification of Feasts in the Eastern Church[86]\nwill show that among the twelve principal Feasts are found (1) The\n_Evangelismos of the Theotokos_, March 25, corresponding to the Western\nfeast of the Annunciation; (2) the Repose of the Theotokos, Aug. 15;\n(3) the Nativity of the Theotokos, Sept. 8; and (4) the Entrance of the\nTheotokos into the Temple, Nov. 21, corresponding to the Presentation of\nthe Virgin in the West.\n\nTo these have to be added the following feasts of lesser dignity: (5)\nHypapante (the Meeting of St Mary with Simeon and Anna in the Temple),\nFeb. 2, corresponding to the Western Purification. This is a day of\nobligation: but (as has been already remarked) it is perhaps to be\nregarded rather as a festival of the Lord than of St Mary. (6) The\nDeposition of the precious Vestment of the Theotokos in the Church of\nBlachernae at Constantinople, July 2: (7) the Deposition of the precious\nZone of the Theotokos at Constantinople, Aug. 31: (8) the Conception of\nSt Anna (_i.e._ her conception of St Mary), Dec. 9, a day of obligation:\n(9) the Synaxis of the Theotokos and Joseph, her spouse, Dec. 26, a day\nof obligation. This day is also called the Synaxis of the Theotokos\nfleeing into Egypt. The Greeks consider that the visit of the Magi was\nexactly one year after the birth of Christ, and that the flight into\nEgypt was on the day following that visit.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nFESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES, THE EVANGELISTS, AND OF OTHER PERSONS NAMED IN\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT. OCTAVES AND VIGILS\n\n\nIn the Greek Church there has continued to the present day a Synaxis\nof the Twelve Apostles on the day following St Peter and St Paul (June\n29); and in the West we find a commemoration of all the Apostles,\nconnected with the festival of St Peter and St Paul, in the Leonine\nSacramentary[87]. There is a _Natale Omnium Apostolorum_ with a vigil in\nthe Gelasian Sacramentary. This festival may have preceded all separate\ncommemorations. It would seem to have been observed close to the date of\nSt Peter and St Paul.\n\nWith certain notable exceptions, feasts of the New Testament Saints came\nbut slowly into the cycle of Christian solemnities. With some exceptions,\nmore or less doubtful, there is no reason to think that the days of the\ndeaths of the Apostles were known to those who gave them places in\nthe Kalendars. It is highly probable in some cases, and not improbable\nin others, that the dates assigned for the festivals really mark some\ndeposition or translation of the supposed relics of those commemorated,\nor the dedication of some church named in their honour. Considerations of\nthe space at our disposal demand that the subject should be only lightly\ntouched; but references are given to easily accessible works. And we deal\nonly with the more notable festivals, or festivals of early appearance.\n\n=St Peter and St Paul= (June 29). There is no question that at an early\ndate this festival was celebrated at Rome. The belief was entertained by\nseveral ancient writers that these two Saints suffered death upon the\nsame day of the month, but in different years.\n\nWe have seen already (p. 33 f.) that in the East at an early date there\nwas a commemoration of St Peter in close connexion with the commemoration\nof the Lord\u2019s Nativity. But at Rome in the earliest Western Kalendar (the\nBucherian) we find two festivals that deserve consideration: (1) _Natale\nPetri de Cathedra_ at Feb. 22; and (2) _Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli\nOs[t]iense_, at June 29, to which are added the words, _Tusco et Basso\nCoss_. To deal first with the latter entry; as the consulate of Tuscus\nand Bassus marks A.D. 258, it has been not unnaturally conjectured that\nthe record marks the date of some translation of the Apostles\u2019 relics.\nBut that conjecture does not absolutely exclude the supposition that the\nday chosen for the translation was the day which was believed to have\nbeen the day of their martyrdom. The translation, as Bishop Pearson[88]\nlong ago supposed, was the removal, perhaps with a view to safety, of the\nremains to a place at the third milestone on the Appian Way, called \u2018Ad\nCatacumbas,\u2019 during the heat of the persecution under Valerian.\n\nThe observance of a commemoration of St Paul on June 30 (still so\nmarked in the Roman Kalendar), has been accounted for by the fact that\nthe bishop of Rome celebrating mass first at the tomb of St Peter, and\nafterwards on the same day having to go a long distance to the tomb of St\nPaul, there to celebrate again, it was arranged to observe the festival\nof St Paul on the day after June 29, with a view to avoiding the fatigue\nand inconvenience of the two functions on the one day.\n\n=Cathedra Petri.= The entry cited above from the Bucherian Kalendar,\n_Natale Petri de cathedra_, \u2018the Festival of Peter of the Chair,\u2019 looks\nvery like the record of the dedication of a church, where perhaps a\nseated statue of the Apostle was placed[89]. We are at once reminded\nof the large seated figure of Hippolytus discovered in 1551 on the Via\nTiburtina. Or, as De Rossi supposes, the festival may have had to do with\nthe actual wooden chair (as was supposed) which St Peter had used, and\nof which we hear in the time of Gregory the Great. But, whatever may have\nbeen the origin of the festival, it came at a later time to be regarded\nas marking the date of the beginning of St Peter\u2019s episcopate; and there\nis some evidence that the festival was made much of as a Christian set\noff against the popular pagan solemnity of _Cara cognatio_ on Feb. 22,\nwhen the dead members of each family were commemorated.\n\nDuchesne asserts, with something of undue confidence, that this was\nwithout doubt the ground for the selection of the date Feb. 22 for the\nChristian festival; but without committing ourselves to the acceptance\nof Duchesne\u2019s view, we may say that it may well have been a reason why\nefforts were made to draw off the faithful, by means of the Christian\nsolemnity, from the temptation to join in rites incompatible with\ntheir profession. The festival was unknown in the East, and, what is\nmore remarkable, equally unknown in the Church of North Africa; but it\nappeared early in Gaul, and, as has been conjectured, with a view to\nprevent the festival falling, as would occasionally happen, in Lent, the\ndate was pushed back to Jan. 18. At Rome it continued to be observed on\nFeb. 22.\n\nIt would seem to have been due to the anxiety of the early mediaeval\nKalendar-makers and Martyrologists to comprehend in their lists\neverything in the way of church solemnities recorded in any Kalendar that\nwe have the invention of St Peter\u2019s Chair at Antioch. They found some\nKalendars marking _Cathedra Petri_ at Jan. 18, and others at Feb. 22.\nMight not, they would argue, these double dates be accounted for by the\nold accounts that St Peter had exercised an episcopate at Antioch before\nhe came to Rome?\n\nVenerable Bede does not mark any Festival of St Peter\u2019s Chair at Jan.\n18, but at Feb. 22 writes \u2018Apud Antiochiam Cathedra S. Petri.\u2019 But in\nthe Martyrology, known as _Gellonense_ (circ. 800), and in Usuard\u2019s\nMartyrology we find at Jan. 18, \u2018Cathedrae S. Petri Apostoli qu\u00e2 Romae\nprimo sedit,\u2019 and at Feb. 22 \u2018Cathedrae S. Petri Apostoli qu\u00e2 sedit\napud Antiochiam\u2019 (_Gellonense_), \u2018Apud Antiochiam Cathedrae S. Petri\u2019\n(_Usuard_). There continued to be a variety of use in different dioceses\nas to the day on which \u2018St Peter\u2019s Chair\u2019 was celebrated; and it was not\ntill as late as 1558 that Pope Paul IV settled the question by ordering\nthat the feast of the Roman Chair should be observed on Jan. 18, while\nGregory XIII restored Feb. 22 as the feast of the Chair at Antioch. This\nis not the place to discuss whether there was, properly speaking, any\nepiscopate of St Peter at Antioch. It is significant that the churches\nof Greece and the East knew nothing of the feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair at\nAntioch[90].\n\n=St Peter \u2018ad vincula,\u2019= \u2018St Peter\u2019s Chains.\u2019 The Eastern Church\ncelebrates the festival of _St Peter\u2019s Chain_ on Jan. 16; the Latin\nChurch celebrates the corresponding festival on Aug. 1. Both festivals\nnot improbably had their origins in the dedication of churches, where\nwhat were supposed to be a chain or chains which had bound Peter were\npreserved. The plural, \u2018chains,\u2019 in the Roman name is significant, and\nwill be understood by reference to the 4th and 5th Lections for the feast\nin the Roman Breviary. The feast does not appear in Western Kalendars\ntill the eighth century.\n\nThe seventeenth century building, S. Pietro in Vincoli, on the Esquiline,\noccupies the site of the church of the Apostles, reconstructed at the\nexpense of the imperial family between A.D. 432 and A.D. 440, where the\nprecious relics were deposited.\n\nIn connexion with this feast attention should be called to the fact that\nin the so-called Hieronymian Martyrology at Aug. 1, we find no reference\nto the chains, but there is the particularly interesting entry: \u2018At\nRome, dedication of the first church both constructed and consecrated by\nblessed Peter the Apostle[91].\u2019\n\n=St Andrew= (Nov. 30). The Martyrologies agree in giving Nov. 30 as\nthe day of the martyrdom. The festival appeared early at Rome, and was\ngiven a place of high dignity[92]. In fact there is authority for the\nfeast being kept at Rome in early times with no less solemnity than St\nPeter\u2019s Day. It will be remembered that in the prayer _Libera nos_ in\nthe Canon of the Mass Andrew is named together with Peter and Paul. The\nSacramentary of St Leo has four sets of \u2018propers\u2019 for masses on this\nfestival. It is a day of much importance in the Greek Church, as St\nAndrew, the Protoclete, is reckoned the apostle of Greece. St Andrew is\nthe patron of the Russian Church[93]. Relics of St Andrew, said to have\nbeen brought by a monk named Regulus from Patras to Scotland, gave the\nname of St Andrew to the place in Fife previously known as Kilrymont; and\nSt Andrew became the patron saint of Scotland. In the Aberdeen Breviary\nhis day is a \u2018greater double.\u2019\n\nBishop Wordsworth remarks that St Andrew\u2019s Day \u2018is perhaps the only\nfestival of an Apostle claiming to be really on the anniversary of his\ndeath.\u2019 Nov. 30 is given as the day of his martyrdom in the apocryphal\n_Acta Andreae_, describing his death at Patras[94].\n\n=St James the Great= (July 25), the son of Zebedee, does not appear very\nearly. The day is not noticed in either the Leonine or the Gelasian\nSacramentary, and made its way to general acceptance but slowly. In the\ncanons of the Council of Oxford (A.D. 1222) it does not appear among the\nchief festivals for general observance in England, although in England\nit was certainly a _festum chori_ long before that date.\n\nIt would seem (Acts xii. 2, 3) that the death of James took place about\nthe time of the Paschal commemoration; the Coptic Kalendar marks St\nJames\u2019s day on April 12, and the Syrian lectionary of Antioch on April\n30, on which day also the Greek Church keeps a festival of St James,\nusing for the Epistle Acts xii. 1, etc. The placing of the festival in\nthe West so far from Easter as July 25, suggests that the latter date was\nconnected with some translation of relics, or such like.\n\nAs we have already seen (p. 16) the ancient Syriac Kalendar edited\noriginally by Wright, commemorates James together with his brother John\non Dec. 27.\n\n=St John, Apostle and Evangelist.= The principal festival on Dec. 27 is\nfound in the fourth century in the East, where he was conjoined with\nJames. Traces of this conjunction are to be found in the West. It is\ninteresting to find in the Gothic Missal, printed by Muratori, a mass\nfor the Natale of the Apostles James and John placed between St Stephen\nand Holy Innocents. And in the Hieronymian Martyrology we find at Dec.\n27 \u2018the ordination to the episcopate of St James, the Lord\u2019s brother [a\nconfusion], and the assumption of St John, the Evangelist, at Ephesus.\u2019\n\nThe Greek Church commemorates the _metastasis_, or migration of John, on\nSept. 26, and an important festival in honour of the holy dust (called\n_manna_) from his tomb at Ephesus on May 8.\n\n=St John before the Latin gate= (May 6). The story of the caldron of\nboiling oil is as old as Tertullian (_de Praescript._ c. 36). But of\nthe festival there is no notice before the closing years of the eighth\ncentury. The day of the month probably marks the date of the dedication\nof a church near the Latin gate[95]. It is characteristically a Western\nfestival. In the Roman rite it was, about the thirteenth century, a\nsemi-double: it was made a double by Pius V (1566-1572), and a greater\ndouble by Clement VIII (1592-1605).\n\n=St Matthew= (Sept. 21): in the Greek, Russian, Syrian and Armenian\nChurches, Nov. 16: in the Egyptian and Ethiopic Kalendars of Ludolf,\nOct. 9. The festival of Sept. 21 is certainly late in appearing. It is\nwanting in the Leonine, Gelasian, and Gallican Sacramentaries, and in\nMuratori\u2019s edition of the Gregorian. It is found, however, generally in\nthe martyrologies, which fact, of course, does not necessarily imply that\nthere was any liturgical observance of the day[96].\n\n=St Luke= (Oct. 18); and on the same day generally in the East. The day\nperhaps marks a translation of relics in the East, as is stated in the\nso-called Hieronymian Martyrology. St Luke does not appear in the older\nSacramentaries; but in some manuscripts of the Gregorian we find a proper\npreface for St Luke on v Kal. Nov. (Oct. 28).\n\n=St Mark= (April 25): on the same day in the East. The day is of late\nappearance, not perhaps before the ninth century. The great processional\nlitanies on April 25 appear at Rome long before St Mark\u2019s name was\nattached to the day. In their origin these litanies were distinctively\nRoman.\n\n=St Philip and St James= (May 1). This was the day of the dedication of a\nchurch at Rome in their honour in the second half of the sixth century.\nThe word _natale_ is applied at a later time to the day; which may have\nbeen in error, or, as can be proved by many examples, the word _natale_\ncame to be used loosely as equivalent to festival or commemoration. In\nthe Greek Church St James, \u2018the brother of God,\u2019 is commemorated on Oct.\n23, and St Philip, \u2018one of the twelve,\u2019 on Nov. 14. The Greeks celebrate\nPhilip, the deacon, on Oct. 11, and he appears in Usuard\u2019s Martyrology at\nJune 6.\n\nWhy Philip and James should be associated we know not. The deposition of\nrelics of both at the time of the dedication of the church at Rome may\nperhaps account for the conjunction of the names.\n\n=St Simon and St Jude= (Oct. 28). Legend associates these two Apostles as\nhaving together laboured for thirteen years in Persia, and as there dying\nmartyrs\u2019 deaths. In the Sacramentaries they do not appear till they are\nfound in a late form of the Gregorian. In the East the commemoration of\nthese Apostles is divided and a day assigned to each. In the Greek Church\nSimon Zelotes appears at May 10, and Judas (Thaddaeus) at June 19.\n\n=St Thomas, Apostle and Martyr= (Dec. 21); his Translation is marked at\nJuly 3 in the West. In the Greek Church St Thomas is commemorated on Oct.\n6, a day also observed by the Syrians, who add a translation on July 3.\nIn the fourth century there was a magnificent basilica of St Thomas at\nEdessa, and to this church the remains of the Apostle were translated\n(from India according to the legend) before the close of the century. St\nThomas (at Dec. 21) is not found in the Leonine, and only in some texts\nof the Gregorian Sacramentary. He appears, however, in the Gelasian.\n\n=St Bartholomew= (Aug. 24); and at Rome on Aug. 25. The Latin churches\ngenerally, including that of mediaeval England, observed Aug. 24. The\nGreek Church commemorates Bartholomew together with Barnabas on June 11,\nand a translation of the relics of Bartholomew on Aug. 25. In the West\nthe introduction of the feast was late. There is no trace of it in the\nearly forms of the great Sacramentaries[97].\n\n=St John the Baptist, the Nativity= (June 24); so too in the Greek\nChurch. The date was doubtless assigned on the strength of the inference\ndrawn from the Gospels, that the birth of the baptist preceded that of\nthe Saviour by six months. It appeared early, and was a recognised day\nin the time of St Augustine[98]. It has its masses in the Sacramentaries\nfrom the Leonine downwards.\n\n=The Decollation of St John the Baptist= (generally Aug. 29). This\nfestival is also early, but, so far as evidence goes, not so early as the\nNativity[99]. It was known in Gaul before it was adopted at Rome. The\nGreek churches celebrate the day on Aug. 29[100].\n\n=The Conversion of St Paul= (Jan. 25), was of late introduction. It does\nnot appear in the correct text of Bede\u2019s Martyrology, and in only late\ntexts of the Gregorian Sacramentary. There is reason for believing that\nthe day was first observed to mark the translation of relics of St Paul\nat Rome, for so it appears in the Hieronymian Martyrology, and the period\nof transition seems to be marked in the Martyrology of Rabanus Maurus\n(ninth century), where we find at Jan. 25, \u2018Translation and Conversion\nof St Paul.\u2019 It is not found in England in the Pontifical of Egbert,\nArchbishop of York (A.D. 732-766), but it appears in the Leofric Missal,\nin the second half of the eleventh century. It is unknown in the Greek\nChurch.\n\n=St Mary Magdalene= (July 22), who is identified in the West with\nthe woman who was a sinner, and with Mary the sister of Lazarus, is\ndistinguished from each of these in the Greek service-books which also\nmark her festival on July 22. Among the Easterns she is thought of as\n\u2018the holy myrrh-bearer,\u2019 one of the women who brought the spices to the\ntomb of the Lord. In various places in the West, though not at Rome,\nthe day was a day of obligation in the middle ages. It appears in some\nservice-books in the tenth and eleventh centuries, but not in missals,\n_secundum consuetudinem Romanae curiae_, till the thirteenth[101].\n\nThere was a festival of St Mary Magdalene (July 22) in the English Prayer\nBook of 1549. The collect and gospel (Luke vii. 36 to the end of the\nchapter) show that no English Reformers identified the Magdalene with the\nwoman who was a sinner. The festival disappears in the Prayer Book of\n1552.\n\n=St Barnabas, the Apostle= (June 11). The Greeks commemorate on this\nday \u2018Bartholomew and Barnabas, Apostles.\u2019 The festival probably marks\nthe supposed finding of the body of Barnabas (having a copy of St\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel in his hand) in the island of Cyprus in the fifth\ncentury. Barnabas is not found at June 11 in the so-called Hieronymian\nMartyrology; nor in the Martyrology known as _Gellonense_, but it is\nnoted in Bede (though there is some doubt whether the entry is not due to\nFlorus), and in the later Martyrologies.\n\nThe Greek Church commemorates (many of them with proper names attached)\nthe seventy disciples of Luke x. 1, called in the service-books\n\u2018apostles.\u2019\n\n=Octaves.= The word Octave is used sometimes for the eighth day after\na festival, sometimes (in later documents) for the space of eight days\nwhich follow the festival. It may be regarded as an echo or prolongation\nof the festival. In the Eastern Church what is known as the _Apodosis_\n(see p. 135) in a measure corresponds to the Western Octave. It has not\nunreasonably been conjectured that they owe their origin to an imitation\nof the festal practices of the Hebrews (Levit. xxiii. 6; Num. xxviii.\n17; Deut. xvi. 3). Octaves were originally few: they appear first\nin connexion with Easter and Pentecost, and, occasionally, with the\nEpiphany. In the eighth and ninth centuries Octaves became more numerous.\nYet in the Corbie Kalendar (A.D. 826), assuming that the movable feasts\nof Easter and Pentecost had their Octaves, we find in addition only the\nOctaves of Christmas, Epiphany, Peter and Paul, Lawrence and Andrew. This\nfalls in well with what is said by Amalarius (about the same date) who,\nafter noticing the Octaves of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost,\nadds, \u2018We are accustomed to celebrate the Octaves of the _natalitia_\nof some saints, that is, of those whose festivals are esteemed as more\nillustrious amongst us\u2019 (_De ecclesiasticis officiis_, iv. 36). At Rome\nwe find St Agnes having an Octave (Jan. 28) at a date earlier than that\nwith which we have been dealing[102]; and even to-day in the Roman Missal\nand Breviary there is an interesting survival in the persistence of the\nold name, _Agnetis secundo_, and of \u2018propers\u2019 for the day. Liturgically,\nthe ancient practice in the West was to insert a simple commemoration on\nthe eighth day of festivals.\n\nThe prolongation of a festival for eight days may be found illustrated\nby the practice of the Church at Jerusalem in the fourth century, as\nrecounted by \u2018Silvia\u2019 in her descriptions of the Epiphany, the Pascha,\nand the feast of the dedication of the churches known as the Martyrium\nand the Church of the Resurrection.\n\nThe great multiplication of Octaves in mediaeval times has been\nattributed to the influence of the Franciscans, who in the language of\nKellner \u2018provided an inordinate number of Octaves in their Breviary, and\nobserved each day of the Octave with the rite of a _festum duplex_[103].\u2019\n\nThe somewhat elaborate rules with respect to Octaves and their relation\nto the observance of other festivals, as enjoined in the modern Roman\nrite, can be found in such technical works as those of Gavantus and\nFerraris. It must suffice here to observe that within the Octaves of\nChristmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Epiphany, and Corpus Christi, Votive\nand Requiem masses are prohibited.\n\n=Vigils.= The origin of vigils is obscure. The proper service of each\nLord\u2019s Day was preceded in early times by what may be regarded as\nsomething like a vigil, a service before the dawn of day; and some\nthink that this view may be deduced from Pliny\u2019s well-known letter to\nTrajan. But in this there would seem, perhaps, to be a reading into the\ndocument of more than its contents warrant. However this may be, we\nfind as early as Tertullian that there were among Christians \u2018nocturnae\nconvocationes,\u2019 the solemnities of the Pascha being more particularly\nreferred to[104]. The exact nature and object of these assemblies are not\ndescribed. Evidence is more full at a later date for vigils of some kind,\nnot only before the Lord\u2019s Day but also before the Sabbath[105]. At the\nperiod when \u2018Silvia\u2019 visited Jerusalem the faithful seem to have engaged\nin services before the dawn on every Lord\u2019s Day. And in Gaul in the fifth\ncentury, as we gather from Sidonius Apollinaris[106], the vigils were\nnot all night-watches but services before day-break. About a century\nlater than Tertullian, we find the Council of Elvira, near Granada, some\ntime in the first quarter of the fourth century, enacting a canon (35),\ndeclaring that women should not spend the night-watches (_pervigilent_)\nin cemeteries, \u2018because often under the pretext of prayer they secretly\ncommit serious offences (_scelera_).\u2019 There is no further explanation;\nand the probable conjecture has been offered that it may have been\nthe practice to have vigils in the cemeteries on the night before the\noblation was offered at the tomb of one of the martyrs. That there was\nin Spain at this date some kind of service in the cemeteries seems not\nimprobable from the fact that the canon immediately preceding that which\nwe have noticed forbids the lighting of wax tapers in cemeteries in the\nday time.\n\nBy the end of the fourth century, there is ample evidence for the\nobservance of nocturnal or early morning vigils before the greater\nfestivals in both East and West. Early in the fifth century Vigilantius\nprotested against the scandals which arose from the nocturnal watchings\nin the basilicas, and for this, among other assaults upon the current\nabuses and superstitions of the time, he drew upon himself the violent\nand coarse invective of Jerome. Yet Jerome himself may be quoted for the\nfact that there were moral dangers attending these nocturnal vigils, for\nwhile advising the lady Laeta to inure her daughter, the younger Paula,\nto days of vigil and solemn pernoctations, he warns her that she should\nkeep the girl close by her side[107]. To Pope Boniface I (A.D. 418-422)\nhas been attributed the prohibition of nocturnal vigils in the Roman\ncemeteries.\n\nWith regard to the Paschal Vigil, Jerome expresses the opinion that it\noriginated in the belief that Christ would come again in the night of the\nPascha[108].\n\nIn process of time, the day before the feast (_dies profestus_) assumed\nthe name of vigil, and was in the West commonly, though not universally,\nassociated with a fast. Mediaeval ritualists, such as Honorius of Autun\n(who died a little after A.D. 1130), connect the change with the popular\nabuses of the nocturnal vigils.\n\nThere is an interesting letter of Innocent III (about A.D. 1213), laying\ndown the rule in the Roman Church, which still prevails. The vigils of\nthe Apostles are to be observed as fasts, with the exception of St John\nthe Evangelist and St Philip and St James, the former occurring in the\nseason of Christmas, and the latter in that of Easter[109]. Beside the\nvigils of the Apostles, the vigils of Christmas and the Assumption are\nfasts _de jure_, and by custom the vigils of Pentecost, the Nativity of\nthe Baptist, St Lawrence, and All Saints. These rules were often locally\nmodified by papal indults.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSEASONS OF PREPARATION AND PENITENCE\n\n\nADVENT\n\nAdvent, as the term is now employed, signifies a season, regarded as\npreparatory to the Festival of the Nativity of the Lord, including four\nSundays and a variable number of days, as affected by the day of the week\nupon which December 25 falls.\n\nAs no evidence has been adduced for an established celebration of the\nFeast of the Nativity before the fourth century, so it is obvious that\nwe cannot expect to find the appointment of a season of preparation\nbefore that date. As a matter of fact, it would seem that the earliest\ndistinct notice of such a season, prescribed for general use, belongs to\nthe latter part of the sixth century; and that the practice originated in\nGaul. In a small council held at Tours about A.D. 567 there is vaguely\nindicated a fast _for monks_ in December, to be kept every day \u2018usque\nad natale domini\u2019 (can. 17). A few years later, in the south of Gaul,\nwe find what seems a canon of general application, but less exacting in\nregard to the number of days on which the fast was to be observed. In\nthe ninth canon of the Council of M\u00e2con (A.D. 581) it is enjoined that\nfrom the festival of St Martin (Nov. 11) the second, fourth and sixth\ndays of the week should be fasting days, that the sacrifices should be\ncelebrated in the quadragesimal order, and that on these days the canons\n(probably meaning the canons of this synod) should be read, so that no\none could plead that he erred through ignorance. We have here something\nthat at once reminds us of the pre-paschal season, as observed in some\nChurches. The season came to be known as _Quadragesima S. Martini_. But\nthe length of this season (as was also true of Lent) seems to have varied\nmuch. The six Sundays which it covered, as we may infer from the canon of\nM\u00e2con referred to above, we find indicated probably by the six _missae_\nof Sundays of Advent in the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites. Yet the oldest\nGallican Sacramentary records only three Sundays, and the Gothic-Gallican\nonly two[110].\n\nIn England, as we learn from Bede, forty days of fasting \u2018ante natale\ndomini\u2019 were observed by Cuthbert (\u2020 687) and by Ecbert (\u2020 729). In both\ncases, however, it should be remarked, the observance seems mentioned as\nan indication of exceptional piety[111].\n\nAt the close of the sixth century Rome, under Gregory the Great, adopted\nthe rule of the four Sundays in Advent; and in the following century\nthis rule became prevalent (though not universal) in the West.\n\nIn the Greek Church the general observance of forty days\u2019 penitential\npreparation for Christmas does not appear to have been established before\nthe thirteenth century. In the Greek Church of to-day the forty days\u2019\npreparation begins on Nov. 15. It is sometimes called the Fast of St\nPhilip, doubtless because the festival of St Philip was celebrated on\nNov. 14. On Wednesdays and Fridays the fast is rigorous; but on other\ndays, wine, oil, and fish are allowed.\n\nThe practice of the Armenians is peculiar: they observe a fast for the\nweek preceding the Nativity, and for one week commencing fifty days\nbefore the Nativity. The conjecture has been offered that these two weeks\nare a survival of a fast that had originally lasted for the whole of\nfifty days.\n\nIn Churches of the Roman Communion at the present day, the practice as\nto fasting varies. In Great Britain and Ireland Wednesdays and Fridays\nare expected to be observed; but in many parts of the continent of Europe\nthere is no distinction between weeks in Advent and ordinary weeks.\n\nOn December 16 in the West it was the practice to sing as an antiphon to\nthe Magnificat the first of a series of seven antiphons, each beginning\nwith \u2018O\u2019; thus, \u2018O Sapientia\u2019 (Dec. 16), \u2018O Adonai\u2019 (17), \u2018O Radix\nJesse\u2019 (18), etc. In the Kalendar of the Book of Common Prayer the\nwords \u2018O Sapientia\u2019 appear at Dec. 16. This is not, strictly speaking,\na _survival_ of mediaeval times; for it was first introduced into the\nEnglish Prayer Book Kalendar in A.D. 1604.\n\nThe rule of the English Book of Common Prayer (1662) for determining\nAdvent runs thus: \u2018Advent Sunday is always the nearest Sunday to the\nFeast of St Andrew, whether before or after.\u2019 As thus expressed, the\nrule does not seem to contemplate the case of Advent Sunday falling on\nSt Andrew\u2019s Day. It was a mistake not to add the additional words which\nwere in the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, namely, \u2018or that Sunday which\nfalleth upon any day from the twenty-seventh of November to the third of\nDecember inclusively.\u2019 The word \u2018or\u2019 does not imply that the second part\nof the rule is an equivalent of the first; but it gives a rule to meet a\ncase not contemplated in the first part.\n\n\nTHE FAST PRECEDING EASTER (LENT)\n\nThat a fast preliminary to the Pascha was observed in the early Church is\nbeyond question. Irenaeus, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome[112],\nstates that at the time there were several differences as to the length\nof the fast; but in no case was a prolonged series of days prescribed.\n\u2018Some,\u2019 he says, \u2018think they ought to fast one day; others, two; others\nmore than two; others reckon together forty hours both of the day and\nthe night as the day [of fasting][113].\u2019 And Irenaeus adds that these\ndifferences existed long before (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) the time when he wrote.\nThe words about the forty hours may perhaps be illustrated by passages\nof Tertullian[114], where he speaks of persons fasting in the days \u2018when\nthe bridegroom was taken away,\u2019 or, in other words, the time during which\nthe Lord was under the power of death, _i.e._ certain hours of the day of\nthe Crucifixion, the twenty-four hours of Saturday, and certain hours of\nthe early part of Easter Day. We shall not delay to discuss the questions\nconnected with the exact time of commencing and of closing the forty\nhours.\n\nAbout the middle of the third century at Alexandria the whole week before\nEaster was observed as a time of fasting by some; but there were those\nwho fasted only on four days; others contented themselves with three or\neven two; while there were some (evidently exceptional persons) who did\nnot fast even one day[115]. It is plain that as yet no fixed rule was\nenforced.\n\nIn the fourth century we meet with the term \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, or\nQuadragesima. In the fifth canon of the Council of Nicaea it is ordered\nthat one of the two annual provincial Synods should be held before\n\u2018the tessarakoste.\u2019 The sense of the term is assumed to be known, and\nis not explained. But it must not be inferred that the word necessarily\nsignifies here forty _days_, or that forty _days_ were assigned to\nfasting.\n\nThe classical authority for the variations of later usages is the passage\nof Socrates[116], where he describes many differences of practice in\nhis own day (_c._ A.D. 440) and the varieties in the length of the fast\nin different countries. At Rome, he says, there was a fast of three\nweeks, excepting Saturdays and Sundays; at Alexandria and in Achaia and\nIllyricum a fast of six weeks; in other places the fast began seven\nweeks before Easter, but was limited to fifteen days, with an interval\nbetween each five days[117]. Not long after his time there were two\nprevailing usages\u2014that of the Churches which deducted from the fasting\ndays Sundays and Saturdays (always excepting the Saturday in Holy Week),\nand that of the Churches which deducted only the Sundays. The former was\nthe prevailing usage in the East; the latter, in the West. The seven\nweeks in the East, with thirteen days deducted (seven Sundays and six\nSaturdays), and the six weeks of the West, with only six days deducted,\nagree precisely in each having only thirty-six fasting days.\n\nAt the time of the _Peregrinatio Silviae_ (about the end of the fourth\ncentury), if we may trust the writer, at Jerusalem eight weeks of fasting\npreceded Easter, which, deducting eight Sundays and seven Saturdays,\ngave, as she expressly says, forty-one days of fasting. This is highly\nexceptional, if not unique. At any rate, the practice did not long\ncontinue.\n\nThe number 36 is nearly the tenth of 365\u2014the number of the days of the\nyear; and this thought struck the fancy of more than one writer. We\nwere bound, they urged, to offer to God the holy tithe, not only of our\nincrease, but of our time. And in the fifth century John Cassian presses\nthis point, and attempts to bring the length of the fast to correspond\nmore closely with the tithe of the year by observing that the fast\nwas prolonged for some hours, \u2018usque in gallorum cantum,\u2019 on Easter\nmorning[118].\n\nAt a later period the thought of the fasts of Moses and Elijah, and\nmore particularly of the Lord\u2019s fast of forty days in the wilderness,\nseems to have suggested that the fast of the faithful should correspond\nin length. The addition of four days\u2014the Wednesday and three following\ndays immediately preceding the first Sunday in Lent\u2014has been frequently\nattributed to Gregory the Great. But the writings of Gregory testify\nto his knowing only thirty-six fasting days. And it is now generally\nacknowledged that no support for the supposition can be based on the\nlanguage of the collects for Feria IV and Feria VI in the week begun on\nQuinquagesima, which speak of the beginning of the fast, and are to be\nfound in the Gregorian Sacramentary[119]. The Sacramentary, as we now\npossess it, abounds in additions later than the time of Gregory.\n\nIt is impossible to say precisely when, or by whom, the additional four\ndays were introduced. Approximately we may assign this change to about\nthe beginning of the eighth century, and to Rome. It did not obtain\neverywhere. It was not till near the close of the eleventh century that\nthe Scottish Church, at the persuasion of the Saxon princess, Queen\nMargaret of Scotland, fell into line with most of the other Western\nChurches, by accepting the four fasting days in the week before the\nfirst Sunday in Lent[120]. The Mozarabic Liturgy adopted it only at\nthe instance of Cardinal Ximenes about the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury. The Church of Milan still preserves, among its interesting\nsurvivals, the commencement of the rigorous Lenten Fast on the Monday\nafter the first Sunday. But in 1563 St Charles Borromeo, then archbishop\nof Milan, succeeded, against vigorous local protests, in making the first\nSunday in Lent a day of abstinence.\n\nThe term _caput jejunii_ was applied sometimes to the Wednesday, known as\nAsh Wednesday, and frequently in service-books to the period of the four\ndays preceding the first Sunday in Lent. Thus, these days are designated\n\u2018Feria IV, Feria V, Feria VI, et Sabbatum, in capite jejunii.\u2019 The\ndistribution of ashes on the Wednesday in the Western Church is a much\nmodified survival and relic of the ancient penitential discipline.\n\nIn the Orthodox Church of the East at the present day \u2018the great and\nholy Tessarakoste\u2019 contains, as in the West, six Sundays. But the\nLenten offices commence at Vespers on the Sunday (known as Tyrinis, or\nTyrophagus) preceding the first Sunday in Lent. In the week preceding\nthis Sunday (corresponding to the Western Quinquagesima) the faithful\ngive up the use of flesh meat, and confine themselves to cheese (\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2)\nand other _lacticinia_. And it may be observed, in passing, that in\nthe Greek Church there are other examples of the week being named from\nthe Sunday which _follows_ it. Thus, \u2018the week of Palms\u2019 is the week\n_followed_ by Palm Sunday[121]. The Sunday (our Sexagesima) preceding\n_Tyrinis_ is called _Apocreos_ (_Dominica carnisprivii_). It is the\nlast day upon which flesh may be eaten. After the Sunday \u2018Tyrinis\u2019 a\nmore rigorous fast is prescribed; but Sundays and Saturdays (except the\nSaturday in Holy week) are exempted, so that there are only thirty-six\ndays of rigid fasting; five days in each of the first six weeks, and six\ndays in the last week[122].\n\nThe word _quadragesima_ is the source of the Italian _quaresima_, and\nthe French _car\u00eame_ (in old French, _quaresme_); while our English word,\n_Lent_, is simply indicative of the season of the year when the fast\noccurs, being derived from the Anglo-Saxon _Lencten_, the spring-time.\n\n\nOTHER SPECIAL TIMES OF FASTING\n\n\nI. _Western Church\u2014The three fasts called \u2018Quadragesima\u2019; Rogation Days;\nthe Four Seasons._\n\nIn addition to Advent, which, as we have seen, is sometimes spoken\nof as the _quadragesima of St Martin_, and Lent (_quadragesima ante\nPascha_)[123], we find in the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries in\nwriters of Germany, France, Britain, and Ireland references to a third\n_quadragesima_ which is styled sometimes the _quadragesima_ after\nPentecost, and sometimes the _quadragesima_ before St John the Baptist.\nIn the _Paenitentiale_ of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury (\u2020 A.D.\n690), it is declared that \u2018there are three fasts established by law\n(_jejunia legitima_) for the people generally (_per populum_)[124], forty\ndays and nights before Pascha, when we pay the tithes of the year, and\nforty before the Nativity of the Lord, and forty after Pentecost[125].\u2019\nThe remarkable collection of canons of the ancient Irish Church, which\nis known as the _Hibernensis_, is of uncertain date, but is attributed\nby such eminent authorities as Wasserschleben, Henry Bradshaw, Whitley\nStokes, and J. B. Bury, to the end of the seventh or early part of the\neighth century. The three penitential seasons called _quadragesima_ are\ndistinctly referred to[126]. In the _Capitula_ of Charlemagne, priests\nare directed to announce to the people that these three seasons are\n_legitima jejunia_. In the canons collected by Burchard, Bishop of Worms\n(A.D. 1006), the three seasons called _quadragesima_ are referred to, and\nthe third is defined as the forty days before the festival of St John\nthe Baptist. Many interesting questions are suggested by these passages\nwith which we are unable to deal here. It must suffice to say that the\n_quadragesima_ after Pentecost did not long survive. It disappeared, and\nhas left no mark upon the Church\u2019s year.\n\n=Rogation Days.= There is a general agreement that the observance of the\nMonday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before the Ascension as days of special\nprayer and fasting, owes its origin to Mamertus, bishop of Vienne\n(about A.D. 470), who appointed litanies or rogations to be said, at a\ntime when the people of his city were in great terror by reason of a\nsevere earthquake and a conflagration consequent thereupon. The shaken\nwalls and the destruction of public buildings, as vividly described\nby Sidonius Apollinaris, may have suggested practical reasons for the\nlitanies being chanted out of doors. The practice of Rogations soon\nspread through the whole of Gaul, and in the Council of Orleans (A.D.\n511), where thirty-two bishops were present, the three days\u2019 fast, with\nRogations, was enjoined upon all their churches. In England, the practice\nof observing the Rogations had evidently been long established when the\nCouncil of Cloveshoe (A.D. 747) enjoined it \u2018according to the custom of\nour predecessors.\u2019 At Rome, in the opinion of Baillet, and recently of\nDuchesne, the Rogation days were not introduced till about A.D. 800[127].\n\nIn the East there is nothing corresponding to the Rogation Days; and\nthe ordinary fast of Wednesday is on the Wednesday before Ascension Day\nrelaxed by a dispensation for oil, wine, and fish; for in the East the\n_dies profestus_ commonly possesses something of a festal character,\nanticipatory of the morrow.\n\nIn the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the term \u2018gang-days\u2019 is used more than once\nfor the Rogation days; and in the Laws of Athelstan we find \u2018gang-days\u2019\nand \u2018gang-week.\u2019 The name originated in the walking in procession on\nthese days.\n\n=The Fasts of the Four Seasons= (_jejunia quatuor temporum_). The\nearliest distinct reference to these fasts is to be found in the Sermons\nof Pope Leo I (A.D. 440-461), who speaks of the spring fast being in\nLent, the summer fast \u2018in Pentecost,\u2019 the autumn fast in the seventh,\nand the winter fast in the tenth month. From St Leo we also learn that\nthe fast was on Wednesday and Friday, and that on the Saturday a vigil\nwas observed at St Peter\u2019s[128]. The observance is characteristically\nRoman, and is found at first only at Rome, and in Churches in immediate\ndependence on Rome. Duchesne holds that the weeks in which these fasts\noccurred differed from other weeks mainly in the rigour of the fast,\n_i.e._ \u2018the substitution of a real fast for the half-fast of the ordinary\nstations.\u2019 And he adds the suggestion that on the Wednesday of the\nFour Seasons, if not on the Friday, the Eucharist was from the outset\ncelebrated[129].\n\nIn England the Council of Cloveshoe (A.D. 747) enjoins that no one should\nneglect \u2018the fasts of the fourth, seventh, and tenth month.\u2019 The omission\nof any notice of the Ember days in Lent will be noticed later on.\n\nIn the Churches of Gaul we do not find the Ember days established long\nbefore the time of Charlemagne.\n\nAt first we find no trace of a connexion between the Ember seasons and\nthe holding of ordinations; and, as is observed by Dr Sinker, \u2018everything\npoints to the conclusion that the solemnity attaching to the seasons led\nto their being chosen as fitting times for the rite[130].\u2019\n\nThe Sacramentary that is known as St Leo\u2019s exhibits \u2018propers\u2019 for\nmasses of the fasts in the fourth, seventh, and tenth months, _i.e._\nJune, September and December[131]; and from these we can gather that on\n\u2018the festival of the fasts\u2019 assemblies and processions had been made on\nthe Wednesdays and Fridays, and a vigil (with the Eucharist) held on\nthe Saturdays. In these there is not only no reference to ordinations\nof the clergy, but also no reference that would suggest the special\nintention and significance of these days of fasting. The conjecture is\nnot unreasonable that there was the desire to dedicate in penitence the\nyear in its four several parts to the service of God; but neither the\nhistory nor the literature of the early Church is decisive in confirming\nthe conjecture.\n\nThe practice of the Church at Rome spread gradually, with some varieties\nas to the particular weeks in which the three days of fasting were\nobserved. For England the notices of the Ember days are earlier than\nthey are for France. At first, at Rome, the spring fast seems to have\nbeen in the first week in March, but afterwards always in Lent. And as\nsoon as it came to be observed in Lent it would (as regards the fast)\nrequire no special injunction. This may perhaps account for the omission\nof any mention of the fast of the first month in the canon of the Council\nof Cloveshoe referred to above. The fixing of the particular days now\nobserved in the West is generally assigned to about the close of the\neleventh century; but in England, as late as A.D. 1222, the Council of\nOxford still speaks of the fast in the first week in March[132].\n\nIn the Eastern Church there is nothing corresponding to the fasts of the\nFour Seasons.\n\n There is some uncertainty as to the etymology of our English\n phrase \u2018Ember Days.\u2019 The weight of authority is in favour of\n the derivation from the Old English words _ymb_, \u2018about,\u2019\n \u2018round,\u2019 and _ryne_, \u2018course,\u2019 \u2018running\u2019; but the _New English\n Dictionary_ (Oxford) adds that it is not wholly impossible\n that the word may have been due to popular etymology working\n upon some vulgar Latin corruption of _quatuor tempora_, as the\n German _quatember_, \u2018ember tide.\u2019\n\n\nII. _Eastern Churches._\n\nThe fasts before the Nativity and Easter have been treated of under\nAdvent and Lent. In the Greek Church the season before Easter is called\n\u2018the great Tessarakoste,\u2019 for the word Tessarakoste is also applied\nto three other penitential seasons, (1) to the fast before the Lord\u2019s\nNativity, (2) the fast of the Apostles (Peter and Paul), and (3) the fast\nof the Assumption of the Theotokos. But, though the word Tessarakoste\nis applied to each of these, there is no apparent connexion between the\nnumber _forty_ and the number of days observed as fasting-days; and this\nis notably the case in regard to the third and fourth. The fast of the\nApostles extends for a variable number of days from the Monday after the\nSunday of All Saints (_i.e._ the first Sunday after Pentecost) to June\n28, both inclusive.\n\nExamination will show that the interval between these two limits can very\nrarely amount to forty days; and when Easter falls at its latest possible\ndate (April 25) the first Sunday after Pentecost is June 20, so that the\nTessarakoste of the Apostles would in that case be only eight days in\nlength.\n\nThe length of the Tessarakoste of the Assumption is fixed, and extends\nonly from Aug. 1 to Aug. 14.\n\nIt would appear then that the term Tessarakoste has come in practice to\nsignify simply a fast of a number of days, and has lost all reference to\nthe number 40.\n\nThe Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14), although regarded as a festival\n(\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae) of the highest dignity, is observed as a strict fast.\n\nThe same is true of the Decollation of the Forerunner (Aug. 29), because\nof \u2018the murder of him who is greater than all the prophets.\u2019 When it is\nremembered that all Wednesdays as well as Fridays are fasting days, it\nwill not be a surprise to be told that the fasting days of the Greek\nChurch amount in each year to some 190 in number.\n\nThe Armenians on fast-days abstain from flesh, milk, butter, eggs, and\noil. Every day in Lent except Sundays is kept as a fast. Among peculiar\nobservances is (1) the Fast of Nineveh, for two weeks commencing\nin the week before our Septuagesima. It is called by the Armenians\n_Aratschavor-atz_, meaning, it is said, \u2018preceding abstinence,\u2019 and this\nterm has taken shape among the Greeks as \u2018Artziburion.\u2019 In the frequent\ncontroversies between the Greeks and Armenians the former denounce this\nfast as execrable and satanic. (2) The Armenians also observe as a fast\nthe week after Pentecost. It has been maintained that in early times this\nfast was observed in the week before Pentecost, and that afterwards,\nin compliance with the general rule that the days between Easter and\nPentecost should not be observed as fasts, a change was made.\n\n[Illustration: Kalendar of Worcester Book (October)\n\n(_Portiforium S. Oswaldi._) Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (MS. 391).\n_Circa_ A.D. 1064.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nWESTERN MEDIAEVAL KALENDARS: MARTYROLOGIES\n\n\nThe word _Martyrology_ has been sometimes applied to mere records of\nnames placed opposite days of the month, like the document which goes\nunder the name of Liberius (see p. 14), as well as to the fuller and\nmore elaborate accounts of saints and martyrs, with often something\nof biographical detail, and notices of time and place, and (in the\ncase of martyrs) the manner of the passions, such as are to be found,\nfor example, in the Martyrology of Bede, and more particularly in the\nadditions of Florus, and the Martyrologies of Ado and Usuard.\n\nThe study of the Martyrologies is surrounded by many difficulties. They\nwere again and again copied, and re-handled. It demands much knowledge\nand critical acumen to sever from the documents as they have come down to\nus later additions, so that we may get at what may reasonably be regarded\nas the original texts. Such work is always attended with considerable\nuncertainty, and scholars are often divided in opinion as to the\nresults[133].\n\nThe influence of the later Martyrologies upon the mediaeval Kalendars of\nthe West is marked. Bede\u2019s valuable work is the outcome of honest and\npatient research; many days, however, were left blank\u2014an offence to the\nprofessional Martyrologist. It was much enlarged, about one hundred years\nafter his death, by one Florus, who (with some differences of opinion)\nis generally supposed to have been a sub-deacon of Lyons. Ado, bishop\nof Vienne, some twenty or thirty years later than Florus, prepared an\nextensive Martyrology, which, together with the work of Florus, was\nin turn utilised and abridged about A.D. 875 by Usuard, a priest and\nBenedictine monk of the monastery of St Germain-des-Pr\u00e9s, then outside\nthe walls of Paris, who undertook his work at the instance of the Emperor\nCharles the Bald. The book when completed was dedicated to the Emperor;\nand before long Usuard\u2019s Martyrology came in general to supersede\nprevious attempts of the same kind. Its influence on subsequent mediaeval\nKalendars is unmistakeable. Usuard came to be adopted almost universally\nfor use.\n\nIn monasteries and cathedral churches it was a common practice to read\naloud each day, sometimes in chapter, sometimes in choir, after Prime,\nthe part of the Martyrology which had reference to the commemorations\nof the day or of the following day, together with notices of obits\nand anniversaries of members of the ecclesiastical corporation and of\nbenefactors, which on the following day would be observed. Indeed, in\nlater times the name Martyrology is not infrequently applied to the mere\nlists of such obits and anniversaries. The mediaeval martyrologies are\ngenerally Usuard\u2019s, but they have local additions.\n\n The student who desires to know something of other early\n Martyrologies, such as that which is called the Hieronymian,\n the Lesser Roman, and the Martyrology of Rabanus, bishop of\n Mainz, may consult Kellner (pp. 401-410) and Mr Birk\u2019s article,\n _Martyrology_, in _D. C. A._ Since the publication of the\n latter article the _Henry Bradshaw Society_ has issued, under\n the competent editorship of Mr Whitley Stokes, the metrical\n _Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee_ (about A.D. 800) and the\n metrical _Martyrology of Gorman_ (latter part of the twelfth\n century), which are of much value in illustrating the hagiology\n of the Irish Church. The scanty materials for the study of\n Scottish mediaeval Kalendars (all of them late) have been\n gathered together by Bishop A. P. Forbes in his _Kalendars of\n Scottish Saints_, 1872. The _Martiloge in Englysshe_ printed\n by Wynkyn de Worde (1526) and reprinted by the _Henry Bradshaw\n Society_ (1893) is the Martyrology of the Church of Sarum, with\n many additions.\n\nBy the tenth century the general features of Kalendars throughout Europe\nare substantially identical as regards the greater days of observance.\nBut differences, often of much interest, arise through different churches\ncommemorating saints of local or national celebrity. It often happens\nthat by this means alone we are able to determine, or to conjecture\nwith considerable probability, the place or region where some liturgical\nmanuscript had its origin. When we find in a Kalendar a large proportion\nof more or less obscure saints belonging to the Rhine valley, we may be\nconfident that the manuscript belongs to that region of Germany. When\nan English Kalendar contains no notice of St Osmund we may be sure that\nit did not originate at Salisbury. When we find St Margaret on Nov. 16,\nSt Fillan on Jan. 9, St Triduana on Oct. 8, and St Regulus on March 30,\nthere is an overwhelming probability that the manuscript belongs to\nScotland. In the Kalendar of York we find St Aidan (Aug. 31), St Hilda\nof Whitby (Aug. 25), and St Paulinus, the archbishop (Oct. 10), but\nthese are all wanting to the Sarum Kalendar. St Kunnegund, the German\nEmpress, who died in A.D. 1040, figures largely in German Kalendars.\nSometimes we find marked not only her obit, but her canonization, and\nher translation; and at Bamberg the octave of her translation was\nobserved. Outside Germany she is all but unknown. St Louis is naturally\nan important personage in French Kalendars; and he appears as far north\nas the Kalendars of Scandinavia. He never obtained a place in any of\nthe leading \u2018uses\u2019 of England. On the other hand, at an earlier date\ncontinental influences on ecclesiastical affairs (not unknown before the\nConquest) became potent when Norman churchmen poured into this country\nafter A.D. 1066, and obtained places of the highest dignity. It is thus\nprobably that St Batildis, wife of Clovis II (Jan. 30), St Sulpicius,\nbishop of Bourges (Jan. 17), St Medard, bishop of Noyon, with St Gildard,\nbishop of Rouen (June 8), and St Andoen, another bishop of Rouen (Aug.\n24), obtained days in our English Kalendars. All these are absent from\nthe Anglo-Saxon Kalendars printed by Hampson[134].\n\nAgain, occasionally a Church Kalendar exhibits features which may\nbe attributed to merely accidental circumstances. Relics of some\nsaint belonging to another and distant region may happen to have\nbeen presented to some church; and thereupon his name is inserted\nin its Kalendars. It is thus, with much probability, that Mr Warren\naccounts for the appearance of the names of one northern bishop and\ntwo northern abbots\u2014Aidan, bishop of Lindisfarne,\u2014Benedict, first\nabbot, and Ceolfrith, second abbot of Wearmouth\u2014in the Kalendar of the\nLeofric Missal. In William of Malmesbury, we read that in A.D. 703\nrelics of these saints were brought to Glastonbury. And in the case of\ntwo of these, Aidan (Aug. 31) and Ceolfrith (Sept. 25), the Leofric\nKalendar adds to each name the word, \u2018in Glaestonia.\u2019 Other evidence\nmakes it all but certain that Glastonbury and its history affected the\nLeofric Kalendar. At Cologne, which claims to possess the heads of the\nThree Kings, one cannot wonder that their Translation (July 23) is a\n\u2018summum festum.\u2019 In the Kalendars of the Orthodox Church of the East\nthe deposition of relics is frequently the occasion of the annual\ncommemoration of the event, and the insertion of a festival in the\nMenology. In all countries translations of the bodies of saints are found\nentered; and when the dates of such translations are known from history,\nwe are at once enabled to say of any particular manuscript service-book\nthat the Kalendar, in which some particular translation is marked _prima\nmanu_, was written after the known date. On the other side, when we find\nany important festival absent, or, as is frequently the case, inserted in\na later handwriting, the strong presumption is raised that the original\nKalendar belongs to a time before the establishment of the festival.\nThus, the absence of the Conception of St Mary (Dec. 8) from a Kalendar\nsuggests that it is earlier than the last quarter of the eleventh\ncentury; while the appearance of Corpus Christi goes to determine a\nKalendar to be later than A.D. 1260.\n\nFrom what has been said, it will seen that, even apart from the style\nof the handwriting, the formation of the various letters, the manner of\npunctuation, and other palaeographical indications, the mere contents of\na Kalendar will often help the student to make a good conjecture as to\nboth the place of the origin of a manuscript and the time when it was\npenned.\n\n[Illustration: Kalendar of Durham Psalter (September)\n\nJesus College, Cambridge (MS. Q. B. 6). Cent. xii.]\n\nAs regards the particular Church for the use of which any Kalendar was\nintended, attention should be directed not only to the appearance of\ncertain festivals, but to the rank and dignity of the festivals, which\nare often indicated by some such notes as \u2018principal,\u2019 \u2018of ix Lessons,\u2019\n\u2018of iii Lessons,\u2019 \u2018greater double,\u2019 \u2018lesser double,\u2019 or some other term\nof classification[135]. Classification in continental Kalendars is often\notherwise expressed[136]. In the Kalendar of the Missal of Westminster\nAbbey the dignity of the greater festivals is marked by indicating the\nnumber of copes (varying from two to eight) which were to be used, as\nhas been thought, by the monks who sang the Invitatory to _Venite_ at\nMattins. No one will be surprised to learn that at Westminster the Feast\nof St Edward the Confessor (Jan. 5), and his Translation (Oct. 13) are\nmarked \u2018viii cape,\u2019 a dignity which is reached only in the cases of St\nPeter and St Paul, the Assumption, All Saints, and Christmas: while in\nthe Sarum Kalendar St Edward is marked on Jan. 5 only by a \u2018memory,\u2019\nand his Translation is but a \u2018lower double.\u2019 At Holyrood Abbey, near\nEdinburgh, Holy Cross Day was naturally one of the greatest festivals\nof the year, while in the Aberdeen Breviary the Invention of the Cross\nand the Exaltation were both \u2018lesser doubles.\u2019 At Hereford, Thomas of\nHereford (Oct. 2) was a \u2018principal feast,\u2019 and so was his Translation\n(Oct. 25); neither day appears in the Sarum Kalendar. The Translation\nof the Three Kings, already referred to, which is a \u2018summum festum\u2019 at\nCologne, is all but unknown elsewhere. These examples will suffice for\nour purpose.\n\nIt remains to notice entries of other kinds not uncommon in mediaeval\nKalendars. There are notices of what I may call an antiquarian kind,\nwhich did not at all, or but seldom, affect the service of the day,\nbut which are not without an interest of their own. Thus, such entries\nas the following are not uncommon. \u2018The first day of the world\u2019 (March\n18); \u2018Adam was created\u2019 (March 23); \u2018Noah entered the ark\u2019 (March 17);\n\u2018The Resurrection of the Lord\u2019 (March 27), by which is meant that the\nactual resurrection of the Saviour took place on this day of the month,\nin the year in which the Lord was crucified. This assigned date is of\ngreat antiquity. We find it in Tertullian (_adv. Judaeos_ c. 8); and\nlater it was accepted by Hippolytus and Augustine, and it is frequent\nin the Kalendars of the early mediaeval period. In the Sarum Kalendar\nit is marked as a principal feast of three lessons, but there is no\nservice answering to the day in the Breviary. We find \u2018Noah comes forth\nfrom the ark\u2019 (April 29); \u2018The devil departs from the Lord\u2019 (Feb. 15);\n\u2018The Ascension of the Lord\u2019 (May 5); this last mentioned day is plainly\na corollary to the date assigned to the Resurrection, but it is not so\nfrequently inserted in the Kalendars.\n\nWe may pass without comment entries of astronomical interest, such as\n\u2018Sol in aquario,\u2019 \u2018Sol in piscibus,\u2019 and such like; the solstices and the\nequinoxes; the days when the four seasons began; and such weather-notes\nas the dates when the dog-days (_dies caniculares_) began and ended.\nIt will be observed that there was at least ancient precedent for what\ngave offence to Bishop Wren when he wrote of the Kalendar of the Book of\nCommon Prayer, \u2018Out with the dog-days from among the Saints.\u2019\n\nSome of the features just noticed continued to make their appearance in\nvarious English Kalendars after the Reformation. The Kalendar, indeed,\nof the Prayer Book of 1549 looks to our eyes singularly bare, with no\ndays marked other than what we call the red-letter festivals. In 1552,\nthe \u2018dog-days\u2019 reappear, and also the astronomical notes as to dates of\nthe sun\u2019s entrance into the various signs of the zodiac. To these are\nadded, for reasons of practical convenience, the Term days. The Prayer\nBook of 1559 adds further the hours of the rising and setting of the sun\nat the beginning of each month. In the Primer of Edward VI (1553) the\nnames of a very large number of the old Saints\u2019 Days are introduced, and\nthe convenient reminder of \u2018Fish\u2019 is placed at the days preceding the\nPurification, St Matthias, the Annunciation, St John Baptist, St Peter,\nSt James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, St Simon and St Jude, All Saints,\nSt Andrew, St Thomas, and Christmas. This Kalendar also, after the manner\nof many mediaeval Kalendars, marks the first possible day for Easter,\nand \u2018first of the Ascension,\u2019 \u2018uttermost Ascension,\u2019 \u2018first Pentecost,\u2019\n\u2018uttermost Pentecost.\u2019 In some of the unauthorised books of devotion\nissued in Elizabeth\u2019s reign we find some of the dates inferred rightly\nor wrongly from the Scripture history, which had long before appeared\nin mediaeval Kalendars, such as days connected with Noah\u2019s story, the\nPassion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Lord; and to these many other\ndays of historical interest are added[137].\n\nIn many of the mediaeval Kalendars we find entered at Jan. 28, March 11,\nand April 15, respectively, the words \u2018Claves Quadragesimae,\u2019 \u2018Claves\nPaschae,\u2019 and \u2018Claves Rogationum.\u2019 The number of days to be counted\nfrom each of these dates to the beginning of Lent, to Easter, and to\nthe Rogation Days, varying according to the place which any given year\noccupies in the Cycle of Golden Numbers, may be found with the help of a\ntable prefixed to the Kalendar. It should be noted that the \u2018terminus\u2019 of\nthe key never falls on the day of the fast or festival sought, and if the\nterminus of the key for Easter falls on a Sunday, Easter is the following\nSunday.\n\nSeveral of the old Kalendars exhibit the days on which \u2018the months of\nthe Egyptians\u2019 and \u2018the months of the Greeks\u2019 begin, with the names of\nthese several months. In some early English Kalendars the Saxon names\nof the months are also inserted. This feature may have been of use to\nhistorical students, but having no bearing on ecclesiastical life in the\nWest it is passed over here without further notice.\n\nFor a similar reason we do not describe the verses frequently inserted\nat the various months, with advice as to agricultural operations,\nblood-letting, rules of health, and the unlucky, or Egyptian days.\n\n Occasionally attached to early Kalendars and Martyrologies is\n to be found the Horologium or Shadow-clock\u2014a set of rules for\n determining, in a rough way, the hour of the day by measuring\n one\u2019s own shadow on the ground[138].\n\nThe modern Roman Martyrology was preceded towards the close of the\nfifteenth century and in the sixteenth century by several attempts to\nprovide what was thought to be a more serviceable work than that of\nUsuard. Among the more remarkable of these are the Martyrology of the\nItalian mathematician Francesco Maurolico, and that of Pietro Galesini,\npublished first at Milan in the year 1577. The latter work had the\neffect of making manifest that there was need for the correction of the\nRoman Martyrology. Gregory XIII appointed a commission to deal with the\nsubject. The result of the labours of the commission was printed in 1584.\nFurther corrections were made by Cardinal Baronius; and the work as\nrevised by him is in substance the modern Roman Martyrology[139].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nEASTER AND THE MOVEABLE COMMEMORATIONS\n\n\nI. _Paschal Controversies prior to the Council of Nicaea._\n\nThe commemoration of the Pascha is the first annual Christian solemnity\nwith which history makes us acquainted. And it will be well that the\nstudent should bear in mind that the term \u2018Pascha\u2019 was used in early\ntimes to signify, more particularly, not Easter (for which it was used\nin later times), but the day of the Lord\u2019s Crucifixion, more commonly\nwithout, and sometimes together with, the succeeding two days, including\nthe day of the Resurrection. But most commonly the word is employed in\nthe earlier literature of the subject to signify the commemoration of the\nday of the Crucifixion, which was generally held to have corresponded in\nthe history of the Passion to the day upon which the Paschal lamb was\nsacrificed in the Jewish ritual[140].\n\nIt is scarcely possible to conceive that, even if the Christian religion\nhad taken its rise in circumstances altogether dissimilar from those\namid which as a matter of history it actually emerged, there would have\nbeen no commemoration of such great events as the death and rising again\nof its Founder. But the first disciples of Christ being Hebrews, and\ntheir converts at first being also in a large measure Hebrews, it was\ninevitable that the great Hebrew festival of the Passover should take\nto itself a new colouring and a new significance in Christian thought.\nThus we find St Paul speaking of Christ as \u2018our Pascha\u2019 (_i.e._ Paschal\nvictim), which \u2018hath been sacrificed for us\u2019 (1 Cor. v. 7). And he\nadds, \u2018therefore let us keep the feast (_or_ keep festival) not with\nthe old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but\nwith the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\u2019 It would indeed\nbe unwarrantable to infer from this passage that a Christian Pascha\nwas actually observed as a festival at the time when St Paul wrote\nto the Corinthians. But it is obvious that the passage is steeped\nin reminiscences of the Hebrew festival, and that these are already\nreceiving a new complexion and a new meaning.\n\nThe observance of the Christian Pascha first comes into marked prominence\nabout the middle of the second century. At that date it was everywhere\na recognised institution of the Church; but there were differences\nbetween the Churches of proconsular Asia (the Asia of the seven Churches\nof the Apocalypse) and the Church at Rome and in other places, as to\nthe particular day upon which the commemoration should be observed. The\nevidence with regard to the early stages of the dispute is scanty. Such\ndetails as we possess are not free from obscurity and have been variously\ninterpreted.\n\nIn a work like the present volume we can do no more than lay before\nthe student the results which seem to us to have the greater weight of\nprobability in their favour.\n\nThe Asiatics, it would seem, began to celebrate the festival of the\nPascha on the fourteenth day of the moon of the Hebrew month Nisan, the\nday upon which the Jews put away all leaven from their houses and slew\nthe lamb of the Passover. On the whole, the evidence seems to make for\nthe Asiatic Christians terminating the preceding fast on the evening\nof that day, and on the same evening celebrating the Paschal feast\nconsisting of the Eucharist, accompanied, perhaps, by the Agape. It was\non the fourteenth Nisan, according to the prevailing Asiatic belief,\nthat the Lord suffered death upon the cross, and in His sacrifice became\nthe true representative of the Paschal lamb which had been his antitype.\nForeign as it must be to us with our habits of thought to conceive of\na festival being kept on the day of the Crucifixion (that is, on the\nevening which was regarded as the beginning of the following day), we\nmust suppose that the realisation of the blessings of the redemption\npurchased by the Saviour\u2019s blood _overtoned_ (to borrow a term from the\nart of music) the imaginative presentment of the historical sufferings of\nthe Cross. Our own English term, \u2018Good Friday,\u2019 seems to have originated\nwith a similar way of regarding the facts[141].\n\nFrom what has been said, it will be apparent that, as the fourteenth day\nof the moon might fall upon any day in the week, the commemoration of the\nResurrection, three days later, might also fall upon any day of the week.\nAt Rome, and in various other places, the festival of the Resurrection\nwas always observed on a Sunday, because it was on the first day of the\nweek that the Saviour rose from the dead. The Asiatics laid stress on\nthe day of the _month_\u2014the lunar month\u2014on which the Saviour suffered:\nthe Roman Church insisted that the sixth day of the _week_, Friday, was\nthe proper day for commemorating the Crucifixion, and that the following\nSunday should be kept as the feast of the Resurrection. Those who\nmade the fourteenth day of the moon to be necessarily the day for the\ncelebration of the Pascha were known as \u2018Quartodecimans[142].\u2019\n\nThe dispute was further complicated by the difference with regard to the\nobservance of the fast. The Asiatics terminated their fast on the evening\nof the day of the Crucifixion. The Romans continued it till the morning\nof the day of the Resurrection.\n\nThe Asiatics claimed St John and St Philip, the Apostles, as the\noriginators of the usage which they followed; and at the close of the\nsecond century they were able to recite a long list of holy bishops and\nmartyrs who had never deviated from the practice of their Churches.\n\nIt was some time about the middle of the second century that St\nPolycarp, bishop of Smyrna, the personal disciple of St John, visited\nRome, and conferred with Anicetus, the bishop of that city, on this and\nother subjects. On the Paschal question neither bishop was convinced\nby the other; but it was agreed that on such a matter it was not\nessential that there should be uniformity. The discussion was carried\non with moderation, the two bishops received the Eucharist together,\nand Anicetus, \u2018out of reverence\u2019 for Polycarp permitted him to act as\ncelebrant in his church[143].\n\nThe subject of the proper time for observing the Christian Pascha\ncontinued to excite discussion; and between A.D. 164 and 166, on\nthe occasion of disputes at Laodicea, a defence of the practice of\nproconsular Asia came from the pen of one of the bishops of that region,\nMelito, bishop of Sardis. Unfortunately no remains of the work of Melito\nsurvive of such a kind as would help us to understand the writer\u2019s\nargument, or to clear the difficulties which surround the attempt to form\na well assured picture of the practice of his part of the Christian\nworld. It has indeed been conjectured that the work of Melito was\ndirected mainly against certain sectaries, perhaps Ebionites, who on\nthe fourteenth day of Nisan feasted after the manner of the Jews upon\na paschal lamb. This practice was so distinctly Judaistic, that it was\nrejected everywhere by the orthodox.\n\nOf vastly more importance and significance, as affecting the whole\nChurch, were incidents which occurred towards the close of the century.\nVictor, bishop of Rome, successor next but one to Anicetus, was a man\nof different temper; or, at all events, he attached a much higher\nimportance to uniformity as to the time of observing Easter. Interest\nin the question was roused in various quarters. Councils of bishops (at\nthe instance of Victor) discussed it in Gaul, in Greece, in Palestine,\nin Pontus, and as far east as Osrhoene beyond the Euphrates. By this\ntime it was found that what, for convenience, we may style the Western\npractice was also largely followed in the East. The churches, however, of\nproconsular Asia still maintained their old position. A letter written by\nPolycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor on their behalf is preserved by\nEusebius[144].\n\nVictor, departing from the moderate policy of his predecessor Anicetus,\nthought the time had come for dealing more drastically with his opponents\non the Paschal question, and sought to cut them off from the communion of\nthe Catholic Church[145]. Victor\u2019s attitude called forth remonstrances\nfrom various quarters, and was the occasion of a remarkable letter\nwritten by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in the name of the brethren in\nGaul, over whom he presided. He declares that the mystery of the Lord\u2019s\nResurrection should indeed be celebrated only on a Sunday, yet he\nstrongly urges the impropriety of Victor\u2019s cutting off \u2018whole Churches\nof God\u2019 because of differences on such a matter. He then adds that the\ncontroversy was not only on the question as to the day on which Easter\nshould be celebrated, but also on the length and manner of the preceding\nfast, varieties as to which he recounts (see p. 79); and he goes on\nto remind Victor that bishops of Rome in former times, while strictly\npreserving their own usages, did not break the peace of the Church by\nexcommunications directed against those who followed other ways[146].\nLetters of similar purport were addressed by Irenaeus to various other\nbishops. The result of this intervention was that the Asiatic Churches\nwere for the time left undisturbed in the practice of their traditional\nusages. How soon the Asiatic Churches fell into line with the majority is\nnot apparent. But it seems evident that the change had taken place before\nthe Council of Nicaea.\n\nWe have seen that in the attempts to commemorate on the proper days the\ndeath and resurrection of the Lord, the Asiatics thought most of the\n_day of the month_, and the Westerns and those who concurred with them\nthought most of the _day of the week_. But the latter party had obviously\nto make some attempt to lay down a rule which would at least approximate\nthe date of their Pascha to the time of the year when the Lord suffered.\nThe vernal equinox was taken by them, and by the Church of Alexandria,\nas the fixed point to which the date of Easter should bear some settled\nrelation.\n\nIt is perhaps impossible to determine with precision when the rule came\nto be generally accepted that the full moon, which was to regulate the\ndate of Easter, was the first full moon _after_ the vernal equinox. We\nfind that this is the rule which governs the Paschal Tables of Hippolytus\n(of which more will be said hereafter), and we find it expressly enjoined\nin that ancient collection of Church law which goes under the name of\nthe Apostolic Canons. The Tables of Hippolytus can, with reasonable\ncertainty, be assigned to A.D. 222. In the Apostolic Constitutions, the\ndate of which it is impossible to determine with any close approach to\ncertainty[147], the rule runs, \u2018Observe the days of the Pascha with all\ncare after the vernal equinox, that ye keep not the memorial of the one\npassion twice in a year. Keep it once only in a year for Him who died\nbut once[148].\u2019 The mystical reason assigned here also appears in the\nletter of the Emperor Constantine, announcing the decision to which the\nNicene Council came upon the Paschal question[149]. Later on the reader\nwill find what is probably meant by keeping the Pascha twice in the same\nyear[150].\n\nIt would not perhaps be fitting to pass over in silence the attempt\nmade in the early part of the third century by the Roman ecclesiastic,\nHippolytus, to construct a cycle which would make it possible to predict\nthe day on which Easter would fall in any future year.\n\nAs to who this Hippolytus was, Eusebius and subsequent students among\nthe Fathers appear to have known scarcely anything. Eusebius speaks of\nthe many writings of Hippolytus, and gives the titles of some of them,\nand describes one more particularly. This was a treatise _Concerning the\nPascha_, in which was to be found a certain sixteen-year rule (canon)\nabout the Pascha, the boundary of the writer\u2019s computation being the\nfirst year of the Emperor Alexander[151], _i.e._ Alexander Severus, whose\nfirst year was A.D. 222.\n\nThe brief statement of Eusebius, dull and prosaic in itself, acquired\nsuddenly a new and extraordinary interest in the year 1551, when during\nsome excavations made in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the Via Tiburtina\n(the road to Tivoli), a much shattered statue was unearthed, which on\nbeing pieced together exhibited, on the sides of the chair in which\nthe figure of a venerable looking man was represented as seated, two\nelaborate numerical tables, in Greek characters, one showing the day of\nthe month on which the Pascha, or fourteenth day of the moon, would\nfall from A.D. 222 to A.D. 333: the other showing, for the same number\nof years, the day of the month upon which Easter ought to be kept. The\nstatue, as restored, may now be seen in the Museum of the Vatican.\nThe Tables are constructed in seven columns of sixteen years each. On\nthe back of the chair were inscribed in Greek the titles of various\nbooks, many of which corresponded with the titles of works attributed\nto Hippolytus by Eusebius. There could be no reasonable doubt that the\nstatue was the statue of Hippolytus, and that the Tables represented his\ncalculations as to the time for keeping Easter.\n\nA further confirmation of the correctness of this inference (though\nconfirmation was indeed scarcely needed) emerged when a Syriac version\nof the Cycle of Hippolytus was discovered in a chronological treatise by\nElias of Nisibis[152]. It corresponds exactly with the Tables inscribed\non the chair.\n\nAn examination of the Tables of Hippolytus reveals that he assumed \u2018that\nafter eight years the full moons returned to the same day of the solar\nmonth; and he took notice that after sixteen years the days of the week\nmoved one backward; that is to say, the full moon in the first year\nof the cycle being Saturday, April 13, after sixteen years it would\nbe Friday, April 13, and so on[153].\u2019 But for the purposes of what he\nsupposed would be a perpetual Kalendar, Hippolytus desired to ascertain\nafter what interval the full moon would fall not only on the same day of\nthe solar month, but on the same day of the week. He assumed that this\nwould happen after seven cycles of sixteen years.\n\nWe can also infer that Hippolytus probably placed the vernal equinox on\nMarch 18, for every full moon entered in his Tables is placed either on\n(as in the case of A.D. 235) or after that date.\n\nAgain, the examination of his Tables reveals what may seem to us the\nsomewhat arbitrary regulation that if the full moon fell upon Saturday\nthe Feast of the Resurrection should not be kept on the following day,\nbut on Sunday a week later. The explanation probably is that it was\nconsidered that Easter should never be held earlier than the sixteenth\nday of the moon, that is, two days after the day of the Crucifixion.\nIf the full moon fell upon Friday, then the following Sunday would\nbe Easter; but if the full moon fell upon Saturday, the day of the\nCrucifixion was taken to be the following Friday, and Easter would be two\ndays after.\n\nNo Easter cycle yet devised is free from errors, which have to be met\nby adjustments; but the Cycle of Hippolytus was such that the errors\naccumulated rapidly. It was more than two days wrong at the end of the\nfirst sixteen years; and five days wrong at the end of the second cycle;\nat the end of the third cycle it would be nine days wrong[154]. This\nmust have been soon discovered; and the cycle had to be discarded. It is\nthe earliest Easter cycle known to us.\n\nA cycle on the same lines as that of Hippolytus, which has been (probably\nincorrectly) attributed to St Cyprian, will be found in Fell\u2019s edition\nof Cyprian (1682), among the works commonly assigned to that writer. By\nwhomsoever it was composed it is ushered in with a great flourish of\ntrumpets, and the author feels sure that he has been led by nothing short\nof divine inspiration to the discovery. These Tables can be assigned to\nA.D. 243. One cannot but suspect that the author had got hold of the\nHippolytean Tables before their worthlessness was discovered.\n\nSuch seem to have been the best efforts of the learning of Western\nChristendom in the third century to deal with the Paschal problem. Nor\nat this period was the Church of Alexandria, which at a later date\nbecame the paramount authority on such questions, any better equipped.\nDionysius, about the middle of the third century, justly styled by\nEusebius \u2018the great bishop of Alexandria,\u2019 made use of the eight-year\ncycle, which, like its variant, the sixteen-year cycle, gathered error\nrapidly.\n\nIt was, however, another distinguished Alexandrian, more than a quarter\nof a century later, who was the first, so far as we know, to make use\nof the old nineteen-year cycle for the determination of Easter. This\nwas Anatolius, a native of Alexandria, and eminent for learning of\nvarious kinds (among which arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy are\nparticularised), who became bishop of Laodicea in Syria Prima in A.D.\n270. The nineteen-year cycle, with some modifications, eventually, though\nslowly, displaced all rivals[155].\n\n\nII. _The Council of Nicaea and the Easter Controversy._\n\nWe may pass on now to the consideration of the determinations on this\nquestion arrived at by the Council of Nicaea.\n\nThe varieties of usage as to the dates of keeping the Pascha had\ndisturbed the mind of Constantine before he issued his invitations to the\nbishops of the empire to attend the Council. His trusted adviser, Hosius,\nbishop of Corduba, had been sent by him to the East in the hopes that by\nhis arguments and persuasion the followers of the Eastern practice might\nbe induced to yield. But the mission was ineffective, and the matter was\nsubmitted to the great Council in A.D. 325. We have no record of any of\nthe proceedings connected with the matter beyond what is to be found in\na Synodical Letter of the Council, and a circular letter of the Emperor.\nWe cannot help feeling some surprise that the Council did not enact any\ncanon on the subject; but it was probably believed that the adoption of\na rigid canon, with an attendant anathema, might have produced a formal\nschism, while a statement of the opinion of the Council could scarcely\nfail to be highly influential in eventually securing uniformity. The\nletter of the Council, preserved by Socrates[156], is addressed to the\nChurch of Alexandria and the brethren in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. It\nsimply announces \u2018the good news\u2019 that, in accordance with the desire of\nthose to whom the letter was addressed, the question had been elucidated\nby the Council, and that all the brethren of the East, who had formerly\ncelebrated the Pascha \u2018with the Jews,\u2019 will henceforth keep it \u2018at the\nsame time as the Romans, and ourselves, and all those who from ancient\ntimes celebrated the day at the same time with us[157].\u2019\n\nThe Emperor is more full. He says that it was thought by all that it\nwould be fitting that the Pascha should be kept on one day by all; that\nit was declared to be particularly unworthy to follow the custom of the\nJews who had soiled their hands with the most dreadful of crimes, and\nwho are blinded with error, so that they even frequently celebrate two\nPaschas in one year. \u2018Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our\ndeliverance, that is to say, of his holy passion; and he has willed that\nhis Catholic Church should be one.\u2019 How unseemly is it that some should\nbe fasting while others are seated at the banquet! He hopes that every\none will agree in this. It had been resolved that the Pascha should be\nkept everywhere on one and the same day[158].\n\nThere is nothing in these letters to show what rule had been established.\nAll that is laid down is that the Pascha should be kept everywhere on\nthe same day; and it assumed that the Roman and Alexandrian rules as to\nEaster were identical, and were well known. As a matter of fact, while\nthe Churches of Rome and Alexandria were at one both in keeping Easter on\na Sunday, and on a Sunday after the vernal equinox, they were not agreed\nin their methods of calculating the Sunday upon which Easter would fall.\nHence, long after the Council of Nicaea, several instances occur in which\na day was taken for the Easter festival at Rome which differed from the\nday which the Alexandrian experts had calculated to be the correct day.\n\nIt is worthy of observation that the Emperor in his letter reprobates\nwhat he assumes was the Jewish practice of frequently celebrating two\nPaschas in the same year. What is probably meant is that the Jews at that\ntime (whatever their earlier practice may have been) did not think it\nnecessary to keep the Passover _after_ the vernal equinox. Now the vernal\nequinox was taken as the beginning of the tropical or solar year; and it\nmight happen from time to time that the full moon of Nisan fell in one\nyear after the vernal equinox, and in the following civil year before\nthe equinox, which would give two passovers in the same solar year. If\nthis interpretation of the words of Constantine\u2019s letter be correct, it\nwould imply that the Christian Pascha should always be celebrated after\nthe equinox, which was certainly already the general practice. But no\nspecific rule with reference to the equinox is laid down in express terms\neither by the Fathers of the Council or by the Emperor.\n\nIt will be observed that in the Letter of Constantine he states that the\nLord has left us \u2018only one festal day of our deliverance, that is to\nsay, of his holy passion.\u2019 The dominant thought connected with the word\nPascha was still that of the Crucifixion. At a later period writers, for\nthe sake of accuracy, made the distinction between the \u2018Pascha of the\nCrucifixion\u2019 (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd) and the \u2018Pascha of the Resurrection\u2019\n(\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd); and eventually the thought of the Crucifixion\ndisappears from the connotation of the word, which has given the name for\nwhat we call Easter to the French (_p\u00e2ques_); the Italians (_pasqua_);\nand the Spaniards (_pascua_)[159].\n\nAfter the Council of Nicaea, although the Quartodeciman practice lingered\non among unorthodox sectaries, the differences among Catholics were in\nthe main confined to such questions as, When was the equinox? and What\nTables should be used for predicting the Sunday which should be observed\nas Easter Day? The Synod of Antioch in A.D. 341 (can. 1) could now\nmake bold to advance a step beyond the Oecumenical Council, and enacted\na canon pronouncing excommunication against any who acted contrary to\nthe command of the great and holy Synod assembled at Nicaea regarding\nthe Pascha[160]. In principle the Church was united; but there were\ndifferences in the application of the principle. In A.D. 444, and eleven\nyears later, in A.D. 455, Pope Leo the Great was in perplexity as to the\nday upon which Easter should be kept. In A.D. 444 he wrote to Cyril of\nAlexandria on the subject. The answer he received was that the proper\nday was not March 26 (as the Latins would make it) but April 23. In\nA.D. 455 Leo was much moved by finding that the Alexandrian computists\nhad given April 24 for Easter Day, while those at Rome had assigned\nthe festival to April 17, a week earlier. The matter seemed to him of\nsufficient importance to justify his writing to Marcianus, Emperor of the\nEast, whom he now besought to intervene, and direct the Alexandrians not\nto name April 24, declaring that so late a date was beyond the ancient\nPaschal limits. Leo also wrote on the same subject to the learned and\nonce beautiful Eudocia Augusta, who, though now spending her old age\nin retirement and devotion at Jerusalem, was not without influence in\nchurch affairs. The Emperor had enquiries made among certain bishops of\nthe East and communicated with the Alexandrians. The result was that\nthe observance of April 24 was reaffirmed, and the bishop of Rome\nreluctantly submitted for the sake of peace[161].\n\nThe account of the matter lies in the fact that while the Alexandrians\nhad long before adopted the Paschal limits that still continue to rule\nour Easter, that is, from March 22 to April 25, the Latins, though at\nthis date accepting the prior limit, hesitated as to the later, because\nthe Easter Tables then in use among them had placed the later Paschal\nlimit on April 23.\n\nThe position of authority conceded to the Church of Alexandria on the\nquestion as to the date of the Pascha was due to the acknowledged\nlearning and skill of the astronomers and mathematicians of that city in\nmatters of chronology and the computation of time. It was the practice of\nthe bishop of Alexandria, as early at least as the middle of the third\ncentury, to issue what were styled \u2018Festal Letters\u2019 or, at a later date,\n\u2018Paschal Letters,\u2019 commonly of the nature of a homily on the religious\nlessons of the Paschal season, with an announcement as to the date of the\nnext Pascha. These letters were commonly issued by the bishop a year in\nadvance, and were sent by special messengers to his comprovincial bishops.\n\nIt has been supposed by several ecclesiastical historians of repute that\nthe Council of Nicaea expressly authorised the bishop of Alexandria\nto issue these preparatory notices to the authorities in the various\nchurches of Christendom. The evidence for this opinion is lacking; but\ncertainly, as a matter of fact, the judgment of Alexandria carried great\nweight. In the West, however, the general practice was that Metropolitans\nshould determine the date, and announce the day to their suffragans. In\nthe sixth century the Council of Orleans (A.D. 541) directs that if the\nMetropolitan were in doubt he should consult the Apostolic see (Rome),\nand act in accordance with its decision (can. 1). About one hundred years\nlater it would appear from the fifth canon of the Council of Toledo (A.D.\n633) that the Spanish Metropolitan bishops did not receive information\nas to the date of Easter from any external source. They are directed to\nenquire among themselves by letter three months before the Epiphany, and\nmake the announcement; and the reason assigned for this canon is that\nerroneous Easter Tables had caused differences.\n\nTo attempt anything like a detailed account of the varieties in the\nmethods adopted for the determination of Easter which held their ground\nfor a time, some in the East, some in the West, would be unsuitable in\nan introductory work like the present. The extraordinary persistence\nexhibited by the Celtic Churches of Britain and Ireland in maintaining\nfor a long time their own method of computing Easter against the Roman\nmethod introduced by Augustine of Canterbury and his followers, is\nan important and interesting feature in the history of Christianity\nin these countries. It is enough here to say that the native Churches\nwere not Quartodecimans (as has sometimes been incorrectly alleged),\nbut were adhering to a cycle which they had received long before the\nRoman missionaries arrived in Britain[162]. We must here be content with\nbriefly noticing some of the leading features in the history of the\nchange which gradually led up to the adoption of the Nineteen-Year Cycle\nas modified and propounded by Dionysius Exiguus in the early part of the\nsixth century.\n\nAfter the abandonment of the Cycle of Hippolytus there is found in use\nat Rome an 84-year cycle. In this the date of Easter is believed to have\noscillated between March 25 and April 21; and between the fourteenth\nand twentieth day of the moon. This system, according to the results of\nrecent research, was modified in A.D. 312 and again in A.D. 343. This\ncycle (still of 84 years) came to be known as the _supputatio Romana_.\nEaster could not now fall earlier than the sixteenth, nor later than the\ntwenty-second of the moon, while its date limits were March 22 and April\n21. This _supputatio_, with some modifications, served the bishops of\nRome during the fourth and the greater part of the fifth century. The\nAlexandrians, on the other hand, had about A.D. 277 come to use the more\nexact Nineteen-Year cycle, with possible Easters between March 22 and\nApril 25, and between the fifteenth and twenty-second of the moon[163].\n\nIn the pontificate of Leo the Great the differences which he had with the\nChurch of Alexandria as to the date of Easter caused him to direct his\narchdeacon, Hilary (who afterwards succeeded to the papal throne), to\ninvestigate the whole question. Hilary resorted to the aid of Victorius\nof Aquitaine, who happened to be then at Rome. Victorius devised, or\nadopted, a cycle of 532 years, a combination of the lunar cycle of 19\nyears with the so-called solar cycle of 28 years (19 \u00d7 28 = 532). His\nEaster limits were March 22 and April 24.\n\nThe cycle of Victorius met with favourable acceptance, more particularly\nin Gaul, where it continued in use till nearly the end of the eighth\ncentury.\n\nAt Rome, whatever may have been the position actually attained by the\ncycle of Victorius, it and all other devices for determining Easter\ngave way in the sixth century (A.D. 527) before the Paschal Tables\nof Dionysius Exiguus. This remarkable person, who came to occupy an\neminent place in the science of chronology generally, as well as in\nthe computations necessary for ecclesiastical purposes, was a monk, a\nScythian by birth, who settled in a monastery at Rome. It is to him that\nwe owe in chronology the adoption by Western Christendom of what we know\nas the \u2018Christian Era\u2019 and \u2018the year of our Lord,\u2019 now in universal use\nfor the dating of the events of history, and of all our documents public\nand private.\n\nThe system of Dionysius was, practically, the adoption of the\nNineteen-Year Cycle of the Alexandrians. It fixed the date of the vernal\nequinox at March 21, placed the Paschal limits at March 22 and April 25,\nand declared Easter to be the next Sunday after the Paschal full moon. We\nhave here in full the rule which eventually came to prevail everywhere.\nBut its adoption was not immediate in all countries[164].\n\nThe space at our disposal will not allow of our treating in detail of\nthe work of the computists, and of the \u2018Sunday Letters,\u2019 \u2018Epacts,\u2019 and\nother technical terms which appear in the old Church Kalendars. For\nthese, as well as for such terms as \u2018Indiction,\u2019 \u2018Lunar Regulars,\u2019 \u2018Solar\nRegulars,\u2019 and \u2018Concurrents,\u2019 reference may be made to such books as Sir\nHarris Nicholas\u2019 _Chronology of History_, and Giry\u2019s fuller and lucid\n_Manuel de Diplomatique_.\n\n\n_The Gregorian Reform._\n\nThe defects of the Nineteen-Year Cycle became apparent after some lapse\nof time. There were two grave sources of error. First, the Kalendar\nproceeded on the assumption that the solar year consisted of 365\u00bc days;\nbut the true solar year is 11 minutes and some seconds shorter than the\nKalendar year, and the accumulation of this error gradually brought\nconfusion into the system. In one hundred and thirty years the Kalendar\nwill have gained on the true solar year by almost exactly one day. At the\ndate of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) the vernal equinox was placed at\nMarch 21, but in the year A.D. 450 the true vernal equinox would be on\nMarch 20. In A.D. 585 the equinox would be on March 19; in A.D. 715 on\nMarch 18, and so on. And thus it will be seen that in A.D. 1582, when the\nKalendar was reformed, the real vernal equinox was about ten days earlier\nthan the March 21 of the Kalendar.\n\nThe second source of error lay in the assumption that at the close of a\ncycle of nineteen years there was an exact agreement of solar and lunar\ntime. Nineteen solar years, of 365\u00bc days, make 6939 days and 18 hours;\nbut 235 moons of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 seconds and a\nfraction make 6939 days, 16 hours, and a fraction over 31 minutes. So it\ncomes about that the solar time in nineteen years is nearly 1\u00bd hours in\nexcess of the real lunar time. In other words, the moons in the second\ncycle of nineteen years make their changes nearly 1\u00bd hours earlier than\nthey did in the first cycle. It is easy then to show that in about 308\nyears this difference would amount to a whole day; and in A.D. 1582,\nwhen the Gregorian reform was effected, the moon in the heavens made its\nchanges nearly four days before the time which was indicated for these\nchanges in the Kalendar.\n\nWe must omit any notice of the various schemes for reforming the Kalendar\nprior to the reformation of Gregory XIII. After he had consented to the\ngeneral idea that a reformation should be undertaken, various schemes\nwere proposed. Of these, that of Luigi Lilio, a physician and astronomer\nof the city of Rome, obtained the preference[165]. And it is on the lines\nsuggested by Lilio that the work was accomplished, mainly by a German\nmathematician then resident at Rome, the Jesuit, Christopher Schl\u00fcssel\n(or, in the Latin form of his name, Clavius), who afterwards published at\nRome, in folio, an exposition of the work done, under the title _Romani\nCalendarii a Gregorio XIII Pontifice Maximo restituti Explicatio_ (1603).\n\n\nLEADING FEATURES OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM\n\nThe Gregorian Reform is an ingenious and, indeed, brilliant practical\nsolution of the problems presented by the condition of the Kalendar at\nthe close of the sixteenth century. The characteristic features of the\nGregorian system will now be described.\n\n1. It was known that the true vernal equinox was at this date (1582)\nabout ten days earlier than March 21 as marked in the Kalendar. Should\nthe equinox be fixed as at March 11? It was resolved to keep the equinox\nat the nominal date of March 21, and to bring the date into conformity\nwith facts by the simple process of striking out ten nominal days. It\nwas decreed that the day following Oct. 4, 1582 (when what is known as\nthe New Style was to make its beginning), should be counted, not as Oct.\n5, but as Oct. 15. And thus in the following year, 1583, the true vernal\nequinox would fall on March 21, as it was supposed to have fallen in A.D.\n325, the date of the Council of Nicaea.\n\n2. But how was it to be provided that in the future the same errors which\nhad vitiated the old Kalendar should not come in time to vitiate the new?\n\nIt will be remembered that the time of the old Kalendar had gained on\ntrue solar time at the rate, almost precisely, of one day in every 130\nyears. If the counting of one day could be suppressed in every 130 years,\nthe end would be obtained. For purposes of practical convenience the\nreformers of the Kalendar assumed that 133 years should be taken as the\nperiod in which the Kalendar time exceeded the solar time by one day.\nThe difference, for the purpose in hand, was insignificant; and, as\nwill be seen hereafter, this deliberately chosen error will not affect\nthe Kalendar to the extent of one day till A.D. 5200, while it makes\ncalculations much simpler.\n\nNow the plan adopted to prevent the accumulation of the error in the\nold Kalendar was as follows: if one day could be withdrawn in every 133\nyears, or, what is the same thing, three days in every 399 years, the\nobject would be attained.\n\nIn the Old Style, every year of an exact century\u2014every centurial (or,\nas it was sometimes called, secular) year\u2014was a leap-year of 366 days.\nWhat would be the effect of treating every centurial year as a common\nyear of 365 days? We should have suppressed four days at the end of\nfour centuries when we ought to suppress only three in 399 years. So\nit was suggested that while three successive centurial years should be\nregarded as common years, the fourth centurial year should be treated\nas a leap-year. Thus, in both Old and New Style the years 1600 and 2000\nare leap-years; but 1700, 1800, and 1900, which in the Old Style were\nleap-years, are in the New Style treated as common years of 365 days.\nAnd the rule laid down in the Gregorian system was that if the number\nexpressed by the first two figures of the century was exactly divisible\nby 4 it should be a leap-year, but if not exactly divisible by 4 it\nshould be treated as a common year. The numbers 16 and 20 are exactly\ndivisible by 4, but 17, 18, and 19 are not so divisible. The years 1600\nand 2000 are in the New Style leap-years, but the years 1700, 1800, and\n1900 are in the New Style common years.\n\nIt is true that the adoption of 133 years, instead of 130 years, as the\ntime in which in the Old Style one day was gained by the Kalendar on the\nsun, imports an error into the system, which causes the Kalendar to fall\nbehind the sun. This error, as has been said, will accumulate to the\nextent of one day in A.D. 5200. It may be thought that, if men be on the\nearth at that date, they will know how to deal with the case. Yet it is\nsuggested for the instruction of our remote posterity that they will have\nonly to make A.D. 5200 a common year, instead of a leap-year, to bring\nthings back to correctness[166].\n\nFor the Sunday letters in the New Style and for the Cycle of Epacts in\nthe Gregorian Kalendar, see Dr Seabury, _Theory and Use of the Church\nCalendar_.\n\nThe work of the Gregorian reformation is marvellous in its elaborate\ningenuity. It even provides for a case which will not occur till\nDec. 31, A.D. 8600. Yet it does not reach the attainment of an exact\ncorrespondence with astronomical phenomena. And it has been frequently\nobserved that the new moons of the Kalendar may occur one, two, or\neven three days _later_ than the new moons of the astronomer. In fact\nthe astronomical new moon rarely occurs on the date marked for the\necclesiastical new moon. But care has been taken that the new moon of the\nKalendar never occurs _earlier_ than the new moon of astronomy.\n\n\n_The adoption of the New Style._\n\nAs was to be expected, the countries of Europe which recognised\nthe authority of the bishop of Rome were not long in accepting the\nreformation of the Kalendar. Spain, Portugal, and part of Italy made\nthe change on the same day as at Rome, that is on Oct. 15 (5), 1582.\nIn France and Lorraine the change was made on December 20 (10) in the\nsame year; in the Roman Catholic cantons of Switzerland in 1583 or\n1584; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587. In Protestant countries\nand countries where Protestants were numerous the alteration was more\nslowly effected. But Denmark was an exception, for the New Style was\nadopted in 1582. In Holland and the Low Countries the provinces were\ndivided in their acceptance of the New Style, and in some places the\nchange was not effected till the year 1700. In Germany we also find a\nvariety of usages: Austria and Roman Catholics in other parts accepted\nthe change in 1584, but Protestants did not yield till 1700, when they\nadopted the Kalendar of the German astronomer, Erhard Weigel, which\ndiffered from the Gregorian Kalendar only in the rule for determining\nEaster. This variation brought about the result that the Protestants and\nRoman Catholics sometimes celebrated Easter on different days. In 1778\nFrederick the Great ordained that from that time Easter should be kept at\nthe time ascertained from the Gregorian Paschal moon. Weigel\u2019s Kalendar\nwas also adopted in the Protestant cantons of Switzerland in 1700. In\nRussia, Greece, and throughout the Christian East the Old Kalendar is\nstill in use[167].\n\nGreat Britain was the last of the countries of Western Europe to adopt\nthe New Style. It is true that as early as March 16, 1584-5, a bill was\nintroduced in the House of Lords under the title, \u2018An Act giving her\nMajesty [Queen Elizabeth] authority to alter and new make a Calendar\naccording to the Calendar used in other countries.\u2019 The bill was read a\nsecond time in the House of Lords, and proceeded no further.\n\nThrough an extraordinary blunder, it has been stated by writers of repute\nthat Scotland adopted the New Style in A.D. 1600. The error originated in\nthe fact that King James VI, with the advice of the Lords of his Privy\nCouncil, ordered by proclamation dated Haliruidhous, Dec. 17, 1599, that\non and after Jan. 1, 1600, the year should be held to begin on Jan. 1\ninstead of March 25: but there was no rectification of the Kalendar by\nthe omission of nominal days. In England the legal year continued to\nbegin on March 25 till 1752. The accession of James VI to the throne of\nEngland on the death of Elizabeth occurred on March 24, 1602, according\nto the English style, but on March 24, 1603, according to the Scottish\nstyle. In this and such like cases the double dates may be wisely\nemployed, thus, March 24, 1602-3. But Scotland did not use the New Style\ntill it was adopted in 1752, in accordance with the provision of the\nAct of Parliament of Great Britain (24 George II, c. 23), entitled \u2018An\nAct for regulating the commencement of the Year, and for correcting the\nCalendar now in use.\u2019\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE KALENDAR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE EAST\n\n\nThe modern Kalendar of the Byzantine Church is here dealt with. The early\nMenologies (which corresponded pretty closely to the Martyrologies of\nthe West) show the usual phenomena of comparative simplicity passing\ninto forms of great elaboration. The best known are the Menology of\nConstantinople of the eighth century and that which is known as the\n_Basilianum_, now most commonly associated with the Emperor Basil II\n(A.D. 976-1025), at whose instance it is said to have been composed[168].\n\nThe history of the growth and variations of the Kalendar of the Greeks\ncannot be here attempted; we confine ourselves to the Kalendar now in use.\n\n\nI. _Immoveable commemorations._\n\nThis Kalendar, or the Kalendar of Saints, begins on Sept. 1, the first\nday of the year of the Indiction. With us in the West the civil year\nhas left no mark upon the services of the Church. In the Greek Church in\nthe hymns the divine blessing is invoked on the new year; and two of the\nlessons at Vespers are chosen as bearing references applicable to the day.\n\nThe services of the Church have frequently several commemorations of\nvarious saints upon the same day; and this general statement may be\nillustrated from Sept. 1. In addition to the _propria_ of the new year,\nwe find commemorations of Simeon Stylites senior; his mother, St Martha;\nforty women martyrs with the Deacon Ammun; and a miraculous _icon_ of St\nMary. To these must be added a commemoration of the Old Testament worthy,\nJoshua, the son of Nun. This specimen will suffice to show that it would\nbe impossible in the space at our disposal to exhibit the commemorations\nof every day in the year[169]. We shall confine ourselves to exhibiting\nthe Greek classification of festivals, and marking the dates of some of\nthe more eminent commemorations. But it must be observed that days that\nare not regarded as festivals frequently contain canons (metrical hymns)\nwhich commemorate saints or martyrs. Indeed the offices of the Eastern\nservice-books are packed with an extraordinary abundance of hagiological\nreference and allusion.\n\nAs regards dignity and importance in the Greek Church, in addition to\nEaster, which stands pre-eminent and is known by way of distinction as\n\u2018the Feast\u2019 (\u1f21 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae), there are twelve festivals of the first rank, some\nof them being moveable. These are: (1) the Nativity of the Lord, Dec.\n25; (2) the Theophany (Epiphany), Jan. 6; (3) Hypapante (Purification),\nFeb. 2; (4) the Annunciation of the Theotokos, March 25; (5) the festival\nof Palms, which with the Sabbath of Lazarus on the preceding day makes\none festival; (6) the Ascension of the Lord; (7) Pentecost; (8) the\nTransfiguration, Aug. 6; (9) the Repose of Theotokos, Aug. 15; (10)\nthe Nativity of Theotokos, Sept. 8; (11) the Exaltation of the Cross,\nSept. 14; (12) the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple (_i.e._ her\npresentation), Nov. 21.\n\nEach of these is marked first by the day preceding (_proheortia_)\npartaking of a _festive_ character, and secondly, by having an echo of\nthe festival on certain following days, which are known as the _apodosis_\nof the feast; but the name is often applied to the final day of the\nobservance. The apodosis, unlike the Western Octave, is in some cases\nshorter than a week and in some cases longer. Thus, the apodosis of\nthe Nativity of the Virgin (Sept. 8) terminates on Sept. 12; while the\napodosis of the Theophany (Jan. 6) ordinarily extends to Jan. 14.\n\nNext in dignity are four festivals of high rank, though not having either\n_proheortia_ or _apodosis_. They are: (1) the Circumcision, Jan. 1;\n(2) the Nativity of the Forerunner (St John Baptist), June 24; (3) St\nPeter and St Paul, the Koryphaeoi, June 29; (4) the Decollation of the\nForerunner, Aug. 29.\n\nThe twelve of the first group and the four of the second may be taken as\ntogether corresponding in a measure to festivals of the first class in\nthe Roman classification.\n\nSimilarly corresponding to feasts of the second class in the West is\na group which is divided into greater and lesser. The greater feasts\nof this group are marked liturgically by the singing of a canon of the\nVirgin in addition to the canon proper to the feast. The lesser are\nmarked by the singing in the service of what is known as _Polyeleos_, a\nname given to Psalms cxxxiv, cxxxv (Pss. cxxxv, cxxxvi in the enumeration\nof the English Prayer Book).\n\nThe greater feasts of the middle class are: (1) the common festival of\nthe three Doctors of the Church [Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen],\nJan. 30; (2) St George, martyr, April 23; (3) St John the Evangelist, May\n8; (4) the Translation of the image of Christ, made without hands, from\nEdessa, Aug. 16; (5) the Migration of St John the Evangelist, Sept. 26.\nThis festival is based on the ancient legend that St John did not die,\nbut was translated; (6) St Sabbas, the Sanctified [Abbot of Palestine,\nwho died A.D. 531], Dec. 5; (7) St Nicholas of Myra, the wonder-worker,\nDec. 6.\n\nThe lesser feasts of the middle class include: (1) St Anthony, hermit,\nJan. 17; (2) the forty Martyrs [of Sebaste, under Licinius], March 9; (3)\nSt Constantine and St Helena, May 21; (4) St Cosmas and St Damian, the\nunmercenary physicians, July 1; (5) St Elias, the prophet, July 20; (6)\nSt Demetrius, Great Martyr [of Thessalonica, under Diocletian], Oct.\n26; (7) Synaxis of the Archangel, St Michael, Nov. 8; (8) St Andrew the\nApostle, Nov. 30.\n\nThere is a third class subdivided into (_a_) festivals with the great\ndoxology, and (_b_) festivals without the great doxology[170]. Festivals\nof the third class are very numerous, but they are festivals rather of\nthe service-books than of actual life, upon which they leave little or\nno impression. The number of festivals kept by the Greeks and observed\neither by a complete or a partial cessation from trade and servile labour\nfar surpasses the festivals so observed in any of the countries of\nWestern Christendom.\n\nThe Russian Kalendar corresponds largely to the Byzantine; but there are,\nas might be expected, not a few commemorations of persons, events, and of\nmiraculous _icons_, peculiar to Russia.\n\nA few explanatory observations may here be added: (1) The Eastern\nKalendars contrast in a striking way with the Western in the prominence\ngiven to commemorations of the saints and heroes of the Old Testament.\nAll the prophets and many of the righteous men of Hebrew history have\ntheir days. And the service-books contain a _common_ of Prophets as well\nas a _common_ of Apostles, etc.\n\n(2) Honorary epithets are freely bestowed upon the various saints without\nany very precise significance. Thus \u2018God-bearing\u2019 (_theophorus_), which\nis a natural epithet in the case of Ignatius, as being used of himself\nin his writings, is bestowed on various distinguished ascetics, as\nAnthony, Euthymius, Sabbas, Onuphrius.\n\n(3) The ground for the distinction between \u2018Martyrs\u2019 and \u2018Great Martyrs\u2019\nis not apparent. \u2018Hieromartyrs\u2019 are martyrs who were bishops or priests;\n\u2018Hosiomartyrs\u2019 are martyrs who were living as religious. Thekla, as well\nas Stephen, is \u2018Protomartyr.\u2019\n\n(4) The word \u2018Apostle\u2019 is not confined to the twelve. The seventy\ndisciples whom the Lord sent forth are the \u2018Seventy Apostles,\u2019 among\nwhom were reckoned many of the persons named in the salutations of St\nPaul\u2019s Epistles. And the word is also applied to certain companions or\nacquaintances of St Paul, as _e.g._ Ananias of Damascus, Agabus, Titus,\netc. \u2018Equal to the Apostles\u2019 (_Isapostolos_) is applied (_a_) to very\nearly saints, _e.g._ Abercius of Hierapolis, Mary Magdalene, Junia,\nThekla, etc.; and (_b_) to great princes who were distinguished for their\nservices to the Church, as Constantine and Helena.\n\n\u2018Wonder-worker\u2019 (_thaumaturgos_) is used of various saints famous for\ntheir miracles, as _e.g._ Charilampes (Feb. 10), Spiridion (Dec. 12),\nGregory, bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus (Nov. 17), the Saint Elizabeth\n(April 24), of uncertain date, who never washed her body with water, and\nothers.\n\nJohn, son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who with us is the Baptist, appears\nas the Precursor or Forerunner (_Prodromos_). He figures much in the\nservices of the Church: and several days are dedicated to his honour;\nhis Conception (Sept. 23), his Nativity (June 24), his Decollation (Aug.\n29) and the great feast known as his Synaxis (Jan. 7). In addition, the\nfirst and second finding of his head is commemorated on Feb. 24, and the\nthird finding of his head on May 25.\n\nSt Mary the Virgin is almost invariably the Theotokos, and Joachim and\nAnna are the Theopator and Theometor (Sept. 9).\n\nThe \u2018unmercenary\u2019 (_anarguroi_) saints are generally physicians who\ntook no fees, as Cosmas and Damian, Cyrus and his companion John, and\nPantaleon.\n\nThe term _Synaxis_ in such phrases as the Synaxis of the Archangel\nMichael (Nov. 8), the Synaxis of the Theotokos (Dec. 26), the Synaxis\nof the seventy Apostles (Jan. 4), the Synaxis of the Forerunner (Jan.\n7), the Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel (March 26), the Synaxis of the\ntwelve Apostles (June 30), is not easily rendered into English; and its\nprecise significance (as used in the Kalendar) is not obvious. It is\nsometimes used for a gathering or assembly of people; but more commonly\nit is employed to signify a Eucharistic Communion[171].\n\nIt is customary after the great feasts of our Lord and of the Virgin Mary\nto subjoin on the following day the commemoration of saints associated\nwith the event commemorated on the preceding day. Thus, the Epiphany\n(Theophany) in the Greek Church being chiefly concerned with the\nBaptism of Christ, we have on the following day (Jan. 7) the feast of\nSt John Baptist; after the Hypapante, or meeting with Simeon and Anna\nin the Temple (on Feb. 2, the day of the Purification of the Virgin, in\nthe West), we find (Feb. 3) Simeon and Anna the prophetess; after the\nNativity of the Lord, the synaxis of the Theotokos, Dec. 26; after the\nNativity of the Virgin (Sept. 8) we have on Sept. 9 Joachim and Anna,\nher parents; after the Annunciation (March 25) we have on March 26 the\nsynaxis of the Archangel Gabriel, who made the great announcement.\n\nIt remains to be added that, as in the Orthodox Church of the East\nWednesdays and Fridays are observed as strict fasts alike by the clergy,\nthe monks, and the laity, most of the important festivals carry with them\neither a partial dispensation (as in some cases for the use of oil and\nwine, and in others for the use of oil, wine, and fish) or a dispensation\nfor all kinds of food, when a festival falls on one of these fast days.\n\nWe now proceed to describe the annual cycle of Sundays.\n\n\nII. _The Dominical Kalendar of the Orthodox Church of the East._\n\nThe arrangement of the Sundays falls into two divisions, the first\nbeginning with the Sunday before our Western Septuagesima; and the\nsecond, immediately after our Trinity Sunday, which, with the Greeks,\nis called the Sunday of All Saints. In the following table, opposite\nthe names of the Sundays for the earlier part of the Dominical cycle,\nas given in the Greek service-books, are placed the names of the\ncorresponding Sundays in the West, as known to English churchmen.\n\n Publican and Pharisee Sunday before Septuagesima\n The Prodigal Son Septuagesima\n Apocreos Sexagesima\n Tyrinis, or Tyrophagus Quinquagesima\n First of the Fasts (or Orthodoxy) First Sunday in Lent\n Second of the Fasts Second Sunday in Lent\n Third of the Fasts (or Adoration of Third Sunday in Lent\n the Cross)\n Fourth of the Fasts Fourth Sunday in Lent\n Fifth of the Fasts Fifth Sunday in Lent\n Palms Sixth Sunday in Lent (Palm Sunday)\n Holy Pasch Easter\n Antipasch (or St Thomas) First Sunday after Easter\n Myrrh-bearers Second Sunday after Easter\n Paralytic Third Sunday after Easter\n Samaritan Woman Fourth Sunday after Easter\n Blind Man Fifth Sunday after Easter\n The Three hundred and eighteen[172] Sunday after Ascension-day\n Pentecost Whitsunday\n First after Pentecost (or All Saints) Trinity Sunday\n\nThe following Sundays are numbered the Second, Third, Fourth after\nPentecost, and so on, till we reach the Sunday of the Publican (the\nSunday before Septuagesima) in the following year. But while the numbers\nare continuous, special names are given to certain Sundays. Thus we find\nthe Sunday before and the Sunday after the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept.\n14); the Sundays before and after the Nativity; the Sundays before and\nafter the Lights (_i.e._ the Epiphany).\n\nAgain, we sometimes find the Sundays after Pentecost referred to as the\nFirst, Second, Third, etc., of Matthew; because the liturgical Gospel\non these Sundays, on to the Exaltation of the Cross, is taken from St\nMatthew. Similarly, after the Exaltation of the Cross and on to Apocreos\nthe liturgical Gospel for the Sundays is taken from St Luke, and the\nSundays are named First, Second, Third, etc., of Luke.\n\nIt is the subject-matter of the Gospel for the day which gives its\nname to the Sundays called the Publican, the Prodigal, St Thomas, the\nMyrrh-bearers (_i.e._ the women bringing spices to the tomb), etc.\n\nOn the Sunday of Orthodoxy (the first in Lent) some sixty anathemas\nagainst heresy of various kinds are recited, including several against\nthe Iconoclasts who were condemned at the second Council of Nicaea (A.D.\n787). Tyrinis (or Tyrophagus) and Apocreos are explained elsewhere[173].\n\nThe name \u2018Antipasch,\u2019 for the first Sunday after Easter (Low Sunday;\n_Dominica in Albis_), implies that it is \u2018over against\u2019 or \u2018answering to\u2019\nthe Pasch. On the Sunday of the Three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers\nof Nicaea a canon (or metrical hymn) in honour of the Council is sung.\n\nThe naming of the week in relation to the Sunday is peculiar, and does\nnot follow, as in the West, a consistent rule. In some cases, the week\n_preceding_ a Sunday is given its name: in other cases the week is called\nafter the Sunday with which it begins. And when the determination of\ndates is in view the student should be on the alert. Thus, the week of\nApocreos (the last week of flesh-eating) precedes the Sunday Apocreos;\nthe week of Tyrine (when cheese, butter and milk are allowed) precedes\nthe Sunday of that name; and the first week of the Lenten fast precedes\nthe Sunday that is the first in Lent. On the other hand, after Antipascha\nand on to the second Sunday after Pentecost the weeks are named from the\nSunday which they follow: while the naming the week from the Sunday which\nfollows is resumed at the latter date[174].\n\nThe period from the Sunday of the Publican to Easter Eve inclusive\nis sometimes called the time of the Triodion (\u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), because the\n_propria_ for that time are contained in a service-book which bears\nthat name; while the period from Easter Day to the Sunday of All Saints\n(first Sunday after Pentecost), both inclusive, is called the time of the\nPentekostarion (\u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) from the name of the service-book used at\nthat time.\n\nA few words must be said on certain week-days observed with special\ndignity, the position of which in the almanack varies with the position\nof Sundays as affected by the incidence of Easter. It will be remembered\nthat in the East the Sabbath (Saturday) is reckoned as a day of special\nreligious observance; and some Sabbaths are distinguished by special\nnames. The Sabbath of Apocreos is a day for the solemn commemoration of\nall the faithful departed; and vigils are kept during the night. It is\nknown as the Sabbath of the Dead. The next following Sabbath serves for\nthe commemoration of religious and ascetics; it is named the Sabbath of\nAscetics. On the Sabbath of the first week of Lent (known as the Sabbath\nof Kollyba) there is a commemoration of St Theodore Tyro, martyr, who,\naccording to the legend, in the time of Julian the apostate, appeared\nto the bishop of Constantinople, and ordered him in a great emergency\nto make _Kollyba_ and distribute them to the people. The bishop said in\nreply that he did not know what _Kollyba_ were, and the saint explained\nthat they were wheaten cakes. We need not pursue the story further. The\nSabbath before the fifth Sunday in Lent is the Sabbath of the Akathist.\nA hymn, so called, in honour of the Virgin, was sung throughout the\nnight by the people, _not sitting down_. The Sabbath before the Sixth\nSunday commemorates the raising of Lazarus, and is called the Sabbath of\nLazarus. Easter Eve is the \u2018Great Sabbath.\u2019\n\nIt may be observed that while in the West the word _Parasceve_ is used\nexclusively for Good Friday, in the East the word is used for every\nFriday, and Good Friday is distinguished by the epithet _Great_.\n\nA detailed exhibition of the Byzantine Kalendar cannot be attempted here,\nbut the student will find it treated by J. M. Neale in the _General\nIntroduction_ to his _History of the Holy Eastern Church_ (vol. II.) and\nwith great fulness in Nilles\u2019 _Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae_.\n\nNotes on the Kalendars of some of the separated Churches of the East will\nbe found in Appendix III.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\nTHE PASCHAL QUESTION IN THE CELTIC CHURCHES\n\n\nThe controversies as to the calculation of Easter between the Roman\necclesiastics, on the one hand, and, on the other, the ecclesiastics\nof Ireland (Scotia), Scotland (Alban), and Wales, arose from the fact\nthat our native Churches continued to follow a cycle which had, at\nthe beginning of the fourth century, prevailed at Rome, but which was\nafterwards abandoned by the Church of that city. An admirable account of\nthe matter will be found in Prof. Bury\u2019s _Life of St Patrick_, 371-374.\nThe improved Roman computation was eventually adopted in the south of\nIreland about A.D. 650; in the north of Ireland in A.D. 703; among the\nPicts of Scotland in A.D. 710; at Iona in A.D. 716; and in South Wales in\nA.D. 802.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II\n\nNOTE ON THE KALENDARS OF THE SEPARATED CHURCHES OF THE EAST\n\n\nI. The Armenians. The year is counted from the year 551 of our era,\nwhen the Catholicos, Moses II, who reformed the Kalendar, ascended the\npatriarchal throne. Thus A.D. 1910 is the year 1359 among the Armenians.\n\nOne noteworthy feature of the Armenian observance is that, with the\nexception of the Nativity (Jan. 6), the Circumcision, the Presentation of\nthe Lord in the Temple, and the Annunciation, various important festivals\nare transferred to the following Sunday. Certain minor Holy Days, if they\nfall on Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday, are in some cases omitted, while\nothers are transferred to the following Saturday. In regard to days of\nfasting, in addition to Lent, the most remarkable feature is \u2018the fast\nof Nineveh,\u2019 kept for two weeks, one month before the beginning of Lent.\nThe days of the week following Pentecost are fast days (see p. 91 f.).\nFor details see E. F. K. Fortescue\u2019s _Armenian Church_, and Nilles, _op.\ncit._ (vol. II.).\n\nII. The Eastern Syrian (Chaldean, Assyrian, Nestorian) Church. The\nKalendar, Lectionary, and a list of days of Martyrs and others for which\nno special lessons are appointed will be found in Bishop A. J. Maclean\u2019s\n_East Syrian Daily Offices_. One of the most interesting features is the\nfrequency with which Friday is observed as a commemoration of saints; and\nsometimes the Friday commemoration is related in history or in thought\nwith the event commemorated on the preceding Sunday or great festival.\nThus St John Baptist is commemorated on the Friday after the Epiphany\n(Jan. 6), of which festival the baptism of the Lord is the dominant\nthought. The festival is popularly called at Urmi \u2018The New waters.\u2019 For\ndetails see Maclean.\n\nIII. The Coptic (Egyptian) and Abyssinian Churches, both Monophysite.\nThe Copts compute their years according to \u2018the era of the martyrs\u2019 (of\nDiocletian), commencing A.D. 284. The year begins on the first of the\nmonth Tout, a day corresponding to Sept. 10. Each month consists of 30\ndays; and the five (or in leap-year six) days necessary to complete\nthe solar year are called \u2018the little month.\u2019 There are fourteen\nprincipal feasts. The most peculiar features are commemorations of the\nFour-and-twenty Elders, and of the Four Beasts, of the Revelation.\n\nThe Ethiopic Kalendar runs on broadly similar lines; but it is a peculiar\nfeature of this Kalendar that there are monthly celebrations of the\nLord\u2019s Nativity (except that the Lord\u2019s Conception is substituted on\nMarch 25), as well as of St Mary, of St Michael, and of Abraham, Isaac\nand Jacob. Pontius Pilate is commemorated on June 25. See Neale\u2019s\n_Eastern Church_ (II. 805-815).\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III\n\nNOTE ON THE HISTORY OF THE KALENDAR OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SINCE THE\nREFORMATION\n\n\nAs early as 1532 we find a Petition of the Commons (really emanating from\nthe Court) to Henry VIII that, with the advice of his most honourable\ncouncil, prelates, and ordinaries, holy days, \u2018and specially such as fall\nin the harvest,\u2019 may be \u2018made fewer in number.\u2019 To this the ordinaries\nanswered, objecting to change, and, with reference to holy days in\nharvest, stating that \u2018there be in August but St Lawrence, the Assumption\nof our Blessed Lady, St Bartholomew, and in September the Nativity of our\nLady, the Exaltation of the Cross, and St Matthew the Apostle, before\nwhich days harvest is commonly ended[175].\u2019 The reference both in the\nPetition and the answer is obviously to holy days carrying with them a\ncessation of labour.\n\nIn 1536 Convocation passed an ordinance abrogating superfluous holy days.\nIt was ordained that in term time no holy days should be kept except\nAscension Day, the Nativity of the Baptist, Allhallen, and Candlemas,\nnor in harvest except feasts of the Apostles and our Lady. St George was\nto continue to be celebrated. The feast of the patron of each church\nwas to be abolished; and the feast of every church\u2019s dedication was to\nbe observed on the first Sunday in October. By this ordinance the great\nfestival of St Thomas Becket, the translation of his relics (July 7),\nfell, as occurring in the season of harvest. Two years later by a royal\nproclamation the festival of his martyrdom (Dec. 29) met the same fate.\n\nThe Kalendar of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI (1549) exhibits a\nclean sweep of all festivals except the red-letter days still observed,\ntogether with \u2018Magdalen\u2019 (July 22), for which a collect, epistle, and\ngospel are supplied. St Matthias is placed at Feb. 24.\n\nThe Kalendar of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1552) differs from\nthat of the First Prayer Book, by omitting St Mary Magdalene and St\nBarnabas (June 11): but this latter would seem to have been omitted only\n_per incuriam_, as the collect, epistle, and gospel are found in the body\nof the book; and by the insertion of the following black-letter days, St\nGeorge (April 23), Lammas (Aug. 1), St Lawrence (Aug. 10), St Clement\n(Nov. 23), together with Term days, \u2018Dog days,\u2019 \u2018Equinoctium\u2019 (March\n10) and the days of the entrance of the sun into the several signs of\nthe zodiac. It is an interesting problem how in the Prayer Book, which\nrepresents emphatically the action of the more thorough-going of the\nProtestant party, these black-letter days came to be inserted.\n\nIn the Prayer Book of 1559 \u2018Barnabe Ap.\u2019 reappears; the astronomical\nnotes are somewhat fuller, and the hours of the rising and setting of the\nsun at certain dates are recorded.\n\nAs regards the black-letter days in the present Kalendar of the Church of\nEngland we have first to call attention to the Latin Prayer Book issued\nby the authority of Elizabeth in April 1560. It seems to have been ready\nfor the press as early as Aug. 11, 1559. Its Kalendar is adorned with a\ngreat crowd of black-letter saints; and there are but few days blank.\nIn 1561 appeared a new Kalendar in English, the work of Ecclesiastical\nCommissioners acting upon a royal letter. The Commissioners were\ndirected to peruse the order of the lessons throughout the year, and\nto cause some new Kalendars to be imprinted, \u2018whereby such chapters or\nparcels of less edification may be removed, and others more profitable\nmay supply their rooms.\u2019 As a matter of fact the Commissioners went\nbeyond their instructions, and inserted in the Kalendar the names\nof black-letter saints almost as they were a century later approved\nby Convocation in 1661. These were inserted in the later issues of\nElizabeth\u2019s Prayer Book.\n\nAfter the accession of James I the Birth-Day of Queen Elizabeth ceased to\nappear in the Kalendar at Sept. 7, and St Enurchus takes its place.\n\nThe only changes made in 1661 were the addition of Ven. Bede (May 27), St\nAlban (June 17), and the continuance of St Enurchus (Sept. 7), together\nwith the shifting (probably through mistake) of St Mary Magdalene from\nJuly 22 to July 21.\n\nWith regard to the date of St Mary Magdalene a reference to the\nphoto-zincographic facsimile of the Black-Letter Prayer Book, in which\ncorrections were made at the last revision, will show at once how easily\nthe scribe who copied from this book might make the mistake.\n\nSt Enurchus, who had appeared in this form of the name in the Prayer\nBook of 1604, and still earlier in the Kalendar of the _Preces Privatae_\n(which had been issued, as _Regia authoritate approbatae_, in 1564), is\nobviously a faulty form, arising from an error of transcription, for\nSt Euurtius. The first letter _u_, after the initial _E_, was read as\n_n_ (the confusion of _u_ and _n_ is one of the most frequent of the\nerrors of copyists), and the _ti_ (in a manner not surprising to those\nfamiliar with sixteenth century script) was apparently read as _ch_. It\nmay be added that Bede and Alban had also appeared in the Kalendar of\nthe _Preces Privatae_. We have stated that St Enurchus appears in the\nKalendar of the Prayer Book of 1604, and it was introduced then as the\nonly addition to the black-letter saints of the Kalendar of 1561. It is\nperhaps impossible to account for its introduction; but the conjecture\nhas been offered that it was inserted to fill the gap caused by the\nomission of the Nativity of Queen Elizabeth which had formerly occupied\nSept. 7[176].\n\nThe above are not the only errors of our present Kalendar. The revisers\nof 1661 added explanatory comments to the names of the saints, and in\ndoing so have sometimes blundered. Thus they found \u2018Cyprian\u2019 at Sept. 26,\nand they added \u2018Archbishop of Carthage and Martyr.\u2019 If they had taken\nthe trouble to look at the old Sarum or York Kalendars they would have\nseen that the Cyprian commemorated on this day was the converted magician\nof Antioch. This error is probably to be traced to Cosin\u2019s _Devotions_\n(1627).\n\nIt must be confessed that the black-letter saints of the modern English\nKalendar form by no means an ideal presentation of the worthies and\nheroes of the Church Catholic. The Bishop of Salisbury (J. Wordsworth)\nhas some admirable remarks on the future reform of our English Kalendar\nin his _Ministry of Grace_ (pp. 421-425).\n\nCertain errors in the placing of the Golden Numbers in the Kalendar of\nthe Prayer Book of 1662 for the month of January were soon discovered.\nThey are noticed in Nicholl\u2019s _Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer_\n(1712).\n\nAmong the red-letter days of 1662 were \u2018King Charles. Martyr\u2019 (Jan.\n30), \u2018King Charles II. Nativity and Restoration\u2019 (May 29), \u2018Papists\u2019\nConspiracy\u2019 (Nov. 5). These days have the authority of the Act of\nUniformity of 1662, all of them appearing in the Book annexed to the\nAct. On the authority of a Royal Warrant (Jan. 17, 1859), the legal\nsufficiency of which has been questioned, these days have ceased to be\nentered in the Kalendars of modern Prayer Books.\n\nIt may be added that the Kalendar of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637\n(known commonly, though not correctly as \u2018Archbishop Laud\u2019s Prayer Book\u2019)\nexhibited, in addition to the black-letter saints of the English Prayer\nBook of the day, the following national or local commemorations:\u2014David,\nKing, Jan. 11; Mungo, Bishop, Jan. 13; Colman, Feb. 18; Constantine III,\nKing, March 11; Patrick, March 17; Cuthbert, March 20; Gilbert, Bishop,\nApril 1; Serf, Bishop, April 20; Columba, June 9; Palladius, July 6;\nNinian, Bishop, Sept. 18; Adaman (_sic_), Bishop (_sic_), Sept. 25;\nMargaret, Queen, Nov. 16; Ode, Virgin, Nov. 27; Drostan, Dec. 4.\n\nThe Kalendar of the Prayer Book of the Church of Ireland has since 1877\nomitted all black-letter days. The same is true of the American Prayer\nBook since 1790.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Less costly works are Giry\u2019s admirable _Manuel de Diplomatique_\n(1894), Sir Harris Nicholas\u2019 _Chronology of History_, and Mr J. J. Bond\u2019s\n_Handy-Book of Rules and Tables for verifying dates_.\n\n[2] Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.\n\n[3] The view that St John is here representing himself as rapt in vision\nto the time of judgment spoken of by St Paul (1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Thess. ii.\n2) is the only other interpretation which deserves serious consideration.\n(For the view mentioned see Hort, _Apocalypse_, p. 15.) But it does not,\nas it seems to the present writer, dislodge the commonly accepted view.\n\n[4] The Italian \u2018Domenica\u2019 and the French \u2018Dimanche\u2019 follow the language\nof the Latin Church in designating what we call \u2018Sunday.\u2019 In the Greek\nChurch \u2018the Lord\u2019s Day\u2019 is still the term employed.\n\n[5] _E.g._ _Epist. to Diognetus_ 4.\n\n[6] _Christian Worship_, E. tr. 231.\n\n[7] _Expos. Fid._ 24.\n\n[8] See Maclean, _Ancient Church Orders_, p. 149 f.\n\n[9] _Ibid._, p. 171 f.\n\n[10] This last word (\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9) points to a temporary deprival of\ncommunion.\n\n[11] _H.E._ v. 22.\n\n[12] _Epist._ xxxvi. 2, _ad Casulanum_.\n\n[13] Augustine, _Ep._ liv. 3, _ad Bonifacium_.\n\n[14] Canon XXVI. \u2018Errorem placuit corrigi, ut omni sabbati die\nsuperpositiones celebremus.\u2019 On _superpositio jejunii_ see _D.C.A._ It\nwould seem that once a month (except in July and August, _ob quorumdam\ninfirmitatem_) the added fast of Saturday was to be observed; Canon XXIII.\n\n[15] Tertullian (_de Jejuniis_ 2) speaks of \u2018stations\u2019 being held on the\nfourth and sixth _feria_.\n\n[16] _De Natura Rerum_, c. 3.\n\n[17] See the Notes of Valesius on Eusebius\u2019 _Martyrs of Palestine_\n(Paris, 1659), pp. 173 f.\n\n[18] Compare Luke xviii. 12.\n\n[19] _Simil._ v. 1, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9.\n\n[20] _De Jejuniis_ 14.\n\n[21] _Strom._ vii. p. 877, Potter\u2019s edit. On conjectures as to the origin\nof the word _statio_ in this sense, see _D.C.A._\n\n[22] See p. 91.\n\n[23] _Christian Worship_, E. tr. 230.\n\n[24] Aegidius Bucherius (Gilles Boucher), a learned French Jesuit, whose\n_De doctrina temporum_ appeared at Antwerp in 1634.\n\n[25] Ruinart\u2019s _Acta Martyrum_ (1731), p. 541, and Lietzmann, _Three\noldest Martyrologies_, 1904.\n\n[26] It will be remembered that Felicitas and Perpetua are named in the\nCanon of the Roman Mass.\n\n[27] _Satornilos_ is presumably a transcriptional variant of _Saturninus_.\n\n[28] Duchesne has assisted R. Graffin in editing this Martyrology in\n_Acta Sanctorum Boll._, Nov. II., under the title _Breviarium Syriacum_.\n\n[29] See Mommsen, _Corpus Inscript. Lat._ I. 333.\n\n[30] Lietzmann has printed the text in _The Three Oldest Martyrologies_.\nSee also Ruinart, _Acta Martyrum_, pp. 541 f.\n\n[31] [From the mention of Eugenius, bishop of Carthage (\u2020 505), Lietzmann\nconcludes that the Kalendar received its present form shortly after the\ndeath of Eugenius. Edd.]\n\n[32] _Ministry of Grace_, 65.\n\n[33] See Hefele II. 400, English translation.\n\n[34] _Liturgia Romana Vetus_, Muratori I. 38-40. See as to the date of\nthe Sacramentary, Duchesne, _Chr. Worship_, E. tr. pp. 137-139. It has\nbeen edited by C. L. Feltoe (_Sacramentarium Leonianum_, Cambridge, 1896).\n\n[35] [\u2018Georgii\u2019 is a conjecture of Muratori. The MS. has \u2018Gregorii.\u2019 See\nFeltoe\u2019s note, _op. cit._ p. 177. Edd.]\n\n[36] [But Feltoe reads \u2018iiii. n\u0305o\u0305n\u0305. a\u0305u\u0305g\u0305.,\u2019 which corresponds with\nthe ordinary date, Aug. 2. The actual prayers, however, in the _Leonine_\n_Sacramentary_ refer to St Stephen the protomartyr, whose \u2018Invention\u2019 the\nRoman Kalendar still keeps on Aug. 3. See Feltoe, pp. 85 f., with notes.\nEdd.]\n\n[37] Gregorius disappears from this day in the Gregorian Kalendar.\n\n[38] See Muratori\u2019s _Liturg. Rom. Vet._ I. 48-50.\n\n[39] It will interest English students to know that the synod of\nWorcester, under Cantilupe, in A.D. 1240 appointed this day, with three\nothers, St Margaret\u2019s, St Lucy\u2019s, and St Agatha\u2019s, to be free from labour\nfor women.\n\n[40] _Histoire du Br\u00e9viaire romain_, p. 132.\n\n[41] _in Diem Natal._ 1.\n\n[42] _Topograph. Christ._ v. 194 (Migne, _P. G._ lxxxviii. 197).\n\n[43] See the late Dr George Salmon\u2019s masterly article \u2018The Commentary of\nHippolytus on Daniel\u2019 in _Hermathena_, vol. VIII. 1893, and Bishop J.\nWordsworth\u2019s exposition in the _Ministry of Grace_, pp. 393-398.\n\n[44] _Ministry of Grace_, 399.\n\n[45] There are unfortunately some grave doubts as to the correct text\nof Sozomen, and as to the accuracy of his computation. See what is said\nby Ussher in his Dissertation _de Macedonum et Asianorum anno solari_,\nc. 2. Compare also Jerome\u2019s Commentary on Ezekiel where the time of the\nprophet\u2019s vision (thirtieth year, fourth month, _fifth_ day, I. 1) is set\nforth as corresponding to the day of the Lord\u2019s baptism and Epiphany.\nJerome makes the fourth month \u2018of the orientals\u2019 correspond to the\nJanuary of the Romans.\n\n[46] This view (fanciful though it seems) should not be summarily\ndismissed; see Kellner, pp. 101-2.\n\n[47] [According to Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ i. 145, 146) the\nBasilidians kept Jan. 6 as the festival of the Baptism, and it was\npreceded by a Vigil. Edd.]\n\n[48] It may interest the English student to be given a sketch of the\nprincipal features of the Sarum Breviary and Missal in relation to the\nsubject of the festival. At Mattins the first three lessons are from\nIsaiah (lv. 1-5, 6-12; lx. 1-7), speaking of light, and the calling of\nthe Gentiles. The versicle after the 1st lesson is \u2018and the nations,\nshall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising.\u2019 The\nresponse and versicle after the 2nd lesson touch on the gifts of gold\nand incense from Saba; \u2018the kings of the Arabs and of Saba shall bring\ngifts\u2019; and this note is sounded again and again. The 4th, 5th and 6th\nlessons are from a sermon of St Leo, and the responses and versicles\nrelate to the visit of the Magi. In the response and versicle to the 7th\nlesson the baptism of Christ is recounted; and subsequently there are\nseveral references to the baptism. The collect is solely confined to the\nthought of the revelation of God\u2019s only begotten Son to the Gentiles by\nthe guiding of a star; and this is the dominant (though not exclusive)\nfeature of the rest of the service. During the octave the baptism is\ngiven greater prominence; and on the octave itself the miracle at Cana\nhas an important place, as well as the baptism. In the Missal the propers\nare confined to the revelation to the Gentiles and the visit of the Magi.\nBut on the octave and the Sunday within the octave the baptism of Christ\nforms the leading thought.\n\n[49] Duchesne, _Chr. Worship_, E. tr., 266 f., where certain variations\nin the Armenian and Nestorian Kalendars are exhibited.\n\n[50] Possibly \u2018the Baptist\u2019 is a bungle of the transcriber.\n\n[51] [On these commemorations of St James and St John see further C. L.\nFeltoe in _J. Th. St._ x. 589 f. Edd.]\n\n[52] The Hieronymian Martyrology is a mechanical and unintelligent\npiecing together of Eastern and Western lists, to which African additions\nwere made as late as A.D. 600. Its origin has been investigated by De\nRossi and Duchesne, V. de Buck and Achelis: see Wordsworth\u2019s _Ministry of\nGrace_, p. 66.\n\n[53] _Cathemerinon_, Hymnus XII.\n\n[54] _De Corona_, 3.\n\n[55] _Contra Celsum_, VIII. 22.\n\n[56] _Les Vies des Saints_ (Paris, 1739), II. 4.\n\n[57] _Serm._ 197, 198.\n\n[58] This is so as regards the text printed by Muratori; but in Menard\u2019s\ntext there is a benediction that in its language is not unlike the\ncollect in the Book of Common Prayer.\n\n[59] _De Eccl. Off._ I. 40, 41.\n\n[60] In Dom Cabrol\u2019s _Les Origines liturgiques_ (Appendice C.) will be\nfound an interesting collection of liturgical passages illustrating the\nChurch\u2019s protest against idolatry on the Kalends of January.\n\n[61] _De Orat._ 18.\n\n[62] _Concil. Carthag._ III. c. 29.\n\n[63] _Ep._ LIV. 7, _ad Januarium_. The well-known passage in Socrates\n(_H.E._ v. 22) seems to indicate that he believed that, excluding\nAlexandria, the Egyptians and the inhabitants of the Thebais _ordinarily_\npartook of the mysteries in the evening after a full meal.\n\n[64] Spelman (_Glossarium Archaeologicum_, s.v.) derives our _Maundy_\nfrom _maund_, \u2018a basket,\u2019 because gifts for the poor were carried in\nbaskets; and this derivation has attained some popularity. But there is\nlittle to support it. In Germany from the later mediaeval period _Der\ngr\u00fcne Donnerstag_ (Green Thursday) has been the popular name of the day.\nNo entirely satisfactory explanation of the term has been offered. There\nis no question that in several German churches green vestments were worn\nby the priest and his ministers at the Mass of Maundy Thursday.\n\n[65] _Chr. Worship_, E. tr., p. 248. See also Cabrol, _Les Origines\nliturgiques_, pp. 173 f.\n\n[66] See Luke ix. 51.\n\n[67] _Epist._ LIV. 1, _ad Januarium_.\n\n[68] \u1f29 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[69] In 1892 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of\nAmerica introduced into its Prayer Book the Transfiguration (Aug. 6) as a\nred-letter day with proper Lessons, Collect, Epistle, and Gospel.\n\n[70] _De Corona_, 3.\n\n[71] _c. Celsum_, VIII. 22.\n\n[72] On the date of this Church Order, see Maclean, _Ancient Church\nOrders_, p. 163 f.\n\n[73] See Wilson\u2019s edit. 129-131.\n\n[74] For details the student may consult Baillet, tom. IX. ii. 152-158.\n\n[75] Twysden\u2019s _Decem. Scriptores_, col. 1383.\n\n[76] The date of this Council is sometimes placed as early as A.D. 656.\n\n[77] [See esp. the _Protevangelium Jacobi_. Edd.]\n\n[78] In the printed Sarum books the Assumption was a \u2018principal double\u2019;\nthe Purification and Nativity \u2018greater doubles\u2019; and the Annunciation a\n\u2018lesser double.\u2019\n\n[79] For these, and varieties as to the day of observance, see Grotefend,\n_Zeitrechnung des deutsch. Mittelalters u. der Neuzeit_.\n\n[80] [See the _Protevangelium_ (cc. 7, 8). Edd.]\n\n[81] [See however Gasquet and Bishop, _Bosworth Psalter_, pp. 49 f. Edd.]\n\n[82] [This legend also appears in the _Protevangelium_ (cc. 1-5). Edd.]\n\n[83] [Gasquet and Bishop, _Bosworth Psalter_, pp. 43 ff. Edd.]\n\n[84] _Summa_, P. III. qu. 27, art. 2.\n\n[85] Both these constitutions will be found in the _Common Extravagants_,\nlib. iii. tit. 12.\n\n[86] See p. 135.\n\n[87] [See the prayer in Feltoe\u2019s edition, p. 46; \u2018omnipotens sempiterne\ndeus qui nos omnium apostolorum merita sub una tribuisti celebritate\nvenerari.\u2019 Edd.]\n\n[88] _Annales Cyprianici_, sub anno 258.\n\n[89] In the (so-called) Hieronymian Martyrology the entry at Jan. 18 runs\n\u2018Dedicatio Cathedrae S. Petri Apostoli, qu\u00e2 primo Romae sedit.\u2019\n\n[90] The student may consult the scholarly article of Dr Sinker on \u2018Peter\nS., Festivals of\u2019 in _D.C.A._, together with Duchesne\u2019s _Christian\nWorship_, E. tr. (pp. 277-281), Wordsworth\u2019s _Ministry of Grace_, and\nKellner\u2019s _Heortology_, pp. 301-308. It should be added however with\nregard to Kellner that the notion that the feast is connected with the\nPrimacy, as distinguished from the Episcopacy of St Peter, seems to be\ndevoid of evidence.\n\n[91] D\u2019Achery\u2019s _Spicilegium_, tom. ii. 15.\n\n[92] [It is found in the Carthaginian Kalendar, but not in the Bucherian,\nnor in that of Polemius Silvius. Edd.]\n\n[93] Other festivals connected with St Andrew are noticed in _D.C.A._\n\n[94] _Ministry of Grace_, 419.\n\n[95] See Duchesne, _Chr. Worship_, E. tr. 281.\n\n[96] See Sinker\u2019s article in _D.C.A._\n\n[97] For variations as to the day of observance see Baillet, and Sinker\nin _D.C.A._\n\n[98] _Serm._ 196, 287.\n\n[99] [It is found in the Gelasian and in some forms of the Gregorian\nSacramentary. Edd.]\n\n[100] For other variations as to the day see Sinker\u2019s article in _D.C.A._\n\n[101] Kellner, 313.\n\n[102] See the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries.\n\n[103] _Heortology_, p. 15.\n\n[104] _Ad Uxor._ ii. 4.\n\n[105] See for details of evidence Bingham, bk. xiii. c. 9.\n\n[106] _Epp._ lib. v. 17.\n\n[107] _Ep. ad Laetam_, 9.\n\n[108] _Comment. in Matth._ XXV. 6.\n\n[109] This letter is to be found in the _Corpus Juris Canonici,\nDecretal._ lib. iii. tit. 46.\n\n[110] Muratori, _Liturg. Rom._ II. 786-790: 702-703.\n\n[111] _H.E._ IV. 30: III. 27.\n\n[112] See p. 110.\n\n[113] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24. The words as to the forty hours are not\nunattended with difficulty; but the interpretation given above is that\nadopted by the soundest scholars. See Duchesne (_Christ. Worship_, E.\ntr., p. 241), and the notes on the place by Valesius. The meaning is\nprobably that no food was partaken for forty continuous hours.\n\n[114] _de Jejunio_, 2, 13, 14.\n\n[115] Dionysius of Alexandria, _Ep. to Basilides_, in Feltoe, _Letters of\nDionysius of Alex._, p. 94 f.\n\n[116] _H.E._ v. 22.\n\n[117] The account in Socrates cannot be confidently regarded as strictly\naccurate in some of its details. We cannot readily accept the statement\nthat the Saturdays at Rome were not fasting days.\n\n[118] _Collat._ xxi. 25.\n\n[119] _Liturgia Romana Vetus_ (Muratori), II. 28, 29.\n\n[120] _Vita S. Margaritae_, c. II. \u00a7 18.\n\n[121] See pp. 143 f.\n\n[122] The whole subject of the Lent of the Eastern Church is very\nfully dealt with by Nilles in his _Kalendarium Manuale_ and by Prince\nMaximilian of Saxony in his _Praelectiones de Liturgiis Orientalibus_,\n1908.\n\n[123] See pp. 77, 80 f.\n\n[124] Another reading is _pro populo_.\n\n[125] _Paenitentiale_, II. xiv. 1 (Haddon and Stubbs, _Councils_, III.\n202).\n\n[126] \u2018In tribus quadragesimis anni et in dominica die et in feriis\nquartis et in sextis feriis conjuges continere se debent.\u2019 Lib. xlvi. c.\n11: Wasserschleben, _Die Irische Kanonensammlung_ (ed. 1885), p. 187.\n\n[127] The Great Litany on St Mark\u2019s day at Rome was much earlier.\n\n[128] See _Serm._ xix. 2; lxxx. 4.\n\n[129] For the reasons for his ingenious conjecture see _Christian\nWorship_, E. tr. p. 223.\n\n[130] See Sinker\u2019s scholarly article \u2018Ember Days\u2019 in the _Dictionary of\nChristian Antiquities_, for many valuable details.\n\n[131] The MS. is wanting for the part before April.\n\n[132] Can. 8 (Labbe xi. 274). It is to be observed that in the Leofric\nMissal, of much earlier date, the Ember days are noted as falling in the\nfirst week of Lent; in the week of Pentecost; in the full week before the\nautumnal equinox; and in the full week before the Nativity.\n\n[133] The study of the Martyrologies of Bede, Florus, Ado, and Usuard\nhas been recently approached in the true scientific spirit by Dom Henri\nQuentin, of Solesmes. Manuscripts in the various libraries of Europe\nhave been examined and classified, and the sources of the entries traced\nin most cases with great success. See this writer\u2019s _Les Martyrologes\nhistoriques du moyen age_ (1908).\n\n[134] _Med. \u00c6v. Kal._ I. 397-420.\n\n[135] [On these terms see Ducange, _Glossarium_, s.v. _Festum_; Addis and\nArnold, _Catholic Dictionary_, art. \u2018Festival.\u2019 Edd.]\n\n[136] The classification of festivals in the Kalendars of Germany with\nTyrol, Holland, Denmark, and Scandinavia, as printed by Grotefend, varies\nmuch. We find such terms as \u2018Triplex\u2019 as well as \u2018Duplex\u2019 (Breslau);\n\u2018Duplex compositum\u2019 (Utrecht); \u2018ix Psalmorum\u2019 (Metz); \u2018Bini\u2019 (_i.e._\nbini chori) at Salzburg; \u2018Festa Prelatorum,\u2019 \u2018Festa Canonicorum,\u2019 \u2018Festa\nvicariorum\u2019 (Roskilde); \u2018Summum\u2019 and \u2018semi-summum\u2019 (Erfurt), and many\nforms that are unfamiliar to English students.\n\n[137] For further observations on the Kalendars of the Church of England\nand of Churches in communion with it see Appendix III.\n\n[138] See Quentin\u2019s _Les Martyrologes historiques_, pp. 27, 28.\n\n[139] For details see Baillet, _Les Vies des Saints_, tom. I, in his\n_Discours_, pp. xxxiii.-xxxix.\n\n[140] In the recently discovered _Testament of the Lord_, the word\n\u2018Pascha\u2019 is used for the season preceding Easter, even as \u2018Pentecost\u2019 is\nused for the season of fifty days preceding Whitsunday.\n\n[141] _Gute Freitag_ is found occasionally in the German Church Orders of\nthe Reformation Period.\n\n[142] In Greek writers \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. [For a full discussion of\nthe whole question, with reference to the authorities, see V. H. Stanton,\n_The Gospels as Historical Documents_, Part I., pp. 173-197. Edd.]\n\n[143] See Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 24, where the full context scarcely leaves\na doubt that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd must be understood in the sense\nthat Anicetus yielded the place of celebrant to Polycarp.\n\n[144] _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[145] We do not enter upon the discussion of the question whether he\nactually proceeded to the length of a formal excommunication. In certain\nof his letters he undoubtedly spoke of them as \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Euseb.\n_H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[146] _Ibid._\n\n[147] See the discussion by Bp Maclean, _Ancient Church Orders_ (in the\npresent series), p. 149 f.\n\n[148] Lib. V. c. 7.\n\n[149] See p. 117.\n\n[150] See p. 118 f.\n\n[151] _H.E._ VI. 22.\n\n[152] Lagarde, _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 89.\n\n[153] See Dr George Salmon\u2019s article on \u2018Hippolytus Romanus\u2019 in Smith and\nWace\u2019s _Dictionary of Christian Biography_.\n\n[154] See Ludwig Ideler, _Handbuch der mathematischen u. techn.\nChronologie_, II. 219.\n\n[155] See for a full treatment of the subject Ideler, II. 226-231.\n\n[156] _H.E._ I. 9.\n\n[157] In the opinion of Duchesne the controversy dealt with in A.D.\n325 was between the system of Antioch, which celebrated Easter on the\nSunday next after the Jewish Pascha, and the system of Alexandria, which\ninsisted on Easter being always after the vernal equinox. See _Christian\nWorship_, E. tr., 237.\n\n[158] Eusebius, _Vita Const._ III. 18: Socrates _H.E._ I. 9.\n\n[159] In French there is a trace of the more extended meaning in the\nphrase \u2018quinzaine de P\u00e2ques,\u2019 meaning \u2018Holy week and Easter week.\u2019 In\nScotland and the north of England gifts of \u2018pasch eggs\u2019 (pronounced\n\u2018paise eggs\u2019), hard-boiled eggs stained with various colours, at Easter\nare still not unknown.\n\n[160] Hefele, _Councils_, E. tr. II. 67.\n\n[161] For the history of the paschal controversies in the time of\nPope Leo see Bruno Krusch, _Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen\nChronologie. Der 84 j\u00e4hrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen_ (Leipzig,\n1880).\n\n[162] See Appendix I.\n\n[163] See Bruno Krusch, _Studien_, p. 32 f.\n\n[164] The student who desires further details of the history of the\ncontroversies about the date of Easter, prior to the time of Dionysius\nExiguus, may consult with profit the dissertation of Adrian Baillet in\nthe ninth volume of his _Les Vies des Saints_ (ed. 1739).\n\n[165] The author died before his work was presented to the Pope, a duty\nperformed by his brother Antonio Lilio, who was also a physician. Now and\nthen we find the Gregorian Kalendar spoken of as the Lilian Kalendar.\n\n[166] See Seabury, _The theory and use of the Church Calendar in\nmeasurement and distribution of time_, p. 120. Other devices of the\nastronomers which would reduce the error to only one day in a thousand\ncenturies are noticed in the same work.\n\n[167] Sir Harris Nicholas, _Chronology of History_, pp. 32-34; Giry,\n_Manuel de Diplomatique_, pp. 165-167.\n\n[168] Notices of these Menologies will be found in Kellner\u2019s\n_Heortology_, 387-393: and on both the Menology and the Menaea (in twelve\nvolumes, corresponding to the months from September to August) see the\nDissertation _de libris et officiis ecclesiasticis Graecorum_ appended to\nCave\u2019s _Historia Literaria_.\n\n[169] Nilles\u2019 _Kalendarium Manuale_, tom I., and Prince Maximilian\u2019s\n_Praelectiones_, pp. 122-221, may be consulted by the curious.\n\n[170] The great doxology corresponds substantially to _Gloria in\nexcelsis_; and the little doxology to _Gloria Patri_, etc.\n\n[171] See _Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus_, s.v.\n\n[172] The 318 bishops at Nicaea in A.D. 325.\n\n[173] p. 84.\n\n[174] See Neale\u2019s _Holy Eastern Church_, II. pp. 743, 749, 753.\n\n[175] See Gee and Hardy, _Documents illustrative of the history of the\nChurch of England_, pp. 150, 173.\n\n[176] See V. Staley\u2019s _The Liturgical Year_, where the Kalendar of the\nChurch of England is treated with much fulness.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n[_See also Table of Contents_, p. vii.]\n\n\n Abyssinian Kalendar, see Kalendar\n\n Ado, martyrology of xvi, 93, 94\n\n Advent, observance of 76 ff.\n\n Agnes, St, octave of 20, 71\n\n Akathist, sabbath of 144\n\n Alexandria, church of, its authority in settling date of Easter 121\n\n All Saints (Allhallen), festival of 23, 149;\n Sunday of 91, 141;\n vigil of 75\n\n All Souls\u2019 Day xiii, 24\n\n Ambrosian rite 77\n\n _anarguroi_, see Unmercenary\n\n Anatolius, Paschal cycle of 115\n\n Andrew, St, commemoration of 17, 19, 22, 63 f., 137;\n octave of 71;\n relation of Advent to festival of 79\n\n Anna, St, conception of, see Mary, festivals of\n\n Annunciation, see Mary, festivals of\n\n Antipasch 141, 142\n\n Antiphons, in Advent 78 f.\n\n Apocreos, Sunday of 84, 141, 143;\n Sabbath of 144\n\n _Apodosis_ 71, 135\n\n Apostles, commemoration of 22, 58 ff.;\n Fast of the 90 f.;\n Synaxis of the Twelve 58, 139;\n Seventy 70, 138, 139\n\n Apostolic Canons 6, 111\n\n Apostolic Constitutions 6, 111\n\n _Aratschavor-atz_ 92\n\n Armenians, their observance of Epiphany and Christmas 32, 38;\n rules of fasting 78, 91 f.;\n Kalendar of 36, 43, 147 f.\n\n Artziburion 92\n\n Ascension, commemoration of 18, 42 f., 135, 149\n\n Ascetics, Sabbath of 144\n\n Ash Wednesday 82, 83 f.\n\n Asiatics, commemoration of the Pascha by 106 ff.\n\n Assumption, see Mary, festivals of\n\n\n Baptism, of Christ, commemoration of 30, 31 n., 32, 139 f.\n\n Barnabas, St, commemoration of 70, 150\n\n Baronius, Cardinal 103\n\n Bartholomew, St, commemoration of 68\n\n Basilian Menology, see Menology\n\n Basilidians, festival of Baptism of Christ kept by 31\n\n Becket, Thomas, institution of festival of Trinity by 46;\n feasts of his martyrdom and translation 150\n\n Bede, martyrology of xvi, 23, 49, 62, 69, 70, 93, 94\n\n Borromeo, Charles 83\n\n\n Candlemas, meaning of 48;\n festival of, see Purification\n\n _caput jejunii_ 83\n\n _Cara cognatio_, pagan solemnity of 61\n\n Celtic churches, Paschal cycle of 122, 146\n\n Charlemagne, _Capitula_ of 86\n\n Christmas, see Nativity\n\n Circumcision, feast of 22 f., 37 ff., 135, 147\n\n _claves quadragesimae, Paschae, Rogationum_ 102\n\n Clavius, see Schl\u00fcssel\n\n _Coena Domini_ 40\n\n Conception, see Mary, feasts of\n\n Constantine, letter of, on Paschal question 111 f., 117 ff.\n\n Coptic Kalendar, see Kalendar\n\n Corbie Kalendar 71\n\n Corpus Christi, feast of xiv, 98;\n octave of 72\n\n Cross, Holy, adoration of 41 f.;\n Sunday of Adoration of 141;\n Exaltation of 22, 99, 135, 142,\n (a fast in Eastern Church) 91;\n Invention of 99;\n Procession of 25\n\n Cyprian, St, Paschal cycle attributed to 115;\n commemoration of, in English Prayer Book 152\n\n\n Dead, Sabbath of 144\n\n Decollation, see John Baptist\n\n _depositiones_, of martyrs and bishops 14, 16, 17\n\n _dies caniculares_ 101\n\n _dies profestus_ 74, 87\n\n Dionysius of Alexandria, Paschal cycle of 115\n\n Dionysius Exiguus, Paschal cycle of 123, 124 f.\n\n _dominica carnisprivii_, see Apocreos\n\n _dominica in albis_ 142\n\n Dominical Kalendar, of Orthodox Eastern Church 140 ff.\n\n _Dormitio_, see Mary, feasts of\n\n Doxology, the great and the little 137\n\n\n Easter, regulations for date of 15, 111 f., 122 ff.\n See also Pascha, Paschal cycle etc.;\n octave of 71, 72\n\n Edward, St, the Confessor, feast and translation of 99\n\n Egbert, Abp, Pontifical of 69\n\n Elias of Nisibis 113\n\n Ember Days, meaning of term 90.\n See Fasts\n\n English Prayer Book, see Prayer Book\n\n Enurchus, St 151\n\n Epiphany, feast of 17, 20, 23, 30 f., 135, 139;\n octave of 71, 72, 135\n\n Ethiopic Kalendar, see Kalendar\n\n Evangelists, commemoration of 65 ff.\n\n\n Fasts, in Advent 78;\n before Easter (Lent) 79 ff.;\n after Pentecost 85, 92, 147;\n Rogation days 86;\n of four seasons (Ember Days) 18 f., 87 ff.;\n of vigils 74 f.;\n of Eastern Church 90 f.;\n of Nineveh 91 f., 147\n\n _feria_, meaning of term 8\n\n _festa chori, festa fori_ xix\n\n Festal Letters, see Paschal Epistles\n\n Festivals, rank and dignity of 98 f.\n\n Florus, martyrology of xvi, 93, 94\n\n Friday, Christian observance of 10 f.;\n fast in Advent 78;\n a fast in Eastern Church 91, 140;\n commemoration of Saints among East Syrians on 147\n\n\n Gabriel, archangel, Synaxis of 139, 140\n\n Galesini, Pietro, martyrology of 103\n\n gang-days 87\n\n Gelasian Sacramentary, see Sacramentary\n\n _Gellonense_, see Martyrologies\n\n George, St, commemoration of 21, 23, 136, 149\n\n Good Friday 41 f., 107\n\n Gorman, martyrology of 95\n\n Gothic Missal 65\n\n Gregorian reform, see Kalendar\n\n Gregory the Great 77, 82\n\n Gregory XIII, Pope, his scheme for a fixed Easter xviii;\n appoints a commission to revive Martyrology 103;\n his reform of Kalendar 127 ff.\n\n\n Hieromartyr 138\n\n Hippolytus, Paschal Tables of 111, 112 ff.;\n statue of 112\n\n Holy Thursday, see Ascension\n\n Holy Week, observance of 40 ff.\n\n Horologium 103\n\n Hosiomartyr 138\n\n Hypapante, see Purification\n\n\n Immaculate Conception, see Mary, feasts of\n\n Innocent III, Pope, rules of, concerning vigils 74 f.\n\n Innocents, Holy, commemoration of 17, 19, 22, 33 ff.\n\n Irenaeus, letter of, to Victor of Rome 79, 110\n\n Irish canons, collection of 85 f.\n\n _Isapostolos_ 138\n\n\n James, St, son of Zebedee, commemoration of 17, 34, 36, 64 f.\n\n James, St, the Lord\u2019s brother, commemoration of 34, 36, 67.\n See also Philip and James\n\n James and John, SS., commemoration of 16, 33 f., 65\n\n January, Kalends of, observed as a fast 38 f.\n\n Jerome, see Martyrologies (Hieronymian)\n\n John Baptist, St, commemoration of 17, 18, 21, 34;\n Conception of 53, 139;\n Nativity of 18, 68, 135, 139, 149;\n Decollation of 18, 69, 135, 139, (a fast) 91;\n Synaxis of 139, 140;\n East Syrian commemoration of 148;\n vigil of Nativity of 75\n\n John, St, the Evangelist, commemoration of 17, 19, 22, 33 f., 65, 75,\n 136;\n before the Latin Gate 21, 66;\n Migration (or Assumption) of 34, 65, 136\n\n Jude, St (Thaddaeus), commemorated in Greek Church 67\n\n\n Kalendar, causes of growth of xii f., 95 ff.;\n antiquarian notices in 100, 102;\n artificial construction of xii;\n astronomical notes in 101;\n influences affecting 97 f.;\n marks of antiquity in 13;\n value of, for study of MSS 95 f.;\n Gregorian reform of 125 ff.;\n Bucherian (Liberian, or Philocalian) 14, 28, 31, 38, 59, 63 n.;\n Carthaginian 16, 31, 34, 38, 63 n.;\n of Polemius Silvius, 16, 63 n.;\n Abyssinian 148;\n Armenian 147;\n Coptic 148;\n East Syrian 147;\n of English Prayer Books 149 ff.;\n Ethiopic 148;\n Mozarabic 36;\n of Orthodox Eastern Church 133 ff.\n See also Martyrologies, Sacramentary\n\n Kings, the Three, Translation of 97, 100\n\n Kollyba, Sabbath of 144\n\n Koryphaeoi 135\n\n\n Lawrence, St, octave of 71;\n vigil of 75\n\n Lazarus, Sabbath of 135, 144\n\n Lent, observance of 79 ff., 141 ff.\n\n Leo, St, correspondence of, on Paschal limits 120 f., 124;\n Sacramentary of, see Sacramentary\n\n Leofric Missal 69, 97\n\n Lights, Feast of (Epiphany) 30 f., 142\n\n Lilio, Luigi, reformation of Kalendar by 127\n\n Litanies, origin of 86 f.;\n at Rome 67\n\n Lord, festivals of the, xii, 27 ff.\n\n Lord\u2019s Day, Christian observance of xi, 3 f., 5, 6, 7, 10, 37;\n vigil preceding 73.\n See also Dominical Kalendar\n\n Luke, St, commemoration of 17, 66\n\n Lupercalia, heathen festival of 48\n\n\n Maccabees, commemoration of 16, 17, 25 f.\n\n Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, rogations appointed by 86\n\n Margaret, Queen of Scotland 83\n\n Mark, St, commemoration of 66 f.\n\n Martyrologies, use of term 93 f.;\n influence on later Kalendars 94;\n marks of antiquity in 13;\n Bucherian (Liberian or Philocalian) 14;\n Carthaginian 16 f.;\n Syrian 15, 65;\n _Gellonense_ 62, 70;\n Hieronymian 34, 63, 65, 66, 69, 70;\n modern Roman 103.\n See also Ado, Bede, Florus, Usuard, and Kalendar\n\n Martyrs, days of, observed locally xi, 12 ff., (at cemeteries) 24;\n Acts of, read in churches 17;\n oblations offered for 14\n\n Mary, St, the Virgin (Theotokos), feasts of xv, 47 ff., 148;\n Annunciation of 21, 49 f., 57, 135, 140, 147;\n Assumption (_dormitio_, Repose) of 22, 51, 57, 75, 135,\n (fast before) 75, 90;\n Conception of xiv f., 52 ff., 57, 98;\n Immaculate Conception of 52 ff.;\n Nativity of 22, 50, 51 n., 57, 135, 140;\n Presentation of 51, 57, 135;\n Synaxis of Theotokos 57, 139, 140.\n See also Purification\n\n Mary Magdalene, St, commemoration of 69 f.;\n the \u2018myrrh-bearer\u2019 69;\n in English Prayer Book 70, 150, 151\n\n Matthew. St, commemoration of 66\n\n Matthias, St, commemoration of, in English Prayer Book 150\n\n Maundy Thursday (_dies mandati_), observance of 40 f.;\n meaning of term 41 n.\n\n Maurolico, Francesco, martyrology of 103\n\n Melito, Bp of Sardis, defence of Asiatic Paschal observance by 108 f.\n\n Menology, character of early Eastern 133;\n of Constantinople 133;\n Basilian 30, 133\n\n Michael, St, Synaxis of 137, 139;\n monthly commemoration of, by Ethiopic Church 148\n\n _missa ad prohibendum ab idolis_ 39\n\n Montanists, celebration of Pascha by 28 f.\n\n Mozarabic rite 77, 83\n\n Myrrh-bearers, Sunday of 141, 142.\n See also Mary Magdalene\n\n\n _natale, dies natalis, natalitia_ 13, 15, 67\n\n _natale Calicis_ 15, 40\n\n _natale Petri de Cathedra_, see Peter, St\n\n _natalis Solis Invicti_ 30\n\n Nativity, of the Lord (Christmas), feast of 15, 17, 19, 22, 27 f., 49,\n 76, 135, 140, 147, 148;\n origin of feast of 29 f.;\n octave of 71, 72;\n fast before 90;\n vigil of 75\n\n Nicaea, Council of, decisions of, on Paschal question 116 f.;\n commemoration of the 318 fathers of 141, 143\n\n\n Octaves, meaning of term 70 f.;\n history of 71\n\n Oengus, the Culdee, martyrology of 95\n\n Old Testament worthies, commemoration of xii, 134, 136, 148\n\n Orthodoxy Sunday xiii, 141, 142\n\n _O sapientia_ 78 f.\n\n\n Palm Sunday (Feast of Palms) 40, 84, 135, 141\n\n Parasceve 10, 11, 37, 144 f.\n\n Pascha, original use of term 104 ff.;\n Christian commemoration of xi, 37, 104 ff.;\n _dies Paschae_ 40\n\n Paschal Cycles, of Hippolytus 111, 112 ff.;\n of Dionysius Al. 115;\n of Anatolius 115;\n Roman 123;\n Alexandrine 123;\n of Victorius 124;\n of Dionysius Exiguus 123, 124 f.\n\n Paschal Epistles xviii, 121\n\n Paschal limits 120 f.\n\n Paschal question xvii, 105 ff.\n\n Paschal Tables, see Paschal Cycles\n\n Passiontide, observance of 40 ff.\n\n Paul, St, commemoration of 21, 33;\n Conversion of 69;\n Translation of 69.\n See also Peter and Paul\n\n Pentecost, meaning of term 43 ff.;\n observance of 18, 37, 43 ff., 135, 141;\n octave of 71, 72;\n vigil of 75\n\n Peter, St, commemoration of 33;\n Chains of (_ad Vincula_) 21, 25, 63;\n Chair of (_Cathedra Petri_) 15, 59, 60 ff.;\n Dedication of Basilica of 18, 63\n\n Peter and Paul, SS., commemoration of 16, 18, 21, 34, 35, 135;\n _depositio_ of 16;\n origin of festival of xiii, 59 f.;\n fast before 90;\n octave of 71\n\n Philip, the deacon 67\n\n Philip, St, feast of 67, 78;\n fast of 78\n\n Philip and James, SS., commemoration of 21, 67, 75\n\n Pliny, letter of, to Trajan 72\n\n Polycarp, St, conference of, with Anicetus on Paschal question 108\n\n Polycrates, letter of, on Paschal controversy 109\n\n _Polyeleos_ 136\n\n Pontius Pilate, commemorated by Ethiopians 148\n\n Prayer Book, American 43, 153;\n English (1549, 1552) 70, 101, 150,\n (1559) 101, 150,\n (1604) 151,\n (1662) 79, 151;\n Irish 153;\n Latin (1560) 150;\n Scottish (1637) 79, 153\n\n _Preces Privatae_ (1564) 151\n\n Pre-sanctified, Mass of 42\n\n Presentation, of the Lord in Temple 48, 147.\n See also Purification;\n of St Mary, see Mary, feasts of\n\n Primer, of Edward VI 101\n\n _Prodromos_ 138\n\n _proheortia_ 43, 135\n\n _Protevangelium Jacobi_ 50 n., 52 n., 53 n.\n\n Purification (Hypapante, Candlemas), feast of 20, 23, 47 ff., 51 n.,\n 57, 101, 135, 140, 149\n\n\n _Quadragesima, ante Pascha_ (Lent) 80 f., 85;\n of St Martin 77, 85;\n after Pentecost 85;\n before St John Baptist 85 f.\n See also Fasts\n\n Quartodecimans 107\n\n Quinquagesima 84\n\n\n Rabanus Maurus, martyrology of 69, 95\n\n Relics, translation of, as affecting Kalendars 97\n\n Requiem masses, prohibited within certain octaves, 72\n\n Rogation Days, origin of 86 f.\n\n Roman Breviary and Missal 63, 71\n\n Roman Kalendar 52\n\n\n Sabbath, see Saturday\n\n Sacramentary, Gallican 77;\n Gothic-Gallican 77;\n Gelasian 20, 39, 58, 64, 66, 68;\n Gregorian 20 f., 33, 39, 49, 66, 68, 69, 83;\n Leonine 18 f., 42, 58, 64, 66, 68, 88 f.\n\n Samaria, woman of (Photina), commemorated xii, 141\n\n Sarum, Breviary 32, 51, 52;\n _Enchiridion_ 51 f.;\n Missal 32, 51\n\n Saturday (or Sabbath), Christian observance of 2, 4 ff.;\n special observances of, in Greek Church 144;\n Great Sabbath 6, 40, 144\n\n Schl\u00fcssel, Christopher, reformation of Kalendar by 127\n\n Seventy Apostles (disciples) 70, 138, 139\n\n Sexagesima 84\n\n _Silvia, Pilgrimage_ of xvi, 27, 40, 42, 48, 72, 73, 82\n\n Simon and Jude, SS., commemoration of, 67\n\n Simon Zelotes, St, commemorated in Greek Church 67\n\n Station (_statio_) 11\n\n Stephen, St, commemoration of 16, 17, 18 n., 22, 33, 34\n\n Style, New, history of adoption of 130 ff.\n\n Sunday, see Lord\u2019s Day\n\n _supputatio Romana_ 123\n\n Synaxis, use of term in Eastern Kalendars 139\n\n Syrians, East, Kalendar of 147 f.\n\n\n Tessarakoste, use of term 80, 90 f.\n\n Thaddaeus, see Jude\n\n _thaumaturgos_ 138\n\n Theodore, of Canterbury, _Paenitentiale_ of 85\n\n Theodore Tyro, St, 144\n\n Theometor, Theopator, 139\n\n Theophany, see Epiphany\n\n _theophorus_ 137\n\n Theotokos, see Mary, feasts of\n\n Thomas, St, commemoration of 67 f.\n\n Three hundred and eighteen, see Nicaea\n\n Transfiguration, commemoration of 43, 135\n\n Trinity Sunday, observance of 45 f.\n\n Tyrinis or Tyrophagus (Sunday) 84, 141, 143\n\n\n Unmercenary saints 139\n\n Usuard, martyrology of xvi, 49, 62, 67, 93, 94, 95\n\n\n Victor, Bp of Rome, attitude of, on Paschal question 109 f.\n\n Victorius of Aquitaine, Paschal cycle of 124\n\n Vigils, origin of 72 ff.;\n rules for 74 f.;\n at Ember seasons 88\n\n Votive masses, prohibited within certain octaves 72\n\n\n Wednesday, observance of 10 f.;\n fast in Advent 78;\n a fast in Eastern Church 91, 140\n\n Week, Jewish and Christian 2;\n first day of, see Lord\u2019s Day;\n Great, see Holy Week\n\n Weigel, Erhard, Kalendar of 131\n\n\n Ximenes, Cardinal 83\n\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 42\n\n\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 43\n\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae 10\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd 119\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd 119\n\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 143\n\n\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae 80\n\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 107\n\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 143\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.","title":"The Church Year and Kalendar","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":46039}